In response to an FT article by John McDermott on 18th October 2015, entitled 'UK defence secretary pushes for ISIS air strikes
"The UK’s defence secretary has accused Vladimir Putin of “propping up the Assad regime” as he again pushed the case for British air strikes against Isis strongholds in Syria"
Of course Vladimir Putin is 'propping up Assad':
1. The Russians are a longstanding ally and supporter of Syria
2. They have their mediterranean naval base in Tartus
3. Assad has refused to allow the Qatari pipeline to pass through Syria. The Qatari pipeline would facilitate increased competition for Russia in European energy markets. Something that gets hardly any mainstream press. Why not I wonder? Because when oil is involved, 'human lives' suddenly become more important to UK and US foreign policy, but we don't like to talk about that do we?
4. The US has been pursuing a totally botched policy of regime change in Syria for the past 5 years - a policy that has produced an alphabet soup of Jihadi terrorist groups not far from Russian borders
So what on earth is the purpose of a statement like "Putin is propping up Assad". Thanks Mr Fallon, I'll file this wisdom along with 'Tomorrow is Monday'.
None of this is justification for the UK to get ourselves involved in what is essentially a proxy war between Russia and the US. More bombing is not a cure for a refugee crisis caused by bombing. Bombing Syria will not make the UK safer. This is pathetic chest beating from a silly little man who just can't wait to bomb someone.