Russia said one of its airstrikes in Syria killed ISIS spokesman Mohammad al-Adnani — a claim that a US official called preposterous.
The result of the bombing in Al-Bab was horrific, but to use that horror as a source of modern negative propaganda against another country is counterproductive. The bombing, while a tragedy for innocent civilians, also took out a major figure in ISIS. It has created some hope in the midst of such pain. Using this for national gain, however, illustrates what some believe as a personal feud between the United States and Russia playing itself out on the campaign against ISIS.
The U.S. and Russia stand in opposition when it comes to the political regime in Syria, but to battle that out along with other issues is to subject the civilians living on the battlegrounds to extended periods of pain. Their personal feud is playing out at the expense of others’ lives.
Calling out the preposterousness of one country’s comments regarding the bomb that ended Adnani’s life and using that set up to effectively blame one side for the horror inflicted upon the civilians does not invoke positive change. It belittles both events.
Even more so, Aleppo has needed humanitarian aid for months, but the countries who are supposedly fighting for the civilians stuck in the middle of the conflict have not created a strategy to provide such aid. Yet they use the terror inflicted on those people for their own political gain.
One would be hard pressed to find a source of genuine cooperation in the modern age between states like the U.S. and Russia who have historically been enemies more frequently than allies. However, history has similarly shown that change occurs when they put their quarrels aside and fight for what they know to be right.
There is historical precedence for a working relationship between the U.S. and Russia, and if they are able to achieve it, the reward will be much greater and the loss (relative only to itself) much smaller.