Thread by @PeriHankey

In the near-term prehistory of the #WhiteHelmets controversy, @PiersRobinson1 referred to the UK Conflict Stability & Security Fund's own (CSSF) account of the support it gave to what it misleadingly refers to as the 'Syrian Civil Defence' (SCD): piersrobinson.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/sea…

The key document @PiersRobinson1 refers to is the draft 'SYRIA RESILIENCE CSSF PROGRAMME SUMMARY' (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…), for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (lead partner), Department for International Development, Ministry of Defence, National Crime Agency & Home Office.

The document is clear: the WH are part of a project to replace the internationally recognized & widely vilified government of the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR) with a preferred regime that is to be created and backed to win a civil war within the armed opposition. Quotes+[notes]:

"Summary: This programme supports the moderate opposition to provide services for their communities and to contest new space. Preserving and sustaining economic activity as well as empowering legitimate local governance structures to deliver services gives credibility..."

"...to the moderate opposition, helping them to challenge extremists to space within Syria. HMG aims to support local communities through strengthened
Provincial and Local Councils, technical Directorates and the ‘Syrian Interim Government’ Ministries where these are effective."

"Syria Civil Defence (SCD) [sic]: [words here about what the WH are meant to be seen to be doing]. In addition to service delivery, SCD provide an invaluable reporting and advocacy role, being nominated again this year for the Nobel Peace Prize...[gloat: we done good!]"

"...Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have stated that SCD are their most routinely reliable source for reporting [mission partly accomplished]. Throughout the bombardment by Russia since September 2015, SCD has provided essential corroboration...[of our narrative]"

"...that strikes were not targeting Da’esh but moderate opposition entities. This has provided confidence to statements made by UK and other international leaders made in condemnation of Russian actions [they have served our propaganda objectives against Russia]".

"WHY IS UK SUPPORT NEEDED? ... our interventions have a (local) political impact beyond just basic service delivery...We have also identified areas of complementarity with DFID humanitarian programming and are working closely with the [UNOCHA] and the Early Recovery Cluster..."

"...to ensure a strong link up between humanitarian and non-humanitarian programming [we need to work with explicitly well-meaning institutions to help the patient/experimental subject make an Early Recovery from the chainsaw-assisted surgery the Syria project requires]".

"WHAT RESULTS DOES THE UK EXPECT TO ACHIEVE? Success will look like strong collaboration among Syrian governance structures, service providers, implementing partners and the major donors supporting opposition-held territory. Within the Syria CSSF, this strand will also be..."

"...closely connected to the security and political strands...The more we can support the opposition to work together collectively and coherently, the more we can help to demonstrate that they are a viable alternative to both Assad and extremist groups."

So it is blindingly clear that the WH are part of this Regime-Change Syndrome by Proxy: direct and indirect interference in the affairs of an independent state against the principles of the UN Charter, a kind of warfare for which our Parliament has deceived and sidelined itself.

Now that this regime change policy can be seen to have been a disastrous if as yet incomplete failure ("because they are idiots in the Foreign Office"), @VanessaBeeley's inteview of Peter Ford, Former UK Ambassador to Syria makes essential reading: ukcolumn.org/article/last-s…