By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Between 2018 and 2019, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad secretly transferred approximately $250 million in cash to Moscow via 21 flights, circumventing Western sanctions imposed during the Syrian Civil War. This money, transported in bulk currency, was deposited in the sanctioned Russian Financial Corporation Bank, controlled by Rosoboronexport. The transfers coincided with increased Russian military support for Assad’s regime and a period of lavish spending by the Assad family on luxury Moscow properties. These actions highlight Assad’s efforts to safeguard assets amidst the conflict and ongoing international pressure.
Read the original article here
Assad’s reported flight of $250 million in cash to Russia while his people starved paints a stark picture of callous disregard for human suffering. The sheer audacity of moving such a sum – a figure some consider a mere pittance compared to the initially speculated $135 billion – raises questions about the extent of his wealth and the lengths he went to protect it.
The method itself speaks volumes. The act of physically transporting this massive amount of cash suggests a deliberate attempt to circumvent international sanctions and banking restrictions, highlighting a sophisticated operation designed to shield his assets from seizure.
The timing, coinciding with widespread starvation in Syria, adds another layer of cruelty to the narrative. The image of Assad’s regime allowing its citizens to suffer while he secured his own future abroad is jarring, fueling accusations of treason and mass theft on a monumental scale.
This brazen move also raises questions about the complicity of Russia. The act of accepting such a large sum in cash, under the circumstances, implies a level of collaboration beyond simple refuge. The suggestion that Russia is, in effect, profiting from Assad’s crimes, is a significant accusation. Perhaps this influx of US dollars will be ‘conveniently’ exchanged for Russian rubles. Perhaps it’s merely rent. Perhaps even a “processing fee.”
The cynicism surrounding Assad’s fate adds another dimension. The numerous jokes about accidental falls from windows, a common trope for dictators losing power, illustrate the public’s perception of his actions and expected demise. There’s a dark humor in the comments, a recognition of the almost predictable nature of such events within the often ruthless world of authoritarian regimes.
The comparison to historical figures like the Shah of Iran, who also fled with a significant amount of cash, underscores the recurrence of such events throughout history. It suggests a pattern of behavior among leaders who prioritize personal enrichment over the well-being of their nations.
The relatively small amount, in the context of the initially estimated $135 billion, doesn’t diminish the gravity of the situation. The $250 million represents a substantial sum, especially given the context of widespread suffering within Syria. Even if this is merely a fraction of his total assets, it underlines the scale of his alleged corruption.
The discussion also highlights the broader issue of global corruption and the ease with which large sums of money can be moved across borders. The comments touch upon the challenges of combating such crimes, proposing drastic measures such as limiting the denomination of American currency to make large-scale cash transactions significantly more difficult.
This incident further fuels the debate surrounding the role of foreign aid and the effectiveness of sanctions in preventing such behavior. While the focus here is on Assad, the comments also draw parallels to the allocation of funds by the United States, highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the handling of domestic needs versus foreign aid. The hypocrisy is not lost on anyone.
Ultimately, the story of Assad’s alleged transfer of $250 million to Russia is not merely a financial transaction. It’s a symbol of the vast gulf between the ruling elite and the suffering population, a testament to the corruption and impunity often associated with authoritarian regimes, and a chilling example of the lengths some will go to preserve their wealth, even as their own people starve. The dark humor and cynical predictions surrounding his fate only serve to further underscore the gravity and enduring impact of his actions.