I made up my mind several years ago to stop following antiwar.com. Reason? "Too many false notes" started to jar my political common sense (or ears). Now, I've just looked into what is hiding behind the provocative heading, "Russia Scales Back Aid to Syrian Govt, Withdraws Key Personnel, Syria Seeks Iranian Help to 'Pressure Moscow' for More Aid."
Of course, I also noticed Lavrov's recent strange statement alleging that Russia and the US moved closer to each other over Syria and then he also (falsely) said that, when the removal of Syria's chemical weapons was agreed on (imposed on together by the US and Russia), the US allegedly recognized the legitimacy of the Syrian government, which was not the case.
Anyway, the heading and its allegation struck me as sufficiently serious to look into what is going on and what the article actually says.
Towards the end of the article, antiwar.com's Jason Ditz delivers his would-be punchline or what antiwar.com wants its readers to leave with: "With Assad’s forces losing to both ISIS and al-Qaeda, it may be that Russia believes Syria is a lost cause."
Note the terminology--"Assad's forces" instead of the Syrian forces or the Syrian army. That's the terminology of the anti-Syrian coalition or the Empire. Would antiwar.com like to call the US Army "Obama's forces"? Antiwar.com then implies that "Syria is a lost cause" and that "Russia believes" it or "may" believe it. While I am not one of those who assume that everything is as it should be between Syria and Russia, when the Russian government too is talking of "the Assad regime" and, at times, tries to assume a position of non-aligned and equidistant evasiveness, such antiwar.com's claims are not different from what one would expect from the New York Times or the Walt Street Journal or any other corporate, anti-Syrian outlet.