The relevance of the loss of the Syrian Arab army´s two military bases in Idlib province, Wadi al Deif and al Hamidiya should not be played down.
Both bases were more or less besieged for almost two years. The army and allied forces such as the Popular Defence Commitees (PDC; the former NDF) managed to hold out and overcome/repel many attacks, among them major VBIED attacks and tunnel bombings.
The location of the bases is important with regards to securing the army´s supply chain to Aleppo coming through the Damascus-Aleppo highway. This in turn means that the encirclement of Aleppo will get under pressure.
Also, it enables insurgents to send troops towards Khan Sheikhoun and (later) Morek in Northern Hama:

Of course, the SAA can now forget about recapturing Maarat an Numan, which is located few Km west of Wadi al Deif. In addition Idlib city, the provincial capital is even more exposed with the two last remaining major bases in Idlib lost.

What is the current overall military situation considered from a negative point of view (negative for me as a government supporter)?
1. The „success story“ in the North is endangered: While Jabhat al Nusra managed to marginalize the so called „moderate“ factions of SRF and the Hazm movement the SAA could not capitalize on that. JAN captured sophisticated ATGMs (American Tow missiles) and tanks from the „moderates“. The Salafis from the Islamic Front (IF) and some remnants of the FSA joined forces with JAN and finally seized the two Idlib bases. As a result in the mid term Idlib province could become for al Nusra what Raqqa has become for ISIS. It also proves that Idlib is hostile terrain for the government forces while the insurgents apparently enjoy wide scale local support. Hopefully I am wrong.
2. The situation in the southern provinces of Quneitra and Deraa is „unclear“ at best. In any case there are no indications that the army has been able to reverse any of the many insurgent gains. While the army has still some bases and strongholds in both provinces the overall „score“ shows a clear „plus“ for the insurgents.
3. In the east the army has so far successfully repelled continuing IS attacks on the Deir al Zour military airport but the question is „how long“, while there are little signs that the army could be able to really change the situation to its favor.
4. The siege of Jobar has stalled to some degree. While one month ago it appeared that Jobars recapture would be imminent it seems that the insurgents are able to hold out, probably being supplied through tunnels, something that the army so far has been unable to do anything against.

Something that has always puzzled me is the Syrian army´s inability to destroy or at least booby-trap heavy weapons and ammunition that they leave behind while abandoning a base. It is unbelievable that the insurgents capture heavy weapons such as 6-8 tanks in Wadi al Deif which they will deploy against government forces in upcoming battles.

The SAA and allied forces are badly in need of a new crucial victory, be it in the Eastern Ghouta, in Aleppo or in shape of recapturing some of the areas in northern Deraa province which lead to south-western „Rif Dimashq“ area.

Once again a major channel of western mass media is trying to reinvent and unhold the image of the „vetted“ and „moderate“ Syrian insurgent who deserves to get western support in order to topple the Syrian „regime“:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30374581

Readers should be aware of often applied deceptive schemes such as downplaying the role of the notorious „bad guys“ of Syrias Al Qaeda affiliate, the Nusra Front (Jabhat al Nusra):
„Abu Majd el-Zoubi, a spokesman for the Southern Front, acknowledged that the Nusra Front operated in the region but insisted they were only 10% of the fighting force “

The number and percentage of Al Nusra is irrelevant as the group continues to be the most effective fighting force next to ISIS. Almost in every case of insurgents besieging army bases or attacking major checkpoints it is a VBIED (vehicle-borne IED) driven by a Nusra suicide bomber that makes the difference and overwhelms the defenders.

What the above quoted spokesman conceals is that the non-Nusra insurgents are not automatically „moderates“. As it can be seen and heard on below 21+ explicit material video the „moderates“ of the SRF are walking next to beheaded corpses of army soldiers, insulting the dead as „Assads dogs“ and calling the Syrian army the derogatory and sectarian name „Nussayri army“:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iD1VJ5BP7k&feature=youtu.be
Just to illustrate the degree of „non-modernation“ and outright sectarianism of these „vetted rebels“: Would someone consider a Hamas fighter „moderate“ who calls Jews „Kikes“? How about a white farmer in Americas „bible belt“ calling Afroamericans „niggers“?

In addition to the Nusra Front and the SRF, the „Southern Front“ also features the „Yarmouk Brigade“, which is not only sectarian, but also kidnapped at one point Unifil peacekeepers and openly cooperates with al Nusra:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/zoubi-yarmouk-brigade-qaeda-saudi-southern-front.html#
More about definitely non-moderate groups within the „Southern Front“:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article183052.html

The BBC article and similar articles also ignore the role of the radically Islamist factions Ahrar al Sham and Islamic Front (which mainly builds on Ahrar al Sham and the likewise radical „Jaish al Islam“ group). The so called „Free Syrian Army“, which in the South uses the less tarnished term „Southern Front“ has seldom hesitated to join forces with the sectarian and non-moderate forces of Al Nusra, Ahrar al Sham and Islamic Front:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2014/10/free_syrian_army_continues_to.php

Now is this funny, ridiculous or shocking?
For almost 4 years now and especially in the first 1,5 years Arab and Western media relied on „activists“, when it came to get allegedly genuine, uncensored and unbiased reports from Syria. Activists were portrayed as nonpartisan, neutral sources telling the audience that „truth“ that the „regimes propaganda“ was seeking to hide and suppress. These activists were often presented as parts of a democratic, liberal-libertarian, non-sectarian, peaceful reform movement striving for a new human rights abiding post-Assad Syria.

Everybody who bothered to read between the lines could easily recognize that these activists were in their broad majority rebel sympathizers and all but unbiased. Some of the most famous among them turned out to be systematic fakers of „news“ intended to demonize and denounce the Syrian government.

In the article below one such „activist“ exposes himself very blatantly:

„We targeted the town with dozens of mortar shells and dozens of hell cannon shells and Nusra’s forces made progress and control buildings which are in the first line of defence of Nubl,“ said media activist Ahmed Hamidou“
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-2846312/Fighters-Syrian-al-Qaeda-wing-close-Shiite-village.html

Two sections of the article below are particularly interesting and insightful:

1. „The first time Hellfire Cannon was used was in Aleppo’s Ashrafieh neighborhood, causing severe damage in addition to killing and wounding dozens of civilians. Currently, fighters of the Islamic Front began to target the Citadel of Aleppo with these shells.“

2. „Arms manufacturing plants spread rapidly in Aleppo and its countryside and manufacturers found a large market to sell their products. It is believed that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) took advantage of its presence in Aleppo and its nearby countryside to persuade plant owners affiliated with the Free Syrian Army to manufacture hundreds of Hell Cannon bombs for double the price. Some of them moved to al-Bab and Manbij after ISIS was expelled from Aleppo. “

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/after-%E2%80%98hellfire%E2%80%99-and-%E2%80%98hell%E2%80%99-meet-syrian-rebels%E2%80%99-new-rocket-aleppo

Here another article about rebels using gas canisters as weapon against civilian areas (of course western press does not consider pro-government civilians as „real civilians“):
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Nov-30/279371-rebel-fire-kills-mother-3-sons-in-syrias-aleppo-monitor.ashx

So, the rebels do not only indiscriminately shell civilian areas, they also produce arms and sell them to ISIS.
So much about differentiating between ISIS and „good“ rebels.

I have seldom come along such a garbage pretending to be serious news:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0JA1C220141126?irpc=932

Just some excerpts:
1. „At a desert base, Gulf state Qatar is covertly training moderate Syrian rebels with U.S. help to fight both President Bashar al-Assad and Islamic State“
It´s puzzling that western press still is using the expression „moderate“ as though it has not been proven on several instances that no recipients of western weapons and training among Syrian rebels has ever refused to sell/hand over his weapons to IS/Al-Qaeda (Nusra Front) or even voluntarily join them.

2. „Syrian rebel sources said training in Qatar has included rebels affiliated to the “Free Syrian Army” from northern Syria.“
In case anyone has forgotten it, the FSA from northern Syria is hardly anyone else than the much celebrated „moderates“ from the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF) and the Hazm movement, both of them either openly cooperated with the Nusra Front or let them take their weapons.

3. „Once cleared of links with „terrorist“ factions, they travel to Turkey and are then flown to Doha and driven to the base.“
It would be nice how this kind of „clearance“ is done. As mentioned above, those groups who were considered „vetted moderate rebels“ turned out to work with the beheaders of the Nusra front which has correctly been labelled terrorist by the US state department.

4. „Gulf states dislike the West’s emphasis on fighting Islamic State. Assad is the bigger problem, they say.“
Really? For whom? In how far is Assad a bigger problem or a threat for the Gulf states? How much money and resources did the Gulf states invest in funding, arming, training or even housing Palestinian militias fighting the Israeli occupation?

5. „“The training would last a few months, maybe two or three, and then a new group would be flown in, but no lethal weapons were supplied to them,“ one of the sources said.“
Who is to believe this nonsense? Where do then all the seemingly endless sophisticated long-range anti-tank (ATGMs) weapons come that rebels proudly show in their „success clips“ from Syria?

6. „In recent weeks, the Qataris, disappointed by lack of progress in the fight against Assad, have started to consider training members of the Islamic Front, a coalition of Islamist rebels less militant than Islamic State or the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, but stronger than the FSA.“
Now, this is the absolute lowlight in an already extremely weak piece: „Islamist rebels less militant than Islamic State or the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front“. How is militancy measured by the way? The „Islamic Front“ includes several Salafi sectarian Islamists like the „Ahrar al Sham“, „Liwa Tauheed“ and the „Jaish al Islam“ (Islamic Army). They have both cooperated with IS and the Nusra front, among others during the infamous attack on Adra where they beheaded government supporters and threw people into baking ovens:
http://rt.com/news/russia-condemns-adra-massacre-406/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/us-syria-crisis-adra-idUSBRE9BB0PM20131212

Saudi Arabias Wahhabism, a minority branch of Sunni Islam, has already infected several countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and even parts of Egypt, Lebanon, Libya and Tunisia to name some places where this violent and highly sectarian ideology is behind a wave of bombings and beheading.

While there might be minor theoretical differences Wahhabis and Salafis are the fathers of jihadism and takfirism. Both are highly self-righteous narcissistic and supremacist ideologies that easily name others including Sunni muslims „infidels“ or „apostates“ whose killing is „legitimate“.

Saudi Arabia which is awash in money, is not subject to the slightest sanctions and enjoys superb relations with western countries has freely exported its very radical brand of Islam to places that used to know moderate Islam. Western countries have kept silence in order to not offend one of their major weapons buyers and at the same time the world´s most crucial exporter of petroleum. The same applies to Kuwait and Qatar, two other strongholds and exporters of Wahhabism and fundraisers of terrorism (https://radioyaran.com/2014/11/03/will-qatar-become-part-of-the-axis-of-evil-or-sanctioned-as-rogue-state/).

Now, it seems that Saudi Arabia is extending it´s devastating grip to Kosovo, a European country with a muslim majority that so far has been well known for its tolerant islam:
„There is a real threat to the society and the state in Kosovo, where a ‘tolerant’ brand of Islam, which is becoming more and more rare in our world, today prevails. This report sheds light on how Wahhabism is trying to infiltrate the Kosovar society after the war, amid suspicious Western silence that resembles the silence vis-à-vis the Wahhabi infiltration of Syria and Iraq prior to the disaster that befell the two Arab nations.“
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/will-kosovo-be-able-confront-takfiri-threat-facing-balkans

Der Westen, allen voran europäische Medien und Politiker sind bemüht zu betonen, wie einheitlich und systematisch sie Putin isolieren, doch diese demonstrative Zuschaustellung entschlossenen Verhaltens stellt die Europäer insofern bloss, dass das immense Ausmass ihrer Doppelmoral klar wird.

Russland soll für seine Ukraine-Politik „bestraft“ werden. Daher die Isolation Putins doch diese vermeintlich logische Ursache-Wirkung-Kette wirft Fragen auf, die die Europäer in wenig gutem Licht belassen:

1. Warum werden Israel und Netanjahu nicht isoliert, wo doch Israels Besetzung der Westbank, die Blockade und das heftige Bombardement des Gazastreifens und der fortwährende Siedlungsbau auf besetztem Territorium weit tödlicher, verheerender und völkerrechtswidriger sind als die Annexion der Krim.

Erstens war die Krim vor wenigen Jahrzehnten noch Teil Russlands und wurde erst 1954 der Ukraine „übergeben“:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/02/david-ignatius/historical-claim-shows-why-crimea-matters-russia/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/02/27/283481587/crimea-a-gift-to-ukraine-becomes-a-political-flash-point
Zweitens gab es auf der Krim eine Umfrage, in der eine breite Mehrheit den Anschluss an Russland befürwortete. Nichts dergleichen kann über den Gazastreifen und seine Bewohner gesagt werden.

2. Warum „isolierten“ die Europäer nicht die USA und Grossbritannien (bzw. ihre Regierungen) in 2003?
Nach 12 Jahren unmenschlicher Sanktionen, die bis zu einer Million Irakern das Leben kosteten, griffen die USA und Grossbritannien den Irak auf Basis fadenscheiniger Anschuldigungen (Verbindung Iraks zu 9/11) und glatter Lügen (Irakischer Besitz von Massenvernichtungswaffen) an. Hunderttausende Iraker wurden getötet oder verletzt, das ganze Staatswesen zerbrach, Sach- und Infrastrukturschaden in zwei- bis dreistelligem Milliardenwert (USD) wurde angerichtet, über Hunderttausend amerikanische und britische Soldaten besetzten das Land, ein Bürgerkrieg mit bis heute zehntausenden Toten brach in der Folge aus, amerikanische Söldner erschossen unbestraft Einheimische, im Abu Ghuraib-Gefängnis folterten Amerikaner Iraker…
Das amerikanisch-britische Verbrechen im und gegen den Irak mit der russischen Annexion der Ukraine oder der Unterstützung pro-russischer Seperatisten in der Ostukraine vergleichen zu wollen ist, wie wenn man die Lehmanpleite mit der Insolvenz eines regionalen Mittelstandsunternehmens vergleicht.

Wo waren die (anderen) Europäer da, um Sanktionen gegen die USA/GB anzudrohen und zu implementieren?
Wurde Tony Blair von irgendwelchen Gipfeltreffen ausgeladen?
Wurde George W. Bush isoliert?

Die „Empörung“ der Europäer über Putin und Russland wirkt verlogen, heuchlerisch und vor allem lächerlich und dreist, wenn man bedenkt, dass ihr amerikanischer Natopartner USA seit Jahrzehnten in fremde Länder einmarschiert bzw. sie gern auch ohne UN-Mandat bombardiert. Anstatt die USA dafür zu isolieren, dass ihr Präsident G.W. Bush diese als „irrelavant“ bezeichnete, echauffieren sich die Europäer darüber, dass China und Russland im Sicherheitsrat der gleichen UN den nächsten auf Lügen basierenden Angriffskrieg (gegen Syrien) durch ihre Vetos verhinderten.
Sicher kann man auch davon ausgehen, dass weder die Europäer noch die USA sich irgendeiner Schuld bezüglich der Tragödie bewusst sind, die Libyen befallen hat, nachdem Natobomber mit dem „Segen“ eines inhaltlich „verdrehten“ UN-Mandats dort Islamisten zum Sieg verhalfen. In der Folge zerbrach auch dort jegliches Staatswesen. Statt regulärer Sicherheitsstrukturen gibt es in dem Land Hunderte, teils mit schweren Waffen ausgestattete Milizen, die die Menschen terrorisieren.
Die Väter und Mütter des Libyenkriegs sind Sarkozy, Cameron, Obama und Clinton. Keiner von ihnen wurde während seiner Amtszeit deshalb isoliert, und bei Clinton muss man befürchten, dass sie sogar US-Präsidentin werden könnte.

As pointed out in an earlier article it has become more and more unclear who and where the much-hyped „moderate“ Syrian rebels are supposed to be:
https://radioyaran.com/2014/09/11/the-vetted-moderate-rebels-of-the-free-syrian-army-who-and-where-are-they/

From among the rebel coalitions introduced and exposed in the article above there was one specific group that some western media and „think tanks“ had attempted to portray as „vetted“ and „moderate“ and thus worthy of receiving sophisticated weapons, particularly ATGMs (anti-tank) and MANPADs (anti-aircraft): The „Syrian Revolutionaries Front“ (SRF), led by Jamaal Maarouf.
While the western and Gulf Arab intention was to portray the SRF as an Assad enemy which at the same time was opposed to ISIS and the al-Nusra Front (Syrias Al Qaeda branch and designated as „terrorist“ by the US state department), Mr. Maarouf humiliated his backers by openly admitting that not only he was not fighting al-Nusra but that his fighters even frequently conduct joint operations with that group:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/i-am-not-fighting-againstalqaida-itsnot-our-problem-says-wests-last-hope-in-syria-9233424.html

Months later another article exposed SRF for cooperating with al-Nusra and another Salafi dominated group, the „Islamic Front“ in the southern front of Syria:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2014/09/syrian_revolutionaries_front_a.php#ixzz3DtQMjSAC

Now, let´s shift attention to another much featured allegedly moderate rebel militia which has received american TOW anti-tank missiles: The Hazm movement. This group which is said to number some 5.000 fighters has been again and again described as the kind of non-islamist rebel group that deserves to receive american arms. During the last months the Hazm movement uploaded several video clips showing them firing successfully at Syrian tanks and (grounded) planes.

In an unexpected turn of events the al-Nusra front attacked both the SRF and the Hazm movement. Nusra fiighters managed to inflict heavy losses on the SRF and force them to flee their strongholds:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/11/01/245423_in-setback-islamic-state-nusra.html?sp=/99/117/&rh=1

Worse, „on Saturday night Harakat Hazm surrendered military bases and weapons supplies to Jabhat al-Nusra, when the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria stormed villages they controlled in northern Idlib province.“
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11203825/Syrian-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-US-surrender-to-al-Qaeda.html

Watch this video clip with SRF leader Jamaal Maarouf cursing al-Nusras leader al-Jolani (after being defeated and ousted by the latter): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CTie56i46g
Maaroufs accusations and rants are totally paradoxical as he fabulates of an Iranian->Nusra connection.

This chain of events is well-known and clearly confirms what many people had warned of:
– The so called „moderates“ hardly exist
– The few of them who are „vetted“ and receive arms are either unwilling or unable to fight ISIS, al-Nusra and the Syrian Army
– They have openly sympathized with al-Nusra and regularly lead joint operations
– If the „moderates“ have not handed over/sold their better weapons to ISIS and/or al-Nusra voluntarily the two takfiri/jihadi groups have attacked them and forcefully taken their weapons.

For these reasons, western countries should finally recognize the obvious:
a) Radical (mostly Salafi) Islamists are the broad majority of the rebels in Syria and not an irrelevant minority
b) Neither the remnants of the FSA, let alone ISIS or al-Nusra have the slightest connection to the „Syrian National Council“, which is bare of any political or military power and still treated by the western and arab „friends of Syria“ as the „legitimate representative of the Syrian people“
c) Ignoring the facts and continuing to pretend that there is a relevant and capable „moderate“ rebel force in Syria, which should be armed only means that such a group becomes the „import interface“ of sophisticated weapons for ISIS and al-Nusra