Foreign Minister S.Lavrov’s interview with Channel 4, Moscow, June 29, 2018

The Saker

June 29, 2018

Foreign Minister S.Lavrov’s interview with Channel 4, Moscow, June 29, 2018

http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/3285972

 

Question: Foreign Minister, the summit is happening in Helsinki. Russian President V.Putin and US President D.Trump together. Is this the post-West world order that you have talked of in the past? Has it now arrived?

S.Lavrov: Well, I think that we are in the post-West world order, but this order is being shaped and it will take a long time. It is a historical epoch, if you want. Certainly, after five or so centuries of domination of the collective West, as it were, it is not very easy to adjust to new realities that there are other powerhouses economically, financially and politically, China, India, Brazil. African countries are going to be very much on the rise, as soon as they resolve at least some of the conflicts, which are there on the continent. Well, Russia certainly would like to be an independent world player. Independent in the sense that we do not want to violate and international law and norms, but the decisions, which we would be taking on the basis of international law, would not be influenced by pressure, money, sanctions, threats or anything else.

Question: Russia is shaping this world order that is clear.

S.Lavrov: It is not Russia is shaping this world order, its history. It’s the development itself. You cannot really hope to contain this new powerful, economically and financially, countries. You cannot really ignore their role in world trade and world economy. Attempts are being made to slow down this process by new tariffs, new sanctions for good or bad reasons in violation of the WTO principles and so on. But I think it is a logical reaction: trying to slow down something, which is objective and does not depend on any single administration in any country.

Question: But Europe has something to fear from that world order that you have just mapped out there.

S.Lavrov: What was that?

Question: Well the world order that you have mapped out involved all sorts of countries. You did not mention whether the EU fits into that. Do they need to worry about that new world order?

S.Lavrov: Well, the EU is of course part of the collective West with the addition of new members from Eastern Europe. But the European Union is certainly a very important pillar of any world order. As for the Russian Federation, it is our biggest trade partner in spite of the fact that after the unfortunate developments and the wrongly understood interpretation of what the coup d’état is. The volume of trade since 2014 between Russia and the European Union went down 50%, but it is still more than $250bn and it is our number one trading partner, as a collective, as a Union. But the European Union certainly is now fighting to make sure that it is not lost in this new world order that is being shaped. It is not easy, because the reliance on the United States is something, which quite a number of the EU members want to keep. There are some other EU members, who believe that they should be a bit more self-sufficient in military matters for example. The initiative of President F.Macron and Germany to consider some kind of European defence capabilities being beefed up is a manifestation of this case.

I am watching the EU summit, which is going on right now, and the discussion on migration brought an interesting thought to my head, namely it is about the relations between NATO and EU. NATO bombed Libya, turned Libya into a black hole through which waves of migrants, illegal migrants, rushed to Europe. Now EU is cleaning the broken china for NATO.

Question: You talk about NATO’s involvement in Libya, but then there is Russia’s involvement in Syria and that has also created millions of refugees.

S.Lavrov: Yes, but I would challenge you that the Russian involvement in Syria on the basis of legitimate request from the legitimate government, recognized by all as the representative of Syria in the United Nations, took place in September 2015, four years and a half into the Arab spring embracing Syria. The bulk of the refugees already was outside Syria by the time that we came to the rescue of the legitimate government.

Question: Well you talk of the legitimate government that is also the government responsible for killing of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, making millions homeless. “A gas killing animal”, as President D.Trump, your ally, puts it. Do you rest easy being allied with that kind of government?

S.Lavrov: Well, I would not go into the names, which President D.Trump used to describe some of the world leaders. It is not something done in concrete, it might change. What I want to say is: it is a war. It is the war, which was started by mistakes made on the part of everyone, including the Syrian government. I believe these disturbances could have been handled politically at an earlier stage. But we have now on our hands what is the result of outside forces having tried to use the situation in order to reshape the map of the Middle East and Northern Africa by trying to get into Syria without any invitation and trying to promote their own agenda there. So, the efforts, which we are now undertaking together with Turkey and Iran, and both of them are present on the ground, Turkey without invitation, Iran with the invitation from the government, but we managed pragmatically to create what we call Astana Process, Astana Format. The Syrian government, given the fact that Russia, Iran cooperate with Turkey on the basis of decisions, which lead to de-escalation, accepted Astana Process as such. It is part of the process together with the armed opposition, they regularly meet, and try to create conditions for the resolution of UN Security Council 2254 to be implemented.

Question: Let me ask again about Syrian President B.Assad. A lot of people would like to know what is there to like about President B.Assad?

S.Lavrov: We do not like anybody. The diplomacy and politics are not about liking or disliking, it is for human beings as individuals to use this terminology. President Assad is protecting the sovereignty of his country. He is protecting his country and in a broader sense the region from terrorism, which was really about a couple of weeks from taking over Damascus in September 2015.

We did not want the repetition of tragedies, which happened during last couple of decades through the “adventures”. Maybe even more than a couple of decades. It started closer to the end last century in Afghanistan, when the US decided to support militarily, financially and otherwise mujahedeen, who were fighting the Soviet troops. I would not dwell upon why the Soviet troops were there. By the way USSR was also invited legally by the government, which was recognized legitimate. The US decided to use the mujahedeen to fight the Soviet troops, hoping that after the job is done, they could handle those mujahedeen. That is how Al Qaeda appeared and the US lost total control of this beast, whom they had created basically. Then there was an adventure in Iraq on the very false pretence. Now everybody knows this, even Tony Blair admitted that this was a mistake. But the fact of the matter is just like Al Qaeda was born in Afghanistan, ISIL/Daesh was born after the intervention in Iraq. After Libya was invaded in gross violation of the Security Council Resolution, and Syria is now, there is another beast that was born – Jabhat al Nusra, which changes names, but is another terrorist organization. Whatever the civilized West is trying to bring to the Middle East and North Africa turns out to be in favour of terrorists.

Question: That is a very impressive whistle-stop tour of history, but I want to ask about the present though and about President Assad. You said that it is not about liking President Assad. Does that mean that Russia would be prepared to see him go? Do the job, finish the war and then he goes?

S.Lavrov: It is the position, which is not Russian position, it is the position of the Security Council, endorsed by each and every country on Earth, that the future of Syria must be decided by the Syrian people themselves. That there must be a new constitution.  On the basis of the new constitution there must be elections. Elections should be free, fair, monitored by the UN and all Syrian citizens, wherever they are, should be eligible to vote.

Question: So, it is irrelevant to you whether he stays or goes, that is for the Syrian people?

S.Lavrov: Yes, that is for them to decide. I believe that this view, which was rejected for quite some time after the Syrian crisis began, is now shared by more and more countries.

Question: When Russia withdraws from Syria? President V.Putin first raised the prospect in March 2016, he said that Russia had largely achieved her objectives there. Again, December 2017. By the end of this year can we expect Russia to be out of Syria?

S.Lavrov: No. I do not think that this is something, which we can intelligently discuss. We do not like artificial deadlines, but we have been consistently reducing our military presence in Syria. The last reduction took place a few of days ago. More than 1,000 troops have come back to Russia, some aircraft and other equipment as well. It depends on what is the actual situation on the ground. Yes, we managed together with our colleagues, with Syrian Army, with the help of opposition, which I would call “patriotic opposition” not to allow plans to create a caliphate by ISIL happen. But some remnants of ISIL are very much there. Jabhat al Nusra is still there. They are now preventing the deal on the southern Syrian de-escalation area to be implemented fully. So there are some leftovers. Besides, we do have, not actually full-fledged bases, but two places where our naval ships and our aircraft are located in Syria and they might be usefully kept for quite some time.

Question: Clearly, Syria will be on the agenda at the summit. Just want to talk about some other things that might be. For example, you have mentioned sanctions. Do you think that sanctions will be lifted, given that the EU has just talked about extending them? Do you think you can get President D.Trump to commit to that?

S.Lavrov: Actually, I have mentioned sanctions only in the context of the deterioration of relations. We are not pleading to remove them. It is not our business, it is for those, who introduced sanction, to decide whether they want to continue or whether common sense would prevail.

Question: Well, your President has very recently said that he would like them lifted.

S.Lavrov: Yes, absolutely. We would not mind them lifted, but we would not mind also using the spirit to build up our own capacity in key sectors of economy, security and other areas on which an independent state depends. In the recent years, we have learned a lot, including the fact that in these issues you cannot rely on the West. You cannot rely on Western technologies, because they can be abruptly stopped at any moment. You cannot rely on the items, which are essential for the day-to-day living of the population, coming from the West, because this could also be stopped. So we are certainly drawing lessons. But we certainly would not be against sanctions being lifted and we would reciprocate, because we do have some countermeasures in place.

Question: What are you prepared to give in this Summit? For example, if D.Trump says he wants NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden back in the US, is that something that you would consider? Is this something that you can put on the table?

S.Lavrov: I have never discussed Edward Snowden with this Administration.  President V.Putin addressed the issue some years ago. When he was asked the question, he said this is for Edward Snowden do decide. We respect his rights, as an individual. That is why we were not in the position to expel him against his will, because he found himself in Russia even without the US passport, which was discontinued as he was flying from Hong Kong.

Question: So that is not going to be up for discussion?

S.Lavrov: I do not know why people would start asking this particular question in relation to the Summit. Edward Snowden is the master of his own destiny.

Question: Given that the US intelligence believes that the presidential elections were meddled with, can Russian President V.Putin give D.Trump any assurances that the upcoming mid-term elections in a few months’ time would not be meddled with by Russia?

S.Lavrov: We would prefer some facts. We cannot intelligently discuss something, which is based on “highly likely”.

Question: Well, it is more than highly likely, is not it?

S.Lavrov: No. The investigation in the US has been going on for how long? A year and a half now?

Question: Well, Robert Mueller indicted the Internet Research Agency, the Russian “troll factory”.

S.Lavrov: Indictment is something, which requires a trial and I understand that they have submitted their own case and they have challenged quite a number of things, which were used for the indictment. So let’s not jump the gun. I love Lewis Carrol, but I do not think that the logic of the queen, who said “sentence first, verdict later”, is going to prevail. So far, you take the presidential election in the US, take Brexit, take the Salisbury case, take the tragedy with the Malaysian Boeing MH17 flight, it is all based on “investigation continues, but you are guilty already”. It cannot work this way.

Question: But is Russia frightened of the truth? Because it just seems whenever the authority whether it is the UN or the chemical weapons watch dog OPCW, whenever they try to get to the facts, Russia objects.

S.Lavrov: No, I believe that the public and respected journalists like you have been misinformed. The OPCW must operate on the basis of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which says bluntly that there is only one procedure when you want to establish facts. First, experts of the OPCW must themselves without delegating this authority to anyone go to the place of the alleged incident. They must themselves with their own hands and with their own equipment take samples. They must continue holding the substances in their hands until they have reached a certified laboratory. In the recent cases, especially in the infamous case of Khan Shaykhun April last year, when the Syrian government was accused of using aerial bombs to deliver chemical weapons to Khan Shaykhun, the OPCW never visited the place, they never took samples themselves. When we asked where did they get samples they said: “the Brits and the French gave it to us”. We asked why do not you go there?

Question: Have you lost faith in the OPCW?

S.Lavrov: Wait a second, that is important information. Let’s not speak slogans, let’s speak facts. So they did not go there. But they said that “we got the samples”. We asked “where from?”. They said “well the British and the French got it for us”. “Why do not you go?”, we asked. “Why it is not very safe.” We told them if the Brits and the French made it there or rather they know people who can get there safely, why do not you ask Paris and London to ensure safety for your own inspectors to get there. We told the same to the French and to the British, they said: “no, it is something, which we cannot share with you, how we got hold of this”. So, no procedures, regarding the taking of the samples, and the chain of custody, meaning that the inspectors themselves cannot delegate to anyone the delivery of samples to laboratory. These procedures, embodied and enshrined in the Convention, were violated. The Report on this Khan Shaykhun case, submitted by this Joint Investigating Mechanism last fall was full of “highly likely”, “by all probability”, “we have good reasons to believe” and so on and so forth. We invited the authors of the Report to the Security Council, trying to get some credible information from them. Impossible, they were stonewalled, they refused to talk. We said: “guys, if you want to work on the basis of violation of the Convention’s procedures, this cannot continue”. We did not extend their mandate, but we suggested a new mechanism, insisting that this new mechanism must not violate the procedures embodied in the Convention.

Question: Do you still have faith in the OPCW?

S.Lavrov: Until recently we did. But the organization was grossly manipulated a couple of days ago, when the Brits and others convened the special sessions of the state parties to the Convention. They passed a decision by vote, which basically violates the Convention in all its provisions, giving the Technical Secretariat the right to establish guilt. I think that this is a step, which was not thought through very thoroughly, because it is very dangerous.

Question: Well, it is dangerous potentially for Russia, because now the chemical weapons watchdog can apportion blame to the likes of Russia. Are you fearful of the truth?

S.Lavrov: No, I am fearful of the future of the OPCW and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Question: Will you withdraw from the OPCW?

S.Lavrov: Well, if people prefer to violate the Convention, if they say that this is the “will of the majority”. When they convened this conference, all kinds of tricks were used, including mobilizing small countries, who do not have any representation in the Hague, paying for their travel expenses, paying for their hotel bills. We know all this and they know all this. So, when the Convention is grossly violated, I do not think that you can really avoid raising concern. We will try to repair the situation, because this decision will go to the regular conference of the state parties. But if this is not repaired, I believe that the days of the OPCW will be counted, at least it would not remain as a universal organization.

Question: The OPCW has also investigated the case of the Skripals. I wanted to ask you, do you think that using a nerve agent to poison a former spy and his child, a policeman on the streets of a cathedral city in Britain is an act of a rational state?

S.Lavrov: Rational state? Not at all. It is an act of crime. We from the very beginning suggested that we investigate this together, because it is our citizen. At least the daughter is our citizen. The father, I think, has a dual citizenship, he is a Russian citizen and a British subject. From the very beginning we suggested a joint investigation. We asked so many questions, including the questions related to the Chemical Weapons Convention’s procedures. In response, we were told that the British side does not want to listen, because we have to tell them only one thing. “Did V.Putin order this or did V.Putin lose control over the people who did?”. That’s all that the Brits wanted to discuss. The inconsistences in the situation with the Skripals are very troubling. We never managed to get consular access to our citizen in violation of all international conventions on diplomatic and consular relations. We never got any credible explanation why the cousin of Yulia Skripal has not been given visa, she wants to visit the UK and see her cousin. And many other things related to the act itself.

Question: But why would Britain give consular access to the country suspected of being behind this attack?

S.Lavrov: You know that the investigation continues. The Scotland Yard said that it would take a few more months. UK Foreign Secretary B.Johnson recently mentioned that the place is being disinfected four months after the incident. The policeman became miraculously fine. The Skripals became miraculously fine. People now talk about levelling the house, where they lived, levelling the house of the policeman. It all looks like a consistent physical extermination of the evidence, like the benches of the park were removed immediately and, of course, the video images, when the policemen or special forces in special attire go to take a look at this bench, while people without any protection are moving around. It looks very weird.

S.Lavrov: Mr. Lavrov are accusing the British state of a cover-up of this whole incident?

S.Lavrov: I do not exclude this, as long as they do not give us information. You know that about 10 Russian citizens have died in London during the past years. All 10 cases have been investigated in the secret format. We do not understand why. One of the wise guys said: “who is to benefit?” Certainly, the UK benefited politically from what is going. Come to think of it, it is an interesting situation, thereby the country, which is leaving the European Union, is determining the EU policy on Russia. When they were running through all capitals of the European Union, saying “you must expel the Russian diplomats, you must expel them”. So they did. Most of them, some did not. Then we privately asked those, who decided to join Britain in this action whether any proof was given in addition to what was said publicly. They said no. But they said that “we were promised that later, as investigation proceeds, we would be given more facts”. Do you think it is ok?

Question: But you ask who benefits and there are many in the West, who say that the chaos whether it is Brexit, whether it is the Skripals, whether it is D.Trump in the White House…

S.Lavrov: You forgot Catalonia and you forgot the forthcoming elections in Sweden, as the Prime Minister said. Macedonia, Montenegro…

Question: Ok, we will include that later. But answer me this: does the chaos benefit Russia, as some in the West say?

S.Lavrov: You have to be within the historical and chronological framework. You mean the chaos benefits Russia couple of weeks before the presidential elections and months before the World Cup. What do you think?

Question: I am asking you. Does chaos benefit Russia?

S.Lavrov: I want to clarify the issue. Does chaos benefit Russia couple of days before the presidential elections and couple of days before the World Cup? Is it the question?

Question: Well you talked about the new world order that you are hoping that Russia will help shape. Much easier to shape that world order if the EU is in chaos, you are holding the ring in the Middle East, if you are calling the shots in Syria. Russia potentially benefits.

S.Lavrov: No, this is absolutely wrong. It is misreading what I have said. I did not say that Russia wants to shape the new order. I said that Russia must be one of the players on the equal basis, discussing how the objective reality of multipolarity, being developed in front of our eyes, could be managed the way, which would be acceptable to all. That is what I have said. The interests of those, who determine the Russophobic policy in the West, are absolutely diametrically different. Their interest is to punish Russia, to downgrade Russia.

Question: Why, do you think?

S.Lavrov: Because it is very painful to lose half millennium of domination in the world affairs. In a nutshell this is the answer. This is not the criticism, this is a statement of fact. I understand when people used to call the shots in India, Africa, Asia, elsewhere and now they understand that this time has passed.

Question: Is Brexit good for Britain? Is it good for Russia?

S.Lavrov: This is for the UK subjects to discuss.

Question: Good for Russia, though?

S.Lavrov: I do not understand why we should be thinking in this way. It is something that the Brits decided. It is something, which they still discuss with the EU: the divorce, the problems inside the country. We also know, of course we follow the news, that the Parliament has one position, some public activists want rethinking.

Question: Does it look like chaos to you in Theresa May’s Britain?

S.Lavrov: Look, it is something, which happened by developments inside the UK. We only want clarity. What will be the basis on which we continue to work with the European Union. What will be the basis on which we might someday restore the relations with the UK, when they take some reasonable course and not overly ideologised, “highly likely” attitude. I believe that this must be must be very much understood by those in the West, especially by the liberals, who keep saying that the “rule of law must prevail”. In my view, rule of law means that unless proven guilty you cannot sentence people. That is what is happening with Skripal, MH17, with the OPCW being an instrument of those, who would like to make this “highly likely” the order of the day in Syria.

Question: Just returning to the Summit for a couple of final questions. Does it help Russia in her dealings with D.Trump that so many people think that you have compromising materials,  so-called “kompromat”, on him?

S.Lavrov: Look, I hear this for the first time that we have the compromising material on D.Trump. That’s what the Special Counsel R.Mueller is trying to dig. Actually, I stopped reading the news from this investigation. You know that when R. Tillerson was Secretary of State, he once stated publicly that they have an “undeniable proof”. Then, during our contact, I said: “Rex, can you give this undeniable proof to us? Because we want to understand what is going on. Maybe this is something that we can explain”. He said: “well, we cannot give it to you, we cannot compromise our sources and besides, your special services, your security people know everything – ask them”. Is it the way to handle serious things? It is a matter, which is used to ruin the Russian-American relations. To answer the way, in which he did, I believe that it is not mature. It is very childish, I think. I think that the people, who are trying to dig something to prove that we have decided the future of the greatest country on Earth through some Internet agency, are ridiculous. I understand that the Democrats in the US are really quite nervous. I understand that the UK is nervous. There were leaks in the Times, saying that the Cabinet members are nervous that D.Trump and V.Putin might get along.

Question: So you do read the papers?

S.Lavrov: I read the extracts, which my people give me. I love reading papers with a cup of coffee, but do not always have time.

Question: Finally, on that point of kompromat. The ex-FBI Director J.Comey has said and I quote “it is possible that the current President of the United States was with prostitutes, peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013”. Do you think that this is possible?

S.Lavrov: Well, he said that this is possible, ask him.

Question: Do you think that this is possible? It has happened in Moscow allegedly.

S.Lavrov: I do not know what people can invent again. I think that I have read this story a couple of years ago, when all this started. Again, if people base the real policies vis-à-vis a country, state-to-state policies on the basis of “it is “possible”, on the basis of “highly likely”, this is shameful. I believe that what is being done in the context of the Russiagate in the US, as President V.Putin has repeatedly said, is the manifestation of deep domestic controversy, because the losers do not have the guts to accept that they have lost the elections.

Question: Foreign Minister, thank you very much.

S.Lavrov: Thank you.

 

نصرالله المنتصر

 

يونيو 30, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– بدا السيد حسن نصرالله في كلمته كمن يطوي صفحة من التاريخ ليفتح صفحة جديدة. فهو يضع النقاط على حروف الحكومة اللبنانية والتفاصيل الأمنية والسياسية كمنهج عادل ومنصف مع الذين هزمهم على قاعدة مواصلة العيش معاً، شرط ألا يأكل الفاجر مال التاجر، وألا يُملي المهزوم على المنتصر شروطاً يترفّع المنتصر عن إملائها، ويؤدّي التزامه نحو العراق ومقاوميه بعرفان وإكبار وتقدير واستعداد للشراكة في قرار الردّ على المعتدي، ويتلفّت صوب اليمن فيعلن خجل الكبار وتواضع العظماء، بنداء «يا ليتنا كنا معكم»، فذلك فخر كبير وشرف عظيم.

أما في سورية فالنصر الذي بذلت لأجله التضحيات الجسام بات في مطال اليد وأن تنتزعه ألاعيب الحديث عن تسويات وانسحابات، فحيث يكون الجيش السوري نكون، ولو لم نكن.

– يستعدّ السيد لصفحة جديدة يتفرّغ فيها لفلسطين، فتلك معركته التي لأجلها يقبل التنازلات في لبنان، ويخوض الحرب في سورية، وتفتح على المقاومة لحسابها حرب اليمن، وتجري محاولات العبث بالعراق وتوازناته، ويجري تضييق الخناق على إيران، وحرب فلسطين مقبلة لا ريب فيها، في حساب السيد، والأميركي الذي يُدير محركات صفقة القرن بسرعة يعبّر عن حقيقتين حاول جهده لتجاهلهما: الأولى أنّ الحروب الجانبية لتضييع القضية الفلسطينية، وتكسير حلف المقاومة، فاشلة ومحكوم عليها بالمزيد من الفشل، وبالتالي فعلى الأميركي أن يخوض الحرب مباشرة وتحت عنوانها الكبير، فلسطين. أما الحقيقة الثانية، فهي أنّ حلفاءه الذين نجح لحين بتنصيبهم وكلاء على القضية الفلسطينية لا يستطيعون أن يكونوا معه ومع فلسطين، ولأنه بحاجة لهم معه ومع كيان الاحتلال فقد آن الأوان لينسحبوا من جبهة فلسطين التي تمركزوا فيها لتخريبها وتشويهها والتحكم بمساراتها، وبات انحيازهم القادم علناً وبصورة لا لبس فيها إلى جانب كيان الاحتلال بداية مرحلة الصراع النقي والنظيف حول مستقبل فلسطين، حيث على الجميع حسم خياراتهم، أن يكونوا معها أو مع كيان الاحتلال. ولا يهمّ العدد هنا فهو مجرد أرقام، لا عدد الدول، ولا عدد القيادات، ولا كمّ المال، ولا السلاح. المهم هو زمن الفرز المقبل حول فلسطين.

– يثق السيد أنّ إيران أقوى من الأعاصير التي يعدّونها لها، وأنّ العراق وسورية واليمن والكثير من الشعوب والقوى ستكون جزءاً من جبهة فلسطين، وأنّ العالم وليس المنطقة فقط، على موعد مع هذا الانقسام بين جبهتي فلسطين وكيان الاحتلال، وأنّ المقاومة التي تتصدّر جبهة فلسطين تستعدّ للتفرّغ لهذا الاستحقاق. وأنّ هذه الحرب المقدّسة التي نذرت المقاومة لها نفسها ووجودها ودماء قادتها وشهدائها، ستعيد صياغة معادلات العالم والمنطقة، قياساً بما فعلته بعض فصول هذه الحرب في الطريق إليها، من التحرير في العام 2000 إلى النصر في تموز 2006، والحروب في سورية واليمن والعراق، وقد استولدت كلّ منها معادلات إقليمية ودولية جديدة، فكيف بأمّ الحروب وأصلها وأساسها عندما تصير وجهاً لوجه بين المتحاربين، الذين سيتقابلون بلا حواجز، كلّ بعنوانه الصريح، وحيث لا مجال للتسويات، فمنتصر مطلق ومهزوم مطلق. وعندها لن تكون النتائج فلسطينية فقط، بل سيصل دويّها إلى كلّ مكان في العالم.

– ليست صفقة العصر ولا صفقة القرن هي، بل الخطوة الأولى نحو حرب العصر وحرب القرن، والمنتصر يُملي شروطه على المهزوم، والمقاومة على عهدها، ولّى زمن الهزائم وبدأ زمن الانتصارات.

– على موعد التاريخ مع نصرالله المنتصر.

Related Videos

 

Related Articles

Imam Khamenei: The Revolution Is Lasting & Promising, US Desperately Seeks To Divide Iranians

30-06-2018 | 13:46

Leader of the Islamic Revolution His Eminence Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei attended the graduation ceremony of new cadets of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps [IRGC] at Imam Hussein University in Tehran.
 
Sayyed Ali Khamenei

In a speech he addressed at the celebration, Imam Khamenei stressed that:
“As a result of patience and piety, the hostile enemies, despite all their prepared cunning, won’t be able to do a thing.”

He further advised all the nation, in particular officials and managers of the Islamic society that “patience means keeping to aims and continuing involvement and active presence; it means considering far future goals.”

The Imam told the attendees that:
“Because you are resisting today, future generations will reach the climax of success; they will reach the climax, but dignity and resistance are yours.”

“The revolution is lasting and promising in case of patience and piety,” the Imam stressed.

“If patience and piety are practiced by our dear youth, government officials and all the people, the enemy will by no means be able to damage you.”

Commenting on the US economic pressure on Iran, the Imam considered that they are in a bid to sow discord among the nation and the government, but such efforts will be futile.

“The enemy’s plan is to create gaps and separations between the establishment and the people, and this design reflects their stupidity because they do not know that the Islamic Republic is nothing but the Iranian nation and these two cannot be separated,” the Imam said Saturday.

“The purpose of the current economic pressures is to make people fed up, but with divine power, we will increase our bond with the people day by day, and by preserving our coherence, we will strengthen the faithful, proactive and proactive youth,” Imam Khamenei said.
Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team
Related Videos

Related Articles

Trump’s Policies & the ‘True Face’ of America

Darko Lazar

30-06-2018 | 09:02

In February of last year, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei thanked US President Donald Trump for finally revealing Washington’s “true face”.

Donald Trump

“What we have been saying, for over thirty years, about political, economic, moral, and social corruption within the US ruling establishment, he [Trump] came out and exposed,” Sayyed Khamenei told a group of Iranian Air Force commanders on February 7, 2017. “With everything he is doing … he is showing the reality of American human rights.”

In the months that followed, Trump has been busy pulling back the curtain.

Between filling his cabinet with warmongering neocons like John Bolton and pairing up with hawkish generals and shady billionaires, the Trump administration also found time to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council (HRC).

Citing alleged anti-“Israel” bias, the US will be the first state to leave the UN body voluntarily.

“For too long, the human rights council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias,” exclaimed the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, earlier this month.

One can be forgiven for thinking that this reads a little too much like a bit of soul-searching on the part of the American government.

But while Washington’s exit from the HRC can certainly be described as ironic, the move is hardly surprising.

The ill-timed maneuver came as American border guards ripped apart families, and Washington assisted allies in massacring tens of thousands in Yemen, all the while defending the killing of unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza.

According to US-based peace activist Scott Rickard, “the Human Rights Council should have been considering ejecting the United States based upon its human rights violations.”

“In the United States we have one of the most atrocious human rights records; we have almost ten thousand people a year being killed by police officers,” Rickard added. “At the same time, the United States is heavily involved in warfare around the world, murdering millions in my lifetime alone.”

‘Murderers & thieves’

In the lead-up to the US withdrawal from the Council, the outgoing UN human rights chief, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, blasted the Trump White House for its “unconscionable” policy along the US border with Mexico.

Zeid was referring to the Trump administration’s recently abolished effort to dissuade illegal migrants from crossing the border by separating children from their parents and dispatching them to detention centers with no assurances that they would ever be reunited.

“The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable,” Zeid said during his opening remarks to the HRC’s 38th session this month.

Trump attempted to justify his immigration policy by citing concerns over ‘security and safety’.

Recently, he was quoted as saying that those who sneak across the border “could be murderers and thieves and so much else.”

Such comments, much like the mass outrage by Trump’s critics at home who are often complicit in the slaughter of Yemeni and Syria children, are intended to disguise the fact that the asylum seekers are fleeing the very violence and chaos that the US instigated.

“The president has to realize what a hundred years of US policy towards Central and South America has caused,” said radio talk show host Robert Patillo.

“US efforts to destabilize governments, US efforts to set up puppet dictators – that’s why we have this level of crime and this dysfunction in Central America,” Patillo explains.

For puppet dictators, look no further than Saudi Arabia.

The kingdom, which remains the source of the Takfiri ideology, fueling global terrorism and the country of origin of 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 has somehow stayed off of Trump’s travel ban from seven countries.

This week, the US Supreme Court upheld the ban, arguing that it had a “legitimate grounding in national security concerns” and was thus constitutional.

Trump’s ban, which is breathtaking in scope and inflammatory in tone, extends to North Korea, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Venezuela.

And while Saudi nationals are responsible for the deaths of more than 2,360 people as a result of terrorist attacks on US soil, the countries covered by Trump’s ban are responsible for none. 

Journalist and political commentator Syed Mohsin Abbas believes that “those Muslims who are the lackeys and the puppets of the US foreign policies, who freely give their recourses to the US and who don’t oppose the US’ imperialist policies in the Middle East are not banned.”

Abbas describes the ban as a “direct attack against any nation in the world who dares to stand up to the US” with Iran being one of the primary targets.

American Civil War 2.0

The policies of the Trump administration are as much a reflection of a deeply polarized United States, as they are an indication of the responsibility that the powers that be bear for instigating those very same divisions.

A new poll testifies to just how divided the American public has become over issues like immigration, declaring that some 31% of the population believes a second civil war is likely in the next five years.

The Rasmussen national telephone and online survey revealed that uncompromising accusations of fascism and an alleged desire for open borders have raised fears in the US over the possibility of an armed confrontation between Trump’s supporters and those opposed to his policies.

And in light of the manner in which the current political climate in the country has drawn the curtain to reveal the hitherto well-concealed, callous visage of American society, any suggestion that this previously unthinkable scenario now appears far more likely holds water indeed.

Source: Al-Ahed

The Era of domination: a new weapons in new Technopolis, by Ruslan Ostashko

Translated and subtitled by Scott Humor

On June 25, Vladimir Putin signed a decree giving a green light to the creation of a new military innovative Technopolis in Anapa.

(Anapa is a resort town on the Black Sea coast. S.H.)

The object has been dubbed the “Era.” What kind of era awaits Russian military technology in the near future? A conversation on this topic might be interesting.

Click CC button for English subtitles.

On June 25, Vladimir Putin signed a decree giving a green light to the creation of a new military innovative Technopolis in Anapa.

(Anapa is a resort town on the Black Sea coast. S.H.)

The object has been dubbed the “Era.” What kind of era awaits Russian military technology in the near future? A conversation on this topic might be interesting.

In Stanisław Lem’s remarkable novel “Peace on Earth,” the main character reads a book titled “The tendency of unhumanization in 21st century weapon systems, or  Evolution upside down.” It is about a phenomenon that for Lem’s character was a work of the past, and for us – has yet to come.

Here’s a short quote for you:

“Intellectronics produced microcomputers as cheap as grass,  and neuroentomology finally solved the riddle of social insects who live and work together, communicating in their own language, even so bees, for example, have a nervous system 380,000 times smaller than a human brain.

The intelligence of a bee is quite sufficient for a foot soldier, as military prowess and intelligence are two different things, at least on the battlefield.

The major factor in the push for miniaturization was an atom bomb.”

 

We, living in the twenty first century, have not yet had a chance to observe success of intellectronica and neuroentomology . Moreover, even in the most advanced areas of science – like robotics – the military has yet to make some success in shifting the burden of warfare unto machines. Earlier, domestic media reported on problems discovered during battle testing of new Russian anti-tank robot Uranus-9 in Syria. Military experts have found flaws and deficiencies with systems of mobility, firepower, command, supervisory and intelligence functions of this combat robot. In addition, in a state of autonomous movement Uranus-9 revealed a low reliability of its running gear, guides and rollers, as well as suspension springs. The robot also showed unstable operation of its 30-mm automatic gun, untimely fire triggering circuits and failure of the thermal optical sight station. In addition, military experts believe that inability to fire in motion to be the U-9 great disadvantage. As follows from the materials, the robot is capable to conduct reconnaissance and determine targets at a distance of not more than two kilometers. In addition, there are questions concerning vision, surveillance devices and operator’s screens.

With so many problems here, no one is even talking about some kind of miniature weapons. Take drones, for example. They are not yet so tiny as to escape from air defense and to be stealth, like bees.

If you’re still listening at this point, you may be wondering what Russia’s new military innovative Technopolis Era have to do with it?

The answer: If you bring up the text of the Presidential decree to create this project, you can find the following paragraph:

“To entrust the general management of the Technopolis research projects to the president of the federal state budgetary institution the national research center “Kurchatov Institute.

In case you forgot, Kurchatov Institute’s main specialty is physics.

It’s key objectives and sphere of research today are the development of safe nuclear power, controlled thermonuclear fusion and plasma processes, nuclear physics of low and mean field energies, solid state physics and superconductivity, and meson chemistry. Kurchatov Institute carries fundamental and applied research in other fields, like in  element base of quantum informatics and microelectronics. Physics, however, is still a priority for them.

And it’s under the leadership of the head of such powerful scientific institution that the young minds will be working in the field of military technologies.

Maybe Lem was wrong, at least with regard to our country, and the Ministry of Defense sees the prospects for new weapons development not in miniature robots that can burrow down into earth to wait out a nuclear explosion?

What if it was another writer who said it right, our compatriot Mikhail Yuriev. He created a very controversial novel “The Third Empire” where he stated that Russia defeated the USA with the help of and energy field. Here’s what he wrote:

“… The mechanism of action of this Russian miracle-shield is unknown even now, more than thirty years later.

That is to say that our scientists have long understood that the general principle of its work is a generation of a field related to so-called weak field, which changes certain parameters inside the atomic nuclei and therefore makes radioactive elements completely stable (albeit, only while the generator is running).

Accordingly, plutonium or uranium while inside this field cannot undergo a radioactive decay, and, in particularly, an explosion.”

 

I am not a physicist, and I cannot say whether the effect described by Yuriev is possible. However, even if I were a physicist, it’s not a fact that I would be able to tell. Still, there is a certain paradigm among our scientific community, the consistency of opinions when it comes to important fundamental issues. It is often possible to discover something new only by being outside of this paradigm, without being constrained by its framework. Maybe this is the purpose of creating a military Technopolis “Era”? To get together young people who are able to look at some important issues without some kind of horse blinders on their eyes and to brainstorm some revolutionary scientific ideas.

What do you think?

We still do not know who and how created the strategic missile system Avangard reported by President Putin in his address to the Federal Assembly on March 1st. It will probably take us next 50 years to find out. Since the military-political leadership of Russia is creating a new Technopolis, it means that it holds certain hopes. Hopes that are clearly not tactical, but of far-reaching strategic nature. At this moment, the United States can no longer afford an attack on our country that would be successful, and would not end in mutually assured destruction, but it is necessary to maintain our advantage in the future.

That’s why we need projects like the Era.

Who knows what the President of our country feels signing decrees for creation of this and similar technopolises? Maybe, as a character from one of the brothers Strugatskys’ novels, who gathered together scientists on some hostile planet, so they could forge a better future for themselves and their compatriots?

“And in almost every room, office or a lab were pictures of the Time Wanderer: on desks, beside tables and charts, on the wall between windows, above the doors, sometimes lying under the glass covering a desk.

These were amateur photographs, drawings in pencil or charcoal, one portrait was even painted with oil paint.

Here you can see the Wanderer, playing with a ball, Wanderer, giving a lecture, the Wanderer, chewing an apple, a Wanderer brooding, tired, angry, and even Wanderer bursting into  laugher.

These s.o.b.s even drew cartoons of him and hung them in the most prominent places!

The prosecutor demonstrated as he entered the office of the junior counselor of justice and found a caricature of himself.

It was unimaginable, impossible!”

 

Does Putin look like a “progressor” dispatched to us from a more developed civilization? Such a progressor who thinks that we should reach the new heights all by ourselves. The way a snail climbs mount Fuji slope. First, we got new weapons that protect us from attempts to “democratize” us, then –we will develop other sources of energy, then – a better social system. Every time I hear about creation in our country of a new point of growth like this Technopolis, I recall Putin’s words “everything is going to be fine.”

How does he know?

I know what you are going to say now: he has Yumashev, as his adviser, and Medvedev for a prime minister.

(A little known fact that Yumashev was the one who persuaded Yeltsin to step down. S.H.)

Yeah, I don’t really like it, either.

Many didn’t like Serdyukov, but the new army is here, fortifying Crimea and Kaliningrad, finishing off the bearded bustards in Syria.

It’s the vector of movement which is important.

And, if it will become unacceptable for us, we will correct it.

————————–

Scott Humor,

the Director of Research and Development

My research of the war on Donbass is available at the saker.community book store

The War on Donbass, which is called by the Western politicians and media the “Russian aggression in Ukraine” was a staged psyop.

My illustrated investigation titled Pokémon in Ukraine reveals how this psyop was staged, by whom and why.

YEMENI NAVY FOILS LANDING ATTEMPT OF SAUDI-LED COALITION NEAR AL-HUDAYDAH

South Front

30.06.2018

Yemeni Navy Foils Landing Attempt Of Saudi-led Coalition Near Al-Hudaydah

Illustrative image

On June 29, units of the Yemeni Navy [loyal to the Houthis] foiled an a landing of the Saudi-led coalition on the western coast of Yemen, according to the Yemeni Saba News Agency (NSA). A source in the Yemeni Navy told SNA that coalition naval forces suffered from “catastrophic loses” during the failed landing attempt.

The pro-Houthis news agency said that the Yemeni Navy knew in advance of the Saudi-led coalition plans thanks to credible intelligence. SNA added that coalition naval forces used “advance boats” in the landing attempt, but the Yemeni Navy was able to detect them.

Earlier this month, the Houthis foiled a similar attempt of the Saudi-led coalition navy to land troops near the coastal city of al-Hudaydah. Back then, the Yemeni Navy hit a landing ship of the coalition with two anti-ship missiles, killing four personnel of the UAE Navy including an officer.

The Saudi-led coalition will likely decrease its naval activity along the western coast of Yemen after this failed attack. However, the coalition air force may intensify its operations against the Yemeni Navy.

Related videos

Related Articles

صفقة القرن: مشروع سياسي أم تموضع استراتيجي؟

يونيو 28, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– لا يمكن النظر لما يدور من تحضير وترويج وتمهيد تحت مسمّى صفقة القرن أو صفقة العصر، والمقصود الرؤية التي تتبناها إدارة الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب لحلّ القضية الفلسطينية بذعر، مردّه الانطلاق من أنّ مجرد تلاقي واشنطن وتل أبيب ومعهما الرياض وعدد من العواصم العربية على صيغة لتصفية القضية الفلسطينية، قوامها تثبيت احتلال القدس وإنهاء عودة اللاجئين، يعني نهاية هذه القضية، أو يعني أنّ المحور المعادي لمحور المقاومة يستردّ أنفاسه ويستعيد زمام المبادرة وينتقل إلى الهجوم المعاكس، ودون ذلك الكثير من العقبات والتعقيدات التي يحكيها الميدان في ساحات المواجهة كلها بين قوى محور المقاومة والمحور الذي تقوده واشنطن. وحيث الكفة الراجحة لا تزال تسجل المزيد من الانتصارات لحساب محور المقاومة، كما لا يمكن التعامل مع هذا المشروع باستخفاف يضعه في منزلة المشاريع الكلامية التي لا قيمة لها على أرض الواقع، في حين يبدو أنّ تحوّلاً في العلاقات العربية – «الإسرائيلية» يسجل كلّ يوم جديداً لصالح التطبيع. فالتحالف العلني بين تل أبيب وعدد من العواصم العربية وفي طليعتها الرياض، وتستهدف صفقة القرن إسباغ الشرعية على هذه التحوّلات وتزخيمها لتحويلها حلفاً جديداً في الجغرافيا السياسية للمنطقة، يعلن نهاية الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي بالتوافق على خيار سياسي في مواجهته، ولو كان هذا الخيار غامضاً بصورة تحفظ ماء وجه الشريك العربي وتخفي الالتزامات الممنوحة لـ»إسرائيل» على حساب القضية الفلسطينية، لكنها تضمن الذهاب إلى أعلى درجات التنسيق العربي «الإسرائيلي»، للتعايش مع ملف هامشي هو القضية الفلسطينية، والتفرّغ لملف رئيسي مشترك هو الصراع مع قوى محور المقاومة، وعلى رأسها إيران.

– أيّ مناقشة في السياسة لعنوان صفقة القرن توصل إلى الاستغراب، لأنها صفقة يغيب عنها الشريك المعني. وهو الشريك الفلسطيني الفاعل الذي يتحقق بوجوده منح الصفقة صفة واقعية، وبغيابه تفتقد الصفقة صفة الصفقة أصلاً، ولا يبدو في الأفق أنّ هذا الشريك سيكون سهلاً إيجاده في ظلّ الطبيعة الفاضحة في تنكّرها لأبسط الحقوق التي يجمع عليها الفلسطينيون ومعهم أغلب دول العالم. ولهذا تجب مناقشة المشروع في الاستراتيجيا، وليس في السياسة، حيث كان شرط الإشهار الأميركي لتبنّي الرؤية «الإسرائيلية» لحلّ القضية الفلسطينية، هو التخلص من قوى المقاومة وتحقيق نصر حاسم عليها، ولأجل هذا الشرط خيضت الحروب كلّها منذ العام 2000، وجرى تأجيل نقل السفارة الأميركية إلى القدس منذ أن تمّ إقراره بقانون عام 1998، والسير بعكس ما كان معمولاً به في الماضي يعني شيئاً واحداً هو العجز عن تحقيق ما كان مأمولاً به في هذا الماضي، لكن القرار بإدارة الظهر لما هو سياسي والتفرّغ لمواجهة ما هو استراتيجي، ولو بدون خريطة طريق واضحة، بل بإعلان خط الاشتباك والإضاءة عليه والتفرّغ لحشد القوى في مواجهته، فتصير لـ»صفقة القرن» صلة بالانسحاب الأميركي من التفاهم النووي مع إيران لوقوعهما في المنزلة ذاتها تحت عنوان الانتقال من السياسي إلى الاستراتيجي. ففي الحالتين، لا تملك واشنطن وتل أبيب أيّ بدائل سياسية لما يتمّ الانسحاب منه، ولا تبدو الحرب خياراً واقعياً بديلاً، ولا تبدو عروض التسوية صالحة للتداول بالشروط المعلن عنها أميركياً لكلّ من القضية الفلسطينية والملف النووي الإيراني، فقانون الصراع هو الحاكم ولو من دون خطة واضحة للتعامل مع المتغيّرات والوقائع.

– جولة جديدة من الصراع بلا أفق واضح تريدها واشنطن، ضمن معادلة إنكار الحقائق الجديدة، التي يشكّل التسليم بها وضع «إسرائيل» والسعودية على خط الانكسار الاستراتيجي، عبر التسليم الموازي باليد العليا لمحور المقاومة في معادلات المنطقة، والسعي للتسويات الواقعية والمؤقتة معه في هذا الطريق الذي بدا واضحاً خلال السنوات الأخيرة من الحرب في سورية. كما بدت عملية العودة إلى مربع الصراع الرئيسي، من موقع تسوية الخلافات بين أطراف الحلفاء، تركيا ومصر من جهة، السعودية والإمارات وقطر من جهة مقابلة، تحالف تكون «إسرائيل» في قلبه يضمّ بداية دول الخليج أملاً بأن تتسع الدائرة تدريجاً، وزيادة غير مسبوقة للعقوبات على إيران أملاً بتصدّع يصيب تماسكها وعناصر قوّتها وحيوية قدرتها على دعم قوى المقاومة. هو تموضع جديد في المنطقة، القضية الفلسطينية فيه ليست إلا العنوان، ولا وهم لدى أصحاب هذا التموضع بقدرتهم على تقديم حلّ قابل للتطبيق واقعياً، بقدر إشهار نياتهم معاً بأنّ هذه القضية لم تعُد من أولوياتهم، وأنّ وقوعها ضمن أولويات محور المقاومة يجعل الاشتباك مع دول وقوى هذا المحور هو الأولوية.

– النجاح والفشل لا يُقاسان هنا بالقدرة على تقديم حلّ قابل للحياة للقضية الفلسطينية ومناقشة هذه الفرضية، بل بالقدرة على تهميش القضية الفلسطينية من جدول أولويات المنطقة، لحساب أولوية جديدة، هي الصراع مع إيران وقوى المقاومة. والتحدّي هنا هو في سباق مع الزمن بين مَن يثبت أنّ أولويته هي الحاكمة لصراعات المنطقة، وأنّ هذه الأولوية قادرة على استدراج خصومه لحرب استنزاف لا يملكون صموداً في وجهها. السباق يبدأ على إظهار مَن هو الأقدر على فرض الاستقطاب حول أولويته في المنطقة كجدول أعمال حاكم على قواها وحكوماتها وشعوبها، ومَن يثبت أنه الأقدر على الصمود في مواجهة الاشتباك المفروض عليه، بانتظار أن يفرض أولويته هو على الآخرين، هل تصمد إيران وقوى المقاومة بوجه العزل والعقوبات والاصطفافات الجديدة والتحالفات الوليدة، حتى يصير الصراع حول فلسطين هو العنوان في المنطقة؟ وفي المقابل، هل تصمد «إسرائيل» والسعودية أمام حروب الاستنزاف حتى يصير الصراع مع إيران هو قضية المنطقة؟ هذه هي المعادلة التي يضع الاختبار حولها مشروع «صفقة القرن».

Related Videos

Related Articles

واشنطن تستبق معارك الشمال بقمّة هلسنكي

يونيو 29, 2018

ناصر قنديل

-بمثل ما تأتي القمة الأميركية الروسية تعبيراً عن تحوّل أنتج قراراً أميركياً بجعل القمة استحقاقاً ممكن التحقيق، وهو دائماً كان ممكناً من الزاوية الروسية، وبمثل ما يعبّر هذا التحوّل عن استنفاد الرهانات على إنتاج تغييرات تحملها الانتخابات في لبنان والعراق، أو تغييرات ميدانية في اليمن، أو ضمان منح صفقة القرن فرصة واقعية بتوافر شريك فلسطيني فاعل لتحدث التحوّلات المرجوة منها، فهي ليست تعبيراً عن حاجة راهنة وداهمة في توقيتها على الأميركيين في أيّ من هذه الملفات، التي يمكن التعاطي معها بالواسطة، أو بمتابعة الاستثمار على خيارات الاستنزاف بلا أكلاف صعبة، خصوصاً أنّ الملف الإيراني الذي يربطها جميعاً، يقوم على الحاجة لمزيد من الوقت وفقاً للحسابات الأميركية لتأثير العقوبات، بينما لا يبدو الملف الكوري أمام اختراقات راهنة نوعية تحتاج الإحاطة والرعاية بتفاهم مسبق مع موسكو.

-بالتأكيد سيمنح انعقاد القمة فرصة لفتح مجال للتعاون والحوار والتفاوض والتشارك في الكثير من الملفات التي ينخرط الأميركيون والروس فيها كلّ من زاوية، لكن توقيتها الداهم لم تملِه أيّ من هذه الملفات، بقدر ما تمليه التطورات المتسارعة في سورية، والتي لا يمكن عزل تأثيراتها عن سائر ساحات المواجهة، وصناعة موازين القوى فيها، إلا إذا تمّت إحاطة المتغيّرات السورية بإطار سياسي يعزلها عن سائر الملفات المتداخلة معها، والأهمّ أنّ الروزنامة السورية لا تمنح وقتاً للتجميد. ويعرف الأميركيون من قرار الحسم في الجنوب، أنّ الخطوة التالية ستكون الشمال. وفي الشمال لا توجد فرص للتملص من ثنائية التسليم بالهزيمة والانكفاء أو التورّط في مواجهة لا تعلم نتائجها ولا تداعياتها.

-تعرف واشنطن أنها لم تبلغ الجماعات المسلحة بألا يعتمدوا عليها في حرب الجنوب، كرم أخلاق أو احتراماً للسيادة السورية، بل تفادياً للمواجهة التي لا تريدها وتعرف تبعاتها، كما تعرف أنّ استقرار الوضع في الجنوب لن يتحقق ما بقيت قاعدة التنف، وتعرف أنّ إسرائيل باتت تسلّم مثلها بالعجز عن منع المسار الذي فرضته الدولة السورية، لكن واشنطن تعرف أنها لا تستطيع فعل الشيء نفسه في الشمال دون أن تظهر هزيمتها مدوّية، إلا إذا استبقت معارك الشمال بتفاهمات سياسية، على مستوى يُوحي بأنها كدولة عظمى ترعى حلولاً كبرى، وأن من ضمن هذه الحلول ضمان ما يتصل بالمصالح الأميركية، وهي هنا مصير الوجود الإيراني في سورية، بصورة تتيح الإيحاء بأنّ واشنطن تقبل الانسحاب لأنها أنجزت المهمة، أو تربط انسحابها بهذا الإنجاز.

-قمة هلسنكي نتاج مباشر لروزنامة الحسم السوري المتسارع. ستسعى خلالها واشنطن على مقايضة انسحابها بإنجاز إعلامي لن يكون واقعياً قابلاً للتطبيق بحكم حجم الحلف الإيراني السوري ومرونته وعمقه، تحت عنوان انسحاب إيران من سورية، لكنه حتى إعلامياً يبدو كافياً لحفظ ماء الوجه، وعزل التداعيات عن سائر الساحات، عبر التسليم لموسكو بالدور المرجعي في الحلّ السياسي في سورية، والتسليم بقاعدة هذا الحلّ تحت عنوان سورية موحّدة برئيسها وجيشها، والرهان على تسويق الإنجاز الإعلامي كإنجاز واقعي يخدم المعركة الكبرى التي تخوضها واشنطن تحت شعار عزل إيران والمقاومة ممثلة بحزب الله وإضعافهما.

-قد لا ينتبه الأميركيون إلى أنّ إيران وحزب الله ينتظران ومعهم كلّ قوى المقاومة لحظة نهوض سورية ونصرها، وخروج الأميركيين منها، ليحتفلوا بإنجاز تاريخي بدا في لحظات الحرب القاسية حلماً صعب المنال، ولن تُحجَب الشمس بالغربال.

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

THE SAKER: “NO 5TH COLUMN IN THE KREMLIN? THINK AGAIN!”

 South Front

29.06.2018

Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at The Unz Review

Following the re-appointment of Medvedev and his more or less reshuffled government, the public opinion in Russia and abroad was split on whether this was a good sign of continuity and unity amongst the Russian leadership or whether this was a confirmation that there was a 5th column inside the Kremlin working against President Putin and trying to impose neo-liberal and pro-western policies on the Russian people. Today I want to take a quick look at what is taking place inside Russia because I believe that the Russian foreign policy is still predominantly controlled by what I call the “Eurasian Sovereignists” and that to detect the activities of the “Atlantic Integrationist” types we need to look at what is taking place inside Russia.

The Russian 5th column and its typical operations

First, I want to begin by sharing with you a short video translated by the Saker Community of one of the most astute Russian analysts, Ruslan Ostashko, who wonders how it is that a rabidly pro-western and vociferously anti-Putin radio station named “Ekho Moskvy” manages not only to elude normal Russian legislation, but even gets money from the gaz giant Gazprom, which is majority owned by the Russian state. Ekho Moskvy is also so pro-Israeli that it has earned the nickname “Ekho Matsy” (Ekho Moskvy means “Echo of Moscow” whereas “Ekho Matsy” means “Echo of the Matzo”). Needless to say, that radio has the unwavering and total support of the US Embassy. It would not be an exaggeration to say Ekho Moskvy serves as an incubator for russophobic journalists and that most of the liberal pro-western reporters in the Russian media have been, at one time or another, associated with this propaganda outfit. In spite of this or, more accurately, because of this, Ekho Moskvy has been bankrupt for quite a while already, and yet – it continues to exist. Just listen to Ostashko’s explanations (and make sure to press the ‘cc’ button to see the English language captions):

Interesting, no? The state giant Gazprom is doing all it can to keep Ekho Moskvy afloat and above the law. In fact, Gazprom has been financing Ekho Moskvy for years! According to the hyper-politically-correct Wikipedia: “As of 2005 Echo of Moscow was majority owned by Gazprom Media which holds 66% of its shares”. If Gazprom is majority owned by the Russian state, and Ekho Moskvy is majority owned by Gazprom, then does that not mean that Ekho Moskvy is basically financed by the Kremlin? The reality is even worse, as Ostashko points out, Ekho Moskvy is the most visible case, but there are quite a few pro-western media outlets in Russia which are financed, directly and indirectly, by the Russian state.

So let me ask you a simple question: do you really think that Ostashko is better informed than the Russian authorities, including Putin himself?

Of course not! So what is going on here?

Before attempting to answer this question, let’s look at another interesting news item from Russia, the recent article “Pension reform as a fifth column tool to overthrow Putin” (original title “About a fair pension system”) by Mikhail Khazin translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard from the Stalker Zone blog (and cross-posted here and here). Please read the full article as it sheds a very interesting light on what the Medvedev government has been up to since it was reappointed. What I want to quote here are Mikhail Khazin’s conclusions: (emphasis added)

In other words, all of this reform is frank poppycock, a political joke aimed at destroying relations between the People (society) and the Authorities. The specific aim of this is to overthrow Putin, as our liberals are commanded to do by their senior partners from the “Western” global project. And it is precisely like this that we should treat this reform. It has no relation to economic reforms – neither good, nor bad. It not an economic reform, but a political plot! And it is from here that we have to proceed.

Having explained what is really going on, Khazin then goes on to openly state how such an operation is even possible:

Now concerning the media. It should be understood that at the end of the 90’s-beginning of the 2000’s practically all non-liberal media died. Completely. And of course, practically all non-liberal journalists definitely died (only a few dozen mastodons from the times of socialism remain). And the youth that grew from the faculty of journalism are in general totally liberal. They were a little bit suppressed in the middle of the 2000’s, but after Medvedev’s arrival to the president’s post they again blossomed. But then the attack of the State on everything that doesn’t reflect “the policies of the party and the government” began.

And then it so happened that now there are many “patriotic” publications in Russia that employ mainly liberal journalists. An enchanting sight. These journalists (in full accordance with the ideas of Lenin that they didn’t read) see their main task as supporting “theirs” – i.e., liberal-financiers, Nemtsov, Navalny and, so on, and to sully the “bloody KayGeeBee”! And it is this that they are involved in, meaning that, propagandising as much as possible the policies of the government, they optimally irritate the population by using Putin personally. There is just a need every time to act out some disgusting story (how an elderly man died on the way to the polyclinic or hospital, how children were taken away from a large family, how an official or a priest hit a pregnant woman and/or juvenile children with their chic car), to explain that this isn’t just the result of the policies of the liberal power, but the concrete fault of the President, who put on their posts the very ministers and law enforcement officers who encourage all of this.

Amazing, no? This is an attempt to overthrow Putin and it is covered-up by the (pseudo) patriotic press. What about Putin himself? Why does he not take action? Khazin even explains that:

Of course, the President is guilty, first of all, because he understands that if he starts to cleanse this “Augean stable”, then he will be obliged to shed blood, because they won’t voluntarily give back their privileges. But the most important thing, and this is the essence: the liberal Russian elite today set for itself the political task of removing Putin. Why it decided to do this is an interesting question: if Putin himself and a liberal are flesh from flesh, then this task is stupid and senseless. Not to mention suicidal. But if he isn’t a liberal (it is probably correct to say not a political liberal) then, of course, this activity makes sense. But at the same time, for purely propaganda reasons – because people hate liberals, there is a need to hang the label of political liberal on him.

Now let’s connect all the dots: there is a pro-western (in realty, western-controlled) faction inside the government which is financing those who are attempting to overthrow Putin by making him unpopular with the Russian general public (which overwhelmingly opposes “liberal” economic policies and which despises the Russian liberal elites) by constantly forcing him into liberal economic policies which he clearly does not like (he declared himself categorically opposed to such policies in 2005) and the so-called “patriotic media” is covering it all up. And Putin cannot change this without shedding blood.

But let us assume, for argument’s sake, that Putin is really a liberal at heart and he believes in “Washington Consensus” type of economics. Even if this was the case, surely he must be aware that 92% of Russians oppose this so-called “reform”. And while the President’s spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, declared that Putin himself was not associated with this plan, the truth is that this process does also hurt his political image with the Russian people and political movements. As a direct result from these plans, the Communist Party of Russia is launching a referendum against this project while the “Just Russia” Party is now collecting signatures to dismiss the entire government. Clearly, a political struggle of monumental proportions is in the making and the traditionally rather lame internal opposition to Putin (I am talking about the major political movements and parties, not tiny CIA-supported and/or Soros-funded “NGOs”) is now transforming itself into a much more determined kind of opposition. I predicted thatabout a month ago when I wrote that:

“it is quite clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed, really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin (again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension. For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It will be interesting to see if Putin’s personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition”

Those who vehemently denied that there as a real 5th column problem inside the Kremlin are going to have a painful wake-up call when they realize that thanks to the actions of these “liberals” a patriotic opposition is gradually emerging, not so much against Putin himself as against the policies of the Medvedev government. Why not against Putin?

Because most Russian instinctively feel what is going on and understand not only the anti-Putin dynamics at work, but also how and why this situation was created. Furthermore, unlike most westerners, most Russians remember what took place in the crucial and formative 1990s.

The historical roots of the problem (very rough summary)

It all began in the late 1980s when the Soviet elites realized that they were losing control of the situation and that something had to be done. To really summarize what they did, I would say that these elites first broke up the country into 15 individual fiefdoms each run by gang/clan composed of these Soviet elites, then they mercilessly grabbed everything of any value, became overnight billionaires and concealed their money in the West. Being fabulously rich in a completely ruined country gave them fantastic political power and influence to further exploit and rob the country of all its resources. Russia herself (and the other 14 ex-Soviet republics) suffered an unspeakable nightmare comparable to a major war and by the 1990s Russia almost broke-up into many more even smaller pieces (Chechnia, Tatarstan, etc.). By then, Russia was subserviently executing all the economic policies recommended by a myriad of US ‘advisors’ (hundreds of them with offices inside the offices of many key ministries and various state agencies, just like today in the Ukraine), she adopted a Constitution drafted by pro-US elements, and all the key positions in the state were occupied by what I can only call western agents. At the very top, President Eltsin was mostly drunk while the country was run by 7 bankers, the so-called “oligarchs” (6 of which were Jews): the “Semibankirshchina”.

This is the time when the Russian security services successfully tricked these oligarchs into believing that Putin, who has a law degree and who had worked for the (very liberal) Mayor of Saint Petersburg (Anatolii Sobchack) was just a petty bureaucrat who would restore a semblance of order while not presenting any real threat to the oligarchs. The ploy worked, but the business elites demanded that “their” guy, Medvedev, be put in charge of the government so as to preserve their interests. What they overlooked was two things: Putin was a truly brilliant officer of the very elite First Chief Directorate (Foreign Intelligence) of the KGB and a real patriot. Furthermore, the Constitution, which was passed to support the Eltsin regime could now be used by Putin. But more than anything else, they never predicted that a little guy in an ill-fitting suit would transform himself into one of the most popular leaders on the planet. As I have written many times, while the initial power base of Putin was in the security services and the armed forces and while his legal authority stems from the Constitution, his *real* power comes from the immense support he has from the Russian people who, for the first time in very long time felt that the man at the top truly represented their interests.

Putin then did what Donald Trump could have done as soon as he entered the White House: he cleaned house. He began by immediately tackling the oligarchs, he put an end to the Semibankirshchina, and he stopped the massive export of money and resources out of Russia. The then proceeded to rebuild the “vertical of power” (the Kremlin’s control over the country) and began rebuilding all of Russia from the foundations (regions) up. But while Putin was tremendously successful, he simply could not fight on all fronts at the same time and win.

Truth be told, he did eventually win most of the battles which he chose to fight, but some battles he simply could not wage, not because of a lack of courage or will on his part, but because the objective reality is that Putin inherited an extremely bad system fully controlled by some extremely dangerous foes. Remember the words of Khazin above: “if he starts to cleanse this “Augean stable”, then he will be obliged to shed blood, because they won’t voluntarily give back their privileges”. So, in a typically Putin fashion, he made a number of deals.

For example, those oligarchs who agreed to stop meddling in Russian politics and who would, from now on, pay taxes and generally abide by the law were not jailed or expropriated: those who got the message were allowed to continue to work as normal businessmen (Oleg Deripaska) and those who did not were either jailed or exiled (Khodorkovski, Berezovski). But if we look just below the level of these well-known and notorious oligarchs, what we find as a much deeper “swamp” (to use the US expression): an entire class of people who made their fortunes in the 1990s, who are now extremely influential and control most of the key positions in the economy, finance and business and who absolutely hate and fear Putin. They even have their agents inside the armed forces and security services because their weapon of choice is, of course, corruption and influence. And, of course, they have people representing their interests inside the Russian government: pretty much the entire “economic block” of the Medvedev government.

Is it really any surprise at all that these people also have their paid representatives inside the Russian media, including the so-called “pro-Russian” or “patriotic” media? (I have been warning about this since at least 2015)

Just like in the West, in Russia the media depends first and foremost on money. Big financial interests are very good at using the media to promote their agenda, deny or obfuscate some topics while pushing others. This is why you often see the Russian media backing WTO/WB/IMF/etc policies to the hilt while never criticizing Israel or, God forbid, rabidly pro-Israel propagandists on mainstream TV (guys like Vladimir Soloviev, Evgenii Satanovsky, Iakov Kedmi, Avigdor Eskin and many others). This is the same media which will gladly criticize Iran and Hezbollah but never wonder why the Russian main TV stations are spewing pro-Israeli propaganda on a daily basis.

And, of course, they will all mantrically repeat the same chant: “there is no 5th column in Russia!! None!! Never!!”

This is no different than the paid for corporate media in the USA which denies the existence of a “deep state” or the US “Israel Lobby”.

And yet, many (most?) people in the USA and Russia realize at an almost gut-level that they are being lied to and that, in reality, a hostile power is ruling over them.

Putin’s options and possible outcomes

Sadly, in the USA, Trump proved to be a disaster who totally caved in to the Neocons and their demands. In Russia, the situation is far more complex. So far, Putin has very skillfully avoided associating himself with the Atlantic Integrationists. Furthermore, the biggest crises of the past decade or so were all associated with foreign policy issues and those are still controlled by the Eurasian Sovereignists. Finally, while the Russian government clearly committed some mistakes or promoted some unpopular policies (such has healthcare reform for example), they also had their undeniable successes. As for Putin, he continued to consolidate his power and he gradually removed some of the most notorious individuals from their positions. In theory, Putin could probably have most top Atlantic Integrationists arrested on corruption charges, but short of engaging in a massive and bloody purge, he cannot get rid of an entire social class which is not only large but powerful.

Some of my contacts in Russia expected a purge of Atlantic Integrationists right after the election. The logic here was “enough is enough” and that once Putin got a strong mandate from the people, he would finally kick Medvedev and his gang out of the Kremlin and replace them with popular patriots. That obviously did not happen. But if this pension reform program continues to further trigger protests or if a major war blows up in the Middle-East or in the Ukraine, then the pro-western forces inside the Kremlin will come under great pressure to further yield control of the country to Eurasian Sovereignists.

Putin is an exceedingly patient man and, at least so far, he has won most, if not all, of his battles. I don’t believe that anybody can predict for sure how things will play out, but what is certain is that trying to understand Russia without being aware of the internal conflicts and the interests groups fighting for power is futile. In her 1000 year long history, internal enemies have always been far more dangerous for Russia than external ones. This is unlikely to change in the future.

SYRIAN WAR REPORT – JUNE 29, 2018: TIGER FORCES LIBERATE MULTIPLE SETTLEMENTS IN SOUTHERN SYRIA

SYRIAN WAR REPORT

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the Tiger Forces and their allies have continued their successful operation against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in the province of Daraa. They have liberated the town of al-Hirak, the villages of Rakham, al-Surah and Alma as well as the 49 Air Defense Brigade and some nearby points.

Additionally, government forces liberated Sad Ibta, Tell Hamad and the 271st Brigade north of the city of Daraa.

A humanitarian corridor allowing civilians to withdraw from the combat area was also opened near the town of Da’il.

All signals show that the SAA is set to continue its military operation in southern Syria in a full force.

On June 28, the SAA and its allies repelled an ISIS attack on their positions southwest of the border town of al-Bukamal. According to the SAA General Command, many ISIS fighters died and a vehicle was destroyed in the clashes.

On June 27, the Syrian military claimed that it had cleared 5,200km2 of the Deir Ezzor desert of ISIS cells. However, establishing securing along the entire border will require further efforts.

13 planes, 14 helicopters and 1,140 personnel have been withdrawn from Syria over the past few days, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the alumni of military academies at a reception on June 28 adding that the pullout of Russian forces from Syria began in December 2017.

Putin’s statement followed reports that some Russian Ka-52 attacks helicopters and their crews have withdrawn from Syria.

However, the withdrawal of some aircraft does not sign that Russia is going to cease support and assistance to the Syrian military on the ground and in the air. As it has already been before, this is just a sign of a new phase, likely with some additional focus on diplomatic efforts, of the Russian participation in the conflict.

Related Videos

Related news

 

Preliminary Peace

The Saker

June 28, 2018

By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard


cross posted with: 
http://www.stalkerzone.org/ishchenko-preliminary-peace/
source: http://alternatio.org/articles/articles/item/60630-preliminarnyy-mir


Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:trump-russia-mafia.jpg

The world press is being filled with noise about a meeting on the 15th of July between Putin and Trump in Vienna. The Kremlin neither confirms nor denies whether there is a meeting [at the time of writing this was true, however the Kremlin has since confirmed the there will be a meeting on July 16th – ed], and diplomats from both sides allegedly coordinate their positions.

July 15th is a date that is inconvenient for the Russian president. On this day, the closing of the FIFA World Cup is supposed to take place at 18:00, which the president of Russia will have to be present at. Of course, it is possible to fly early in the morning to Vienna, talk to Trump before midday, and to be already in Moscow by 18:00. But why makes things so tight? Especially as the Americans can deliberately try to prolong the meeting. Anyway, it is difficult to count on any arrangements. But if Putin is late for the closure of the 2018 World Cup because of a meeting with Trump, then this delay will emphasise the importance of the event for which all other major affairs were postponed.

But Trump manages to come to Vienna without hurrying after the NATO summit that has to take place on July 11th-12th in Brussels. He will even have the time for several bilateral meetings with allies after the summit.

If indeed the meeting has to take place in general, then in order not to give the impudent Yankees any excess tactical/information advantage it would be logical to move it to either the 14th or the July 16th [the 16th was later confirmed as the actual date of the meeting – ed]. After all, if the Americans can’t meet during these days, then Russia can still wait – there is no place to hurry to. The positions of Washington become weaker, so even if Russia will have to meet with the next US president, it will only be better for Moscow.

The entire course of the events preceding the current rumours about the emergency preparation of a meeting between the two leaders testifies that for the Americans the decision to hold a meeting between the two presidents was forced. It should be remembered that originally Trump stated that he is ready to accept Putin in Washington. Generally it is the newly elected head of State that usually makes a visit to their more experienced colleague. But the Americans got used to everyone considering it as an honor to come and bow before them. Indeed, if Putin came on a visit to Washington, the US could show at the symbolical level to their allies that their superiority in world politics doesn’t raise doubts. Even leaders that oppose them come to Washington to reach an agreement about peace.

Putin ignored Trump’s hints. After this Washington’s rhetoric sharply changed and US officials started claiming that there can’t be any meetings at the highest level until Russia makes concessions in Syria and in Ukraine. In the last month Washington again changed the narrative. Now it was found out that already for one and a half years Trump wakes up to the question: “When will my meeting with Putin take place?”. But the artful environment deceived the trustful President and boycotted his instructions. But, supposedly, Trump has now taken matters into his own hands and the meeting will take place very soon. Further, it was supported by semi-confirmed, at least not disproved, hearings about the preparation of a historical bilateral meeting in Vienna.

As a matter of fact Russia won a diplomatic campaign both already before the meeting and irrespective of the meeting. During one and a half years the US tried to impose a meeting from a position of force: in Washington and on preliminary conditions. Today it is about the preparation of a meeting on a neutral platform and without any conditions. Washington conceded on all points.

However, it doesn’t mean that the meeting will surely take place. Firstly, the Kremlin has no unambiguous conviction that it is worth agreeing to negotiations, foreknowing that there won’t be any compromise solutions, that the US all the same will push through their agenda, and that Washington will surely use the fact of the negotiations itself to strengthen their information positions. On the other hand Putin already repeatedly showed his ability to fascinate foreign leaders, which subsequently facilitated contact with them. Besides this, Russia can also use the meeting for information and propaganda purposes. Moreover, at present the position of the Kremlin is stronger because it is the US who pushed for compelled concessions and showed that this meeting is more needed by them.

The question consists in whether it is worth speaking with people who aren’t yet ready to make a constructive proposal. It is possible to suggest to them to go and think about it, but they can take offense and the general situation will worsen. It is possible to begin negotiations, recognising that in the course of communication it will be possible to come to a mutually acceptable compromise. Both options of behavior have their strengths and weaknesses. In recent years Russia preferred to be involved in negotiations… well, and then we’ll see – we will always have the time to quarrel, but we can reach an agreement anyway.

It is certainly clear that one shouldn’t expect a breakthrough in Vienna. Even if negotiations will be completed in the best way, the heads of States will only declare their intention to remove bilateral contradictions and to live in peace and friendship, while the process of reach a concrete agreement after this can last years and end with nothing.

Trump can’t make a compromise right now, because he’s just severely fallen out with practically all the civilised world, from China to Canada. He has a trade war and personal hostility towards everyone. If in these conditions he makes concessions to Russia, then it will mean that the US abandoned the fight for world leadership and tried to preserve a part of its former weight in the union with Russia. But then all their former allies competing in race each other to Moscow with offers of friendship, brotherhood, and eternal loyalty. And this will additionally weaken the positions of the US.

That’s why it is necessary for Trump at the NATO summit in Brussels to receive at least some unity (at least on minor questions) in order to speak with Putin in Vienna on behalf of the united West, which is still agrees with American primacy. So then his position will look at least in equilibrium with the position of Russia.

In turn Putin can’t concede to Trump in Ukraine or Syria, and he can’t refuse an informal, but very effective union with China. Each of these points is an important knot, connecting together the network of global coordination created in recent years by Russia for the purpose of ensuring security. The loss of one link in the chain will affect in the most fatal way the efficiency of the others. In the worst case scenario – the domino effect is possible, and in the best one – a considerable decrease in the effectiveness of the system and a disbalance in the actions of allies is possible.

But, taking into account the sharp weakening of the American global positions in the first half of 2018, Russia doesn’t see any sense in general in discussing the possibility of any concessions. Only a compromise solution of problems, assuming that the US will leave the foreign countries that closely border Russia, as an exclusive sphere of Russian interests in which they impudently intruded about 20 years ago. It is after this that it will be possible to discuss trade and economic interests of Washington. Finally, the balancing of the American budget is impossible without balancing trade and the termination of the expensive aggressive foreign policy is in the common interests of the whole world.

The world is interested in helping the US overcome the most severe crisis in which they herded themselves into and reform the American economy, but only in exchange for the abandonment of an active military policy, a sharp decrease in the military budget, a reduction in the number of mobile expedition forces – including aircraft carrier groups, the re-organisation of the structure of the American Armed Forces in favour of an exclusively defensive position that allows to reliably protect the US from an invasion, but doesn’t allow to perform large-scale overseas operations.

As we understand, today the US still hasn’t ripened for such radical compromises. That’s why a possible meeting in Vienna is only the first step. The US already agreed to speak on the conditions of others, but still doesn’t agree to form a constructive agenda. And they will come to this decision. The main thing is that it isn’t too late for the American economy.

 

Sayyed Nasrallah Warns of ‘Deal of Century’: For Speedy Formation of Gov’t, Victory Scored in Southern Syria

29-06-2018 | 22:49

Sayyed Nasrallah Warns of ‘Deal of Century’: For Speedy Formation of Gov’t, Victory Scored in Southern Syria
Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Friday a televised speech in which he tackled the latest internal and regional developments.
Gov’t Formation
Starting with the internal front, Sayyed Nasrallah recalled that “since after the elections, we’re urging the expedite in the government’s formation.”
“We’re still calling for this,” he said, noting that “Hezbollah’s call is not linked to concerns over the regional situations.”
As His Eminence cautioned that the problem in forming the government is the absence of standards or criteria, he stressed that “there should be clear and unified standards for the formation of governments and these standards should apply to everyone.”
“There are those who bet on regional changes and they have to end this because the developments are in the interest of the axis of the resistance, whether in south Syria or Yemen, specifically its western coast, ” the Resistance Leader mentioned.
In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah called for taking the popularity and parliamentary sizes into consideration during the formation of the government. “We will be in front of unclear criterion.”
“Our call for expediting the formation process is based on national calculations and needs that are related to the social and economic situations and to preventing a power vacuum. It is far from any regional development,” he clarified.
According to Hezbollah Secretary General, “the governmental formats that are being circulated cannot be described as formats for a national unity government.”

Asking “why the Alawites and Syriacs are being excluded”, he viewed that “every side must be represented in a national unity government.”

He further reiterated the call for precise commitment to the sizes of the blocs that had resulted from the parliamentary elections.
Syrian Refugees’ Return
Moving to the file of Syrian refugees, Sayyed Nasrallah expressed his surprise about the recent discussions.
“Syrian refugees who want to return to Syria should be allowed to do so without restrictions,” he added, pointing out that “Hezbollah wants to benefit from its good relations with the Syrian leadership situation in order to help in this file.”
Revealing that Hezbollah has formed a file to facilitate the return of refugees, Sayyed Nasrallah announced that “ex-MP Nawwar al-Saheli was designated to head this file.”
“Hezbollah will also form popular committees in all regions to facilitate communication,” His Eminence confirmed, noting that “Hezbollah will communicate will announce a mechanism for the refugees’ applications so that lists in cooperation with Lebanon’s security agencies and Damascus are ready to make the largest number of refugees return safely and voluntarily to their country.”
Security, Citizenship
On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah accused some media outlets of exaggerating the security situation in Baalbek -Hermel district.
He further urged the Lebanese Army and security agencies to exert continuous efforts not to accept any cover to anyone breaching the law or security in Baalbek-Hermel.
Regarding the recent debate issuing a new citizenship, Sayyed Nasrallah announced that Hezbollah won’t declare its position through media outlets.
However, he wondered “What is the problem if there are people who deserve to obtain the Lebanese citizenship.”
“This could achieve certain national and economic benefits,” his Eminence predicted.
Deal of Century
Moving to the regional level, His Eminence warned that we have seriously entered the American and “Israeli” action to implement the so-called “deal of century”
“Everyone must shoulder his responsibilities in supporting the Palestinian people to face the executive steps of the “deal of century”,” he emphasized.
Syria’s New Victory
Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah uncovered that the developments in southern Syria are very positive and they confirm the collapse of the terrorist groups.
“The entire region in southern Syria, whether in Daraa or elsewhere, is facing collapse among the terrorists,” the Resistance Leader elaborated, pointing out that “there are popular rallies in the Syrian south to return to the state and we are in front of a great victory and major change.”
In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah saluted the Iraqi brothers at the Syrian-Iraqi border.

“The Popular Mobilization Forces played an effective role in defeating the Daesh terrorist group in Iraq,” he went on to say.

To the people of the region in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, His Eminence said “Any attack on the resistance, must have an answer.”
Trump: The Monster
On another note, Sayyed Nasrallah viewed that US President Donald Trump’s policy showed his real image as a “wild monster” over the policy of separating children from their parents for migrants entering the US.
“Doesn’t the image of immigrant children separated from their fathers and mothers and put in isolated places clearly express the brutality of President Trump and his administration?” he wondered.
Yemen: The miracle
Moving to the field situation in Yemen, Sayyed Nasrallah rejected Saudi media fabrications that Hezbollah Resistance men have been killed there.
“But whether we’re there or not, I categorically deny that there are Hezbollah martyrs in Yemen-not in the last few days nor in recent years,” he said.
“Saudi and Emirati military forces, together with their regional and Western allies, have suffered serious losses in Yemen’s western port city of Al-Hudaydah,” he added, noting that “Fighting in Al-Hudaydah is happening in face of the most important weapons, aircraft, and capabilities.”
His Eminence also saluted Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad over his decision to pull his country’s troops out of the Saudi-led military coalition.
“Saudi forces and their allies must know the fact that they are fighting a nation that will never capitulate,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.
Moreover, His Eminence appealed to Sudan and its people to withdraw from the Saudi-led coalition.
“It is regrettable to see Sudan’s Army in this battle after it had a great respect in the conscience of the people of the region,” he stated, hoping that the experience of the West Coast battle be a lesson for Saudi Arabia and UAE.
Related Videos

Related Articles

Israeli hacker behind hoax antisemitic bomb threats convicted in English but not in Hebrew

June 28, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

An Israeli was convicted  today of thousands of counts of extortion and making false statements after terrorising airlines and Jewish institutions in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Israel for several months. Most interesting is the fact that Ynet reported about the conviction in its English version, yet didn’t mention the case in its Hebrew platform. Maybe, some news are for Goyim’s consumption only…

 Israeli news for Goyim

Israeli news for Goyim

 Israeli news for Hebrew clients...not a word about the conviction...

Israeli news for Hebrew clients…not a word about the conviction…

التذاكي والكذب لا يحوّلان الهزائم انتصارات

يونيو 27, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– لا تبدو واشنطن في عهد الرئيس دونالد ترامب حمقاء في الخطوات العملية، بل واقعية الحسابات في رسم حدود المعارك التي تخوضها في الميدان، بخلاف المواقف الكلامية التي يطلقها ترامب في التغريدات، وبعكس المكابرات التي يعتمدها حلفاؤها، وتبدو مشاركة لهم حتى لحظة الاشتباك، فتقيم حساباتها الدقيقة قبل أن تقرّر المواجهة أو الانكفاء، ويخطئ مَن يضع قرار اعتماد القدس عاصمة لكيان الاحتلال والانسحاب من التفاهم النووي مع إيران في دائرة قرارات حرب، وهي إعلان خروج من مشاريع التسويات من دون بلوغ ضفة الاشتباك.

– مثالان حاضران على منهجية إدارة ترامب، الأول مرحلة الاستفتاء على الانفصال الكردي عن العراق، ورعايتها مع حليفيها السعودي و»الإسرائيلي» كياناً كردياً مستقلاً، حتى دنت لحظة القرار العملي فكان الانكفاء وترك مسعود البرزاني وحده يواجه قدر الهزيمة. بينما الرعاية الإيرانية المباشرة لقرار إسقاط الكيان الانفصالي واضحة، والثاني خلال معارك تحرير الغوطة التي خاضها الجيش السوري وحلفاؤه. والغوطة كانت كياناً انفصالياً في قلب دمشق قادراً على التواصل مع قاعدة التنف الأميركية وتقسيم سورية بمثل قدرته على تهديد استقرار العاصمة وبالتالي الدولة السورية، إنْ توافرت له عدة التدخل الأميركي، التي أتيح لها شعار تطبيق قرار مجلس الأمن بوقف فوري للنار ولمدة شهر كامل. ورغم كلّ الحملة الأميركية بوجه قرار الحسم في الغوطة واتهامها اللاحق للجيش السوري باستخدام السلاح الكيميائي، وتوجيهها ضربة صاروخية قال وزير الخارجية الروسية سيرغي لافروف إنها تقيّدت بالضوابط الروسية، بقي الأهمّ أنّ واشنطن امتنعت عن التورّط في الحرب بينما الغوطة كعصب لمشروع الحرب في سورية تسقط بيد الجيش السوري.

– مثال الجنوب السوري بالنسبة للأميركي وكذلك بالنسبة للإسرائيلي يسير على القاعدة نفسها القائمة على القراءة الواقعية للموازين عند قرار التدخل في الحرب. ومثله كان القرار الأميركي بتفادي التصعيد مع كوريا الشمالية والذهاب لقمة تفاوض بدا بوضوح من حيث الشكل والمضمون أنها تلاقٍ كوري أميركي في منتصف الطريق، لكن كلّ هذه الأمثلة لا تنطبق على طريقة تحرّك حلفاء أميركا في المنطقة. ففي العراق راهن السعوديون على التذاكي باستثمار خلاف ثانوي في صفوف حلفاء إيران بين السيد مقتدى الصدر والرئيس السابق للحكومة نوري المالكي، لصناعة أوهام بوضع اليد على العراق. وفي اليمن خاضوا بكلّ ما لديهم ولدى الإمارات وحلفائهما حرب السيطرة على مدينة الحُدَيْدة وفشلوا، لكنهم حاولوا تغطية الفشل بالكذب وادّعاء الانتصار الذي لم ينجحوا بتقديم صورة واحدة أو شريط مصوّر واحد يؤكدان بعض ادّعاءاتهم به. وفي لبنان يحاول ثلاثي المستقبل والاشتراكي والقوات صناعة نصر وهمي بالتذاكي والتلاعب بالوقائع والحقائق والابتزاز بالتعطيل، لكن المعادلة التي أفرزتها الانتخابات النيابية وثبات رئيس الجمهورية يقفان بالمرصاد.

– ما يملكه حلف المهزومين هو تأخير إعلان النصر أو تنغيص الاحتفال به، لكنهم لا يملكون صناعة النصر من هزيمة ثابتة، من سورية إلى العراق إلى اليمن إلى لبنان، وسيكتشفون أنّ إضاعة الوقت ستجلب وقائع جديدة دولية وإقليمية تتصل بتفاهمات أميركية روسية وتفاهمات أوروبية إيرانية تعزّزها الانتصارات الميدانية، تذهب بالرياح عكس ما تشتهي سفنهم، ولن يبقى لهم أن يحتفلوا معاً، بأن يتجمّعوا كلهم برعاية ولي عهدهم، سوى بنيل المرأة السعودية حقها بقيادة السيارة وتسميتها بمعجزة العصر، طالما صفقة العصر قد ولدت ميتة تنتظر احتفال التأبين لا وثيقة الولادة. فالتوقيع الفلسطيني وحده يحوّل وثيقة الدفن وثيقة ولادة، وهو لن يكون.

Related Videos

Related Articles

BBC finds Andrew Marr guilty of Telling the Truth

June 25, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

bbc-fake-news-ultimate.jpg

Reported by Gilad Atzmon

 Fake news is so deeply entrenched in the British media that telling the truth can get you into real trouble.  The Daily Mail reported yesterday that Andrew Marr was found “guilty of a breach of rules over a ‘misleading’ claim that Israel killed ‘lots of Palestinian kids’”

During the 8 April Sunday news programme, Marr concluded a discussion of the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons attack on civilians by saying: “And the Middle East is aflame again. ‘I mean there’s lots of Palestinian kids being killed further south as well by Israeli forces.”

Antisemitism campaigner Jonathan Sacerdoti lodged a complaint, saying that: “when talking about a story on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Andrew Marr for some reason decided to talk about Israel (which was unrelated anyway). He stated ‘there’s a lot of Palestinian kids being killed further south by Israeli forces’.”

It seems that Andrew Marr had failed to grasp that Britain is no longer a free space. Thoughts, ideas, associations and the like cannot be shared or explored in the open unless approved by one specific foreign lobby.

Sacerdoti  wrote to the BBC that the reference to Gaza is “completely incorrect and is made up. This was irrelevant to the conversation on Syria… and also actually completely false.”

In a free world, journalists, especially leading national broadcaster presenters, are encouraged to make relevant associations, use metaphorical language and re-define the boundaries of the discussion. But 2018 Britain has drifted away from the free world. It has managed to fulfil Orwell’s prophecy. Within the context of the emerging conflict at Gaza’s border, Marr’s comment wasn’t just accurate, it was prescient, capturing the essence of  the evolving massacre and the scale of violence to come. Marr could see that Israel deploying hundreds of snipers against unarmed protestors is a slaughter in the making. Marr grasped the meaning of the event before it made it into the ‘news.’

Last Saturday the Health Ministry in Gaza unveiled detailed official statistics on Palestinians killed and wounded by Israeli soldiers’ gunfire since the start of rallies and protests in the Gaza Strip on March 30. According to the report, 131 Palestinians were killed, 14,811 were wounded, including 7,975 treated in hospitals. 54 had to have either their upper or lower limbs amputated. By 8 April, Marr, like many other journalists and commentators, saw it coming: “the Middle East is aflame again-lots of Palestinian kids being killed’ was an insightful warning.

One would expect the BBC to be sophisticated enough to point out that in hindsight, Marr was proved both astute and correct. The events Marr observed did result in disastrous bloodshed.

BBC producers initially tried to defend Marr’s comments by pointing out that five ‘younger people’ had been killed between the beginning of the year and the date of the programme. They also said several Palestinian children and younger people were killed in the week following the broadcast, but Mr Sacerdoti, didn’t give up on his complaint, arguing that later events could not be used to justify Mr Marr’s comments.

Fraser Steel, head of executive complaints at the BBC, wrote to Mr Sacerdoti saying: ‘The BBC’s guidelines require that output is “well sourced” and “based on sound evidence… In the absence of any evidence to support the reference to “lots” of children being killed at the time of transmission, it seems to us to have risked misleading audiences on a material point. ‘We therefore propose to uphold this part of your complaint.”

عشرون يوماً حاسمة

يونيو 26, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– بعد عشرين يوماً سينقشع الغبار عن النتائج التي ستحملها مسارات عشرين شهراً من عهد الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب، ومحورها كان قضية العلاقة بروسيا وفيها ملفات سورية وكوريا وأوكرانيا والعقوبات والانتخابات الأميركية والاتهامات لروسيا من جهة، وتزامنها وتوازيها وتلازمها مع العلاقة بالتفاهم النووي الإيراني، واتصاله بالمعركة المفتوحة مع محور المقاومة الذي تشكّل إيران عمقه الاستراتيجي، والمواجهات الممتدّة مع قوى هذا المحور من سورية إلى العراق واليمن ولبنان وأصلاً وانتهاء في فلسطين. وكلّ من العنوانين الروسي والإيراني سيشهد بعد عشرين يوماً تطوّراً حاسماً في الحسابات الأميركية.

– سيلتقي الرئيس ترامب بالرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين، بعدما أجّل اللقاء الذي وعد به في حملته الانتخابية تلبية لطلبات وضغوط وأوهام وأحلام المؤسسة العسكرية والأمنية في واشنطن، التي نجحت بتعطيل مشاريع التفاهمات مع موسكو في عهد الرئيس السابق باراك أوباما، ودعمت وصول ترامب لتطويعه وتطبيق ما يناسبها من شعاراته، وإخضاعه لبرامجها في الباقي، وحققت ذلك بنجاح. فشجعته على جرّ عرب الخليج إلى الحضن «الإسرائيلي»، وتدفيعهم ما أمكن من المال، ودعمته في مسار التنصّل من التفاهم النووي مع إيران، والخروج من مشاريع تسوية للقضية الفلسطينية طالما أنّ التطلعات «الإسرائيلية» في القدس وقضية اللاجئين لا تجد شريكاً فلسطينياً، لكنها منعته من الذهاب للتفاهم مع روسيا، وجلبته لخيار المواجهة بدلاً من الانكفاء في القضية السورية، وزيادة الحضور في العراق وتصعيد الرعاية للدور السعودي في حرب اليمن، وقد مرّت كلّ التجارب اللازمة للحكم على هذه السياسات والخيارات ومواجهة ساعة الحقيقة.

– في الملفات الحرجة والمحرجة كسورية وكوريا تزداد الحاجة للشراكة مع روسيا منعاً للهزيمة المذلة، أو الحرب المحكوم عليها بالفشل، والتفتيش عن فرص تسوية تحفظ ماء الوجه. وفي الملفات المحرقة كالحرب في اليمن والملف النووي الإيراني تزداد الحاجة للتبريد ومنع المزيد من التصعيد، والتجارب تصل لنهاياتها. فالمزيد من الحرب في اليمن مزيد من الهزائم. والمزيد من التصعيد في الملف النووي الإيراني ذهاب نحو مجهول عنوانه التخصيب المرتفع النسبة لليورانيوم. ولا قدرة على خيار أميركي في مواجهته إلا الحرب التي لا نافذة ضوء فيها. وبعد عشرين يوماً ستعلن إيران قرارها وخيارها في التعامل مع الضمانات الأوروبية للبقاء تحت سقف التفاهم. والأمر منوط بدرجة الحزام الأميركي المشدود على العنق الأوروبي في مجال العقوبات.

– الألاعيب المفتعلة في لبنان والعراق، كما الحديث الفارغ عن مشروع صفقة القرن التي لا فلسطيني قادر على تبنّيها، تعبئة للوقت تريده السعودية وتطلب من جماعاتها ملاقاتها، بانتظار ما ستخرج به القمة الروسية الأميركية من جهة، وما سيؤول إليه الموقف الأوروبي الإيراني، وبالتالي مصير التفاهم النووي وموقع إيران منه بينما في سورية حيث لا حول ولا قوة للسعودية للعب بالوقت، يواصل الجيش السوري ما بدأه في حلب، ولا ينتظر قمة روسية أميركية ولا تفاوضاً أوروبياً إيرانياً. وفي اليمن حيث المكابرة السعودية الإماراتية مستمرّة صمود أسطوري يكتب هزيمة مال النفط الموقوف على ذمة ترامب، أمام الرجال الأشداء المقاومين والمنذورين لأجل فلسطين.

– عشرون يوماً ستختصر مواجهات عشرين شهراً، وقد تشهد مفاجآت تحاول تمويه الهزائم وتشويه الانتصارات.

Related Articles

israeli innovation is based on theft

Source

Israel is a settler-colonial state.

Maintaining its status as the “Jewish state” in a land whose population is mostly non-Jewish requires a regime of complete and utter brutality.

It requires the denial of basic human rights to the Palestinian people. First among those rights to be denied is the right to life, as seen in recent events in Gaza.

Israel has killed more than 130 Palestinians in Gaza since 30 March, when the Great March of Return began. More than 100 of those deaths occurred during the protests, and 15 of those were children.

Thousands more were injured – very deliberately – by Israeli army snipers aiming to maim and incapacitate.

The goal of the demonstrations illustrates the denial of another basic human right by Israel: the right of refugees to return to their homes after a war. For more than 70 years now, Israel has denied this right to millions of Palestinian refugees.

And it does so using an explicitly racist justification – that those refugees are not Jewish.

Meanwhile, anyone in the world with so much as a Jewish grandparent can “return” to that same land – even if (as is mostly the case) they or their ancestors have never lived in Palestine.

This is the brutal reality of a “Jewish state” in Palestine. Israeli leaders know this, and the more frank among their supporters admit as much.

Jeremy Corbyn: A devil in Israel, a hero to the Arabs

One of the more explicit of these was Haifa University demographer Arnon Soffer, once a key advisor to the late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

In a notorious 2004 interview with the Jerusalem Post, Soffer predicted that when 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza ,“it’s going to be a human catastrophe… if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day”.

These truths mean that it’s fundamentally difficult for Israel to maintain international support. And so it has resorted to various marketing and PR techniques, in an increasingly desperate manner.

One of these is the selling of Israel as a “high tech innovator”. There is an entire organisation devoted to it: Israel21c. Its website puts out puff pieces promoting Israel as a wonderful land of technological marvels and green innovation.

As well as the standard shady influence peddling tactics beloved of PR firms around the world (former New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren’s final piece from Israel was basically a rewrite of one of their press releases), Israel21c has used more explicitly deceptive methods.

#LandGrab

As I reported in 2014, the group aimed to infiltrate its propaganda into social media using paid operatives – on the condition that they kept their links to Israel21c a secret.

This method of “tech-washing” is morally bankrupt at the most fundamental level.

Even if it were the case that Israel is the source of all the most wonderful technology in the world, it would in no way justify its decades of military occupation, institutionalised racism and slaughter of unarmed protesters, including children.

But as it turns out, Israel’s claims to be a tech innovator are often baseless, even on their own terms.

One of the Israeli arms industry’s most frequent boasts is that its weapons are “field tested” – in other words they have used Palestinians as guinea pigs.

But much of the very foundation of Israeli high technology was actually acquired from France and the United States – in some cases it was stolen.

A 1983 report by the US Government Accountability Office details the extent to which Israeli arms firms relied on foreign assistance to establish themselves.

“Israel’s technological exports are heavily dependent on foreign components”, it read (on page 43). “Israeli officials estimate that during 1981-1982, most of their exports contained an import component of about 36 per cent. In Israel’s fastest growing industry, the electronics field, about 35 per cent of the technical expertise is acquired from the United States in licensed production or technology transfer. Almost every Israeli arms production effort includes a US input.”

US President Donald Trump (L) is welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) in Tel Aviv on May 22, 2017 [Daniel Bar On/Anadolu Agency]

US President Donald Trump (L) is welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) in Tel Aviv on May 22, 2017 [Daniel Bar On/Anadolu Agency]

A secret 1979 CIA document profiling Israel’s intelligence agencies (which was “declassified” by the Iranian students who took over the US embassy in Tehran after the Islamic revolution) showed American high-tech firms were a priority target for Israeli spy agencies.

Priority number two (after spying on Arab states) was listed as collecting “information on secret US policy… concerning Israel”. The third top priority was “collection of scientific intelligence in the US and other developed countries”. Such spying was apparently considered a higher priority intelligence target than even the USSR.

Probably the most high-profile case of Israeli spying on the US was Jonathan Pollard – the US Naval Intelligence officer who turned traitor and sold top-level US secrets to Israel, apartheid South Africa and even the USSR.

He was caught in 1985 and received a life sentence but was released by former President Obama in 2015.

Pollard worked for LAKAM, the so-called “Bureau of Scientific Relations” which stole high-tech intelligence from government and industry sources around the world. LAKAM was wound up after Pollard was exposed, but its work no doubt passed on to other agencies.

According to journalists Alexander and Leslie Cockburn, Israel also stole blueprints for a fighter-jet engine from a French firm after de Gaulle embargoed any further military supplies to Israel in reaction to the 1967 war.

Innovative methods indeed.

Weekly report on israel’s terrorism against Palestinians (21- 27 June 2018)

Source

(21– 27 June 2018)

Syrian War Report – June 28, 2018: Syrian Army Clears 5,200km2 Of ISIS Cells

South Front

Syrian government forces have cleared over 5,200km2 of the Deir Ezzor desert of ISIS cells, the Syrian General Command said on June 27.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies launched a military operation in the area on June 20. The rapid progress in the desert can be explained by the lack of resistance from the ISIS cells, which had mostly withdrawn towards the Homs desert.

The SAA and the Tiger Forces liberated the villages of Mulayha al-Sharqiyah, Mulayha al-Gharbiyah, Nahitah and Samma al-Hneidat in the eastern part of Daraa province from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) and its allies and entered the village of al-Hirak.

According to reports, 450 members of the Free Syrian Army also surrendered to the SAA amid the government advance.

Meanwhile, the ISIS-affiliated Khalid ibn al-Walid Army and units of the US-backed FSA reached a ceasefire agreement in southern Syria, according to a report by the news outlet Nedaa Syria.

The ceasefire has not been officially announced, but no recent fighting between the sides has been reported. It is interesting to note that the agreement comes amid the ongoing SAA military operation in Daraa thus once again showing how so-called moderate opposition groups can reach an understanding with ISIS when necessary.

Related Videos

Related News

Zionism: Deconstructing the Power Paradigm

June 25, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Moderator: Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett – Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Judeophobia: Let’s Define Our Terms – 1:30

Philip Giraldi – How Jewish Power Sustains the Israel Narrative – 25:45

Gilad Atzmon – Truth, Truthfulness, and Palestine – 40:35

Alan Sabrosky – The Impact of Zionist Influence in the U.S.- 1:07:05

Jeremy Rothe-Kushel – Talpiot and Unit 8200: The Global Cyber Agenda for Kill-Switch Domination–2:03:15

Q & A from our online audience by email — 2:54:01

For resources referenced by the Deep Truth speakers, go to http://www.DeepTruth.info/resources. For information about the Deep Truth conference, go to http://www.DeepTruth.info/about

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: