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.

 

Advertisements

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

%d bloggers like this: