1) China, Russia, and Iran – confronted with Western aggressions – develop their strength and collaboration
In my eyes, the most important evolution in the last six years is that now, the leading forces are China, Russia, and Iran, and no more Western hegemonism under the direction of the USA. China, Russia, and Iran have not only fended off different Western attacks, but were also able to strike back. Moreover, the economical and military development in these countries is better than that in the USA.
The political leadership in the three countries is stable and during the last years, it has become completely obvious that each of the three is much more intelligent than any leadership in North America or in Western Europe. One may also say that the three countries use the intelligence of their peoples in a much more coherent manner than Western countries. Moreover, in China and Russia in particular, new important laws have strengthened the inner stability.
Take the Ukrainian crisis as the first example. After the Maidan putsch, the Crimea went back to Russia. And in the east of the Ukraine, the Kiev’s troops were severely beaten, in the first months of 2015. Subsequently, the West took sanctions against Russia, but this had not a big impact on Russia. Finally, the result was a stronger orientation of Russia towards Asia, in particular towards China. During the last year, the West tried to use Belarus and the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan against Russia. But Russia had no real problem to ward off these dangers.
After the nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, an important part of the sanctions against Iran was lifted by the UNO in January 2016 (the UNO sanctions with respect to arms were only lifted in 2020). But the USA imposed new sanctions in 2018, together with the so-called maximum pressure. While this clearly had negative consequences for the Iranian economy, the USA could not achieve any important goal. Even the murder of Soleimani one year ago could not weaken Iran, quite the contrary. Iran was able to openly strike US military bases in Iraq, and the USA had to accept this shame without risking an answer.
There were various anti-Chinese campaigns, mainly organized by Anglo-Saxon countries. In particular, there were the riots in Hong Kong. However, China was not really disturbed and during 2020, the riots were brought to an end so that the model „one country, two systems“ prevailed. Moreover, China was able to strengthen the military presence in the key region of the South Chinese Sea, without worsening the relations with the neighboring countries. Beijing has also made very clear that any step of Taiwan in the direction of a declaration of independence is a red line, not to be crossed. All countries in East and South-East Asia are more and more ready to accept the emergence of China as a great power.
The common interests of China, Russia, and Iran with respect to Western aggressions have led to a much closer cooperation between the three countries, including military cooperation. However, each of the three keeps the own identity; their model of cooperation is much better than that of the European Union. They are well prepared for the so-called Asian century.
A good illustration of the changes in the last six years is provided by Turkey. Objectively speaking, this is an important country. Turkey uses a rather ambitious and dangerous politics and is a member of NATO. Five year ago, Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft and the two sides were near an open military conflict. Now, the relations between Turkey and Russia are significantly more rational and better under control than the relations between Turkey and USA as well as the relations between Turkey and the European Union. Moreover, the relations between Turkey and Iran are now quite solid.
2) Progress in Middle East
In 2015, three major events related to the Middle East took place; they remained of crucial importance until today. In March, the Saudi aggression war against Yemen began; in July, the nuclear deal about Iran was signed; in September, Russia started the direct military support for the war against terrorism in Syria.
In these six years, the situation has very much evolved; the Middle East remains the region with the fastest changes. There, the geopolitical conflicts are at its hottest. The terrorists of Daesh and Al Qaeda have been essentially beaten, in Syria and Iraq. Turkey, USA, and Israel had to intervene much more directly in order to keep the terrorism in Syria alive; this includes the direct stealing of the Syrian oil (before, this was done by Daesh). Big parts of Syria have been liberated. The Russian military commitment was a great success and has produced broad respect for the Russian army and the Russian arms.
In the Yemen war, Saudi Arabia is now loosing. They already lost some allies of the global south which were bought by Saudi money. Possibly, Israel and USA will henceforth take part in the war more directly, but as in Syria, this can only delay the end of the war, but not change the outcome.
Despite many attacks and complots, Hezbollah in Lebanon has noticeably gained in strength. Even if it is not yet fully obvious, Israel has mainly lost the military superiority in the region. Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, and Ansarullah (in Yemen) have got too strong, and also in Iraq, the patriotic forces are quite solid now. These developments may be a reason for the fact that Israel is not able to install a stable government despite different elections.
During the last four years, when Trump was president, the US aggressions were concentrated on the Middle East; understandably, this region is satisfied about the departure of Trump. However, the USA have not obtained much, Trump’s Middle East politics were a failure.
3) Internal crisis of the West: nationalism versus Western hegemonism
The rich Western countries have lost some of their economical power and they can offer less to their peoples. There is an increasing number of people who are neglected by Western hegemonism, I call them the forgotten classes. The latter have not yet found an own political identity (may-be with the exception of the Yellow Vests in France). On the other hand, this development has provoked the creation of new nationalistic movements in nearly all rich Western countries. In many of these countries, these new movements have become the main political opposition to the Western hegemonism. This does not mean that these movements are progressive. But objectively speaking, they have important positive aspects. This fact is often neglected by left wing oriented people in Western countries.
The leading figures of these nationalistic movements are quite different. Some came from traditional political parties such as Blocher (Switzerland), Trump (USA), Johnson (UK); others have created new political parties. Some have important economical power, examples are Berlusconi (Italy), Blocher (Switzerland), or Trump (USA). Some are quite close to Zionists, for example Trump (USA) or Salvini (Italy). The relation of the leading figures to the forgotten classes is quite varying. Personally, I would say that Marine Le Pen (France) is the most sympathetic one – while she is certainly not the most talented politician among the leaders of the new nationalistic movements.
The year 2016 saw two major political sensations, namely the vote for Brexit in the UK and the election of Trump in the USA. In both countries, the new nationalistic movements won, due to the support of the forgotten classes. The Brexit vote was confirmed by the clear election win of Johnson in UK in December 2019.
In most Western countries, the traditional political forces, which support Western hegemonism, have big difficulties in accepting the rise of the new nationalist movements. They intend to completely defeat these movements. They are not able to see that these movements are „fed“ by the forgotten classes and that the latter are a product of an objective situation and cannot be defeated. Therefore, the internal crisis of the West will continue.
4) Latin America, Africa, India
Latin America saw important developments in the last years. Generally speaking, this region is still in the phase of strategic defensive with respect to Western hegemonism. However, the strength of the anti-imperialist forces has somewhat stabilized. Despite major Western attacks against Venezuela, the elected government could resist. The same is true for Cuba or Nicaragua. And the putsch in Bolivia in 2019 was „corrected“ in 2020 quite quickly. These developments are supported by the increasing relations between the countries of Latin America with China, Russia, and Iran. Setbacks are still possible, if not probable, but the general tendency goes towards a solid implantation of the anti-imperialist camp.
Politically and economically speaking, the weight of the African continent remains small. Western countries and terrorist movements are disturbing the positive developments. The illusion that regional conflicts can be resolved by extern interference, is still quite strong. A recent example is Morocco which blundered into this trap, thinking that the USA and Israel will „help“ with the annexation of the Western Sahara. In general, improvements in Africa are still quite slow.
India is one of the countries which went in a negative direction during the last years. The Indian government had plenty of opportunities, but they took decisions which led to increasing conflicts with neighboring Asian countries such as China and Pakistan. India has also refused to participate in the new RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) of 15 countries (10 ASEAN countries, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand). Instead, India has reinforced relations with the USA, but, as experience shows, this kind of relations is built on sand. It is not by accident that the internal opposition in India against the government is growing.
5) Western Europe disappoints
In June 2015, I restarted writing political articles. This might be the reason why I speak here of the last six years. During this period, I made a number of judgements and predictions. And paradoxically, my biggest errors were with respect to Western Europe (where I live). I had the tendency to be too optimistic about Western Europe. I expected that they would develop politics which are more independent and more related to the geopolitical realities.
However, the leading classes in Western Europe are very stubborn. They are not at all ready to break with their colonial past. They continue to dream of regaining the paradise of global domination. Moreover, their big economic companies are very much dependent on the US economy. So, in each political crisis, they take backward decisions. Examples are Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, Hong Kong riots and sanctions against China, the Syria war against terrorism and sanctions against Syria, the recognition of the US puppet Guaido in Venezuela, the compliance with the aggression against Yemen, with the US sanctions against Iran, with the murder of Soleimani, of al-Muhandis (Iraq), and of Fakhrizadeh (Iran).
Iran’s Khamenei has always warned against making confidence in Western Europe, and he was right. For the time being, leaders in Western Europe exceedingly overrate themselves and keep their utterly unrealistic illusions. It seems that Australia is on a similar path.
Outlook for 2021
The Covid-19 pandemic has somewhat frozen the regional and geopolitical conflicts. At the same time, these conflicts were exacerbated. But this is barely visible. The states were very much occupied with their internal situation.
This might continue for some months in 2021. But finally, it will be impossible to contain the conflicts. Quite chaotic developments have to be expected. In this context, analyzing the tendencies of the last years should be useful in order to keep some orientation.
Chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri said on Thursday that there is no expiry date for taking revenge on assassination of Iranian Commander Lt. General Qassem Soleimani.
Baqeri made the remarks in a message on the eve of the first martyrdom anniversary of General Soleimani [January 3].
Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard [IRG] Quds Force Lt. General Soleimani was assassinated in the US terrorist attack on his motorcade at Baghdad airport on January 3, 2020.
A day after the assassination of General Soleimani, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that Iran reserves the right to take revenge by proportionate military action, and will do it.
At his message, Baqeri said the US should leave the West Asia region; this is inevitable, and all revolutionary youth across the region and the world will make double effort to achieve the end.
Baqeri stressed the need to follow General Soleimani’s guidelines.
He further highlighted determination of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Muslim nations and freedom-seekers across the world advocating proportionate retaliation of the crime.
Iran’s Armed Forces will continue following up the resistance ideology with strong motivation, he stressed.
Baqeri said that martyr Soleimani could get the hearts of the Islamic Ummah closer and create coherence among them.
General Soleimani strengthened the Resistance front against the Zionist regime of ‘Israel’ and destroyed the US hegemony clout, he added.
Terrorists murdered 25 Syrians and wounded 13 others on a bus in Deir Ezzor on Wednesday. The bus was traveling along the Deir Ezzor – Palmyra Highway in Kabajeb when the attack occurred around 4 p.m., Damascene time. At this writing, no details other details have been released.
Some of the victims were soldiers returning home to start their long-awaited vacation and were in military uniforms as most of the Syrians do not have the luxury of having more suits to change after 10 years of fighting the world’s largest army of terrorists and their NATO sponsors.
Donald Trump maintains a large number of his forces from the Oil Thieves Regiment of the US Army and for their protection, the Pentagon employs a large number of terrorists, mainly of ISIS and its affiliates, and separatists like the Kurdish SDF armed groups. This attack seems to be carried out by one of those Pentagon assets operating illegally in Syria to prolong the suffering of the Syrian people since Syria never invaded any other country and it’s punished for that.
At this writing, the NATO stenographer klan have gone absolutely silent over this mass murder; use of internet search engines result in not even a blurb, and barely a mention of Israel’s early morning war criminal bombing of the Levantine Republic in which one Syrian Arab Army soldier was martyred, and three others wounded.
As the overpaid stenographers — indictable under Nuremberg Principle VI, as war criminal propagandists are included in crimes against humanity — have chosen to turn a blind eye from the massacre (possibly because they were not made aware that vacationing soldiers are among the slaughtered), we will use this grizzly opportunity to remind Syria News readers and other civilized human beings the atrocities committed against the SAR, since NATO Spring was inflicted in March 2011.
Please take a closer look at this map:
Google & NATO stenographers insist on erasing history. There is no such place as “Kobane” in Syria. That was the name of the German company that built the station in Ain al Arab, in 1911.
Palmyra/Tadmor is in the lower-left corner. It is where Syrian archaeologist, Professor Khaled al Asaad was brutally murdered on 18 August 2015. Toward the center is al Raqqah, the site of Trump’s first war crimes in Syria, when he bombed two civilian bridges there, soon after being sworn in. Between ar Raqqah and Lake Assad is the Tabqa hydroelectric dam. Al Tabqa has been under NATO proxy control since February 2013.
English terrorist, John Letts, near Syria’s Tabqa Dam.
Note al Hol (“al Hawl”) in the upper right area of the map, near the border with Iraq. Al Hol is the concentration camp run by the Trump forces’ SDF cannon fodder. It houses various foreign savages, such as Brit illegal Shamima Begum; though it is in Syria, it took the Syrian government and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent more than three years of insane negotiations to extricate the kidnapped Italian-Albanian boy, Alvin, and repatriate him with his father.
The al Hol concentration camp is within the al Hasakah governate. In October 2019, Madman Erdogan bombed the electrical power grid there and bombed it again after the Syrian Electricity Army repaired it, and after it was again repaired, the NATO Madman invaded and his illicit troops have occupied the Allouk Water Plant, since — turning the water off and on, and depriving upwards of one million Syrians of their essential water source.
Today, Wednesday 30 December, twenty-five Syrians were massacred while traveling on a bus in Deir Ezzor.
To help us continue please visit the Donate page to donate or learn how you can help us with no cost on you. Follow us on Telegram: http://t.me/syupdates link will open Telegram app.
Tehran – On the first martyrdom anniversary of the late Lieutenant General Hajj Qassem Soleimani, Al-Ahed News sat down with a man who accompanied him on the path of jihad for more than three decades. Hujjat al-Islam wal Muslimin Sheikh Ali Shirazi is the representative of Imam Khamenei to the Thar Allah HQ and his former representative to the Quds Force.
He told us about his relationship and memories with martyr Soleimani. Below is the transcript of the interview:
– You have a relationship that binds you to the martyred leader. How was the first meeting with him? What were the most prominent features of his personality?
My relationship with the martyr goes back to 1982, before Operation Beit-ol-Moqaddas, and it lasted until the moment of his martyrdom. The most important feature in Major General Soleimani’s personality was that he never thought of himself at any time or place, whether in private or public meetings. I never heard him say that he was the reason for the victory in Iraq, Syria, or Lebanon against terrorism. He never spoke in such a manner. He was a sincere man in every sense of the word.
– We saw a video clip in which you were talking about Hajj Qassem and a book on ethics written by His Eminence Ayatollah Sheikh Mesbah Yazdi. It was remarkable how Your Eminence spoke about the martyr’s service to his parents and its impact. Can you elaborate further?
Providing and caring for one’s father and mother are mentioned in the Holy Qur’an along with the worship of God Almighty, and this indicates the great importance of the father and the mother.
Lieutenant General Soleimani was always striving to implement the teachings of religion in his life, and this involved taking care of his mother and father. Although the martyr was busy, I used to see him return from his mission on Thursday and head on the same night from Tehran to Kerman and from Kerman to his village, Qanat Malak, which is two and a half hours away from Kerman. He’d reach there on Friday morning, serve his parents, and head back to Kerman then to Tehran Friday evening. He’d take advantage of opportunities to serve his parents, and he never said, “I am tired”, especially since he worked day and night and traveled a lot. So, whenever he returned to Iran, he never forgot to tend to his parents and family. He was in their service, kissing their hands and feet. He never said, “I am a commander, a brigadier, and the commander of the Quds Force.” On the contrary, he was a servant to his parents.
I consider that his loyalty and service to his parents was the reason for Hajj Qassem Soleimani’s advancement. When Hajj Qassem’s mother died, he was not in Iran. When he arrived at the airport, Brigadier General Ghaani and I met him. He was not yet informed with the news. When I broke the news of her departure, he told me that he was proud that on his last visit he was able to kiss her feet … He was proud of that. This is how this great leader in the Islamic world behaved towards his parents.
– In many of the clips, Hajj Qassem was always talking about the certainty of goodness. How did you see that in his behavior?
Martyr Soleimani never lost hope. During the stage of the holy defense in the southeast of the country, in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, even on the issue of Palestine, and in all stages, he never said that “the matter is beyond our ability” or “we cannot” or “the enemy is strong” or “we cannot win.” Rather, he always had hope and gave it to others, and that’s an important leadership component. Three months before the defeat of Daesh [the Arabic acronym for terrorist ‘ISIS/ISIL’ group] in Syria, Hajj Qassem clearly announced that the terrorist organization would leave and that within three months the mythical Daesh ‘state’ would withdraw. And this happened. This is due to his divine vision and his dependence on God Almighty.
Those who took Soleimani as a role model should also take his hope, his fight against the enemy, his courage, and his jihadist spirit as a model.
– The young men [fighters] were the pulse of Hajj Qassem, and he used to pay special attention to them. What was his most important advice to them?
Martyr Soleimani loved the youth and had absolute confidence in them. During the period of the sacred defense, he would hand over the leadership to them. In Syria, who received leadership duties? The two martyrs, Sadr Zadeh and Qumi, were among those young men. They were among the leaders of the war against terrorism in Syria and Iraq.
Martyr Soleimani supported them and considered himself one of them. They adored him as well, and he used to follow up on matters related to them and solve their problems.
When Hajj Qassem was martyred, some of these dear young men, especially the sons of the martyrs, contacted me and told me that we did not cry for the loss of our fathers the way we cried and were affected by martyr Soleimani’s martyrdom.
I saw in Tehran and Kerman that young people come from all over the country to participate in the funeral procession of the martyr, and they showed this love in the ceremony. We also saw millions taking part in the funeral ceremonies, which proves his good faith and hope in the youth.
– How did Hajj Qassem impact you personally?
I was not a good student of Hajj Qassem Soleimani. In all stages of his life, the martyr was our mentor, and we sought to make him our role model. We are now trying to follow in his footsteps. The martyr used to constantly visit the families of the martyrs, and if we could do something for the families of the martyrs, especially the martyrs of the sacred defense, then we would be like students in martyr Soleimani’s school.
On the morning of December 30th, warplanes of the Israeli Air Force once again carried out strikes on alleged Iranian targets in the countryside of Damascus. According to reports one person was killed and 3 others injured in the attack.
Earlier, an unidentified, unmanned aerial vehicle struck several oil tanks near the village of al-Hamran, which is located north of the town of Manbij in northern Syria. The village is situated on the contact line between territories controlled by Turkish-backed forces and the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
According to local sources, the oil tankers belonged to SDF-linked oil smugglers, who were selling oil looted from the US-controlled oil fields on the eastern bank of the Euphrates to Turkish-linked entities. This oil smuggling business sheds light on the real face of the Kurdish SDF leadership, which likes to make loud statements about its alleged patriotism and its plans to expel the Turkish Army from northern Syria.
In Idlib, three Russian service members received minor injuries as a result of an ATGM strike on their armoured vehicle, the Russian Defense Ministry reported on December 29. The report said that an armored personnel carrier of the Russian Military Police came under attack from the territory controlled by Turkish-backed militants. Russian forces, in cooperation with the Turkish military and Syrian security forces, are looking for those involved.
These developments came as the Turkish Armed Forces were working to evacuate their observation point near the town of Tell Touqan. This was one of their last remaining points within the territories, which have been liberated by the Syrian Army.
Over the past months, Turkey has withdrawn a group of its posts, which had been besieged by Syrian troops. In light of this, the recent increase in attacks by Turkish proxies along the contact line may be a part of the Turkish game aimed at demonstrating that any decrease of the Turkish military presence in Greater Idlib would lead to the deterioration of the security situation there.
Given the precarious geopolitical situation, some Russia supporters might feel that the worst thing now for Russia would be to rock the boat and enrage the West by retaliating against the hybrid war waged against it. In my view, the worst is the Baghdad Bob-like complacency and refusal to understand how serious the things are. For make no mistake, no anxious giggling or bravado (or Russian love of affectionate nicknames) can hide the severity of the current situation. If you are of a weaker disposition, skip the next several paragraphs and land on the juicy, positive bits.
I cannot (and am not trying to) offer an in-depth geopolitical analysis of the current situation in the manner of the Saker. What I can do is produce a parable (or is it allegory?) on how a determined and resourceful victim of constant and total attack must respond in order to save itself and make its enemies pay for all the inflicted pain and suffering—with interest (for after all that is what the bully likes more than anything else). What follows is a completely fictional account of a life-and-death conflict between cultures and religions and any similarities with real countries and characters are purely incidental.
Some 30 years ago, a new era in world history was loudly announced by the supposed victors of a protracted war against a large, semi-pagan people that inhabited large swaths of the continent of Sunlandia. Their vast land was called Dayland. Once they had had a large land empire which crashed and burned in the fires of a revolution fomented by its mortal enemies after having survived countless invasions by sundry power-crazed maniacs and constant enmity by the inhabitants of the lands in which the sun sets (to be called Nightland). But, no, not even the destruction of the empire and its religious importance was not enough to satisfy the haters. The new communist state was immediately shunned by the Nightlanders and retained its pariah status for all its 73 years of existence. Not only that, during its incarnation as a land of workers and peasants (nothing wrong with that), it experienced the most horrible holocaust in modern history (another great country assailed from the East, let’s call it “Mornland” suffered at least to the same extent from a different fascist tyrant). An all too brief interlude of hope and glory (apologies to John Boorman) was immediately replaced by the next phase of the never-ending conflict—isolation and attrition, nuclear threats, sanctions and sabotage, proxy wars, intelligence, economic and cultural battles, the list goes on.
Although exsanguinated by the horrors of the holocide by a semi-formal union of the countries to the West of it and exhausted by external pressures, the great county went on to achieve miracles in improving the living standards and literacy rates of its population to the extent unheard of until then. Other miracles were performed by the country in various fields of science and technology and the example set by its heroic struggle inspired countless anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements which resulted in a fundamental reshaping of the World’s political map. Alas, it was not to last. In spite of great achievements and its crucial role as the bringer of balance to the world affairs, the great (in all senses) country broke up tragically if relatively peacefully. With its demise, the darkening cumulus cloud that had hovered over my head for at least a decade, turned into a giant fat cumulonimbus ready to explode with thunder and lightning.
Although for many people those early years of the new order were the years of hope, soon, the hope was cruelly quashed. Instead of learning the lessons of the “war in all-but-name”, the victors were blinded by their greed and unearned sense of superiority. Instead of healing the wounds of the past, they set out to deepen them by restoring the platform from which most wars of destruction had come. By breaking up federations of the heathen sub-humans, co-opting them into a new feudal system, building a power block around the genocidal transgressor and bleeding the defeated country dry, the Nightland was demonstrating for all to see that its intent was never peaceful.
The first clear inkling of things to come was a beastly aggression committed on a brave and innocent people whose only crime was to have resisted the renewed push towards the East. Conveniently forgotten and explained away by the evil masterminds as a charitable intervention, the war signalled the new phase in the war against Dayland. The border between Nightland and Dayland was pushed about 1500 km eastward. Dayland’s former allies were turned into its worst and most belligerent enemies. With every step to the right, Nightland was gaining and Dayland was losing—friends, trade and influence. Like many times before in its extraordinary history, the country was fortunate in one respect. An exceptional man appeared from nowhere to pull Dayland out of the quagmire and set it on the path of resurgence and renewed greatness. Well, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
We, who care about Dayland are cursing the sheer gall and bloodthirst of the criminal aggressors. Some of us are asking—is this offensive ever going to stop? Most of us know the answer—never! As long as Dayland exists with its strange mix of peoples, faiths and worldviews, it must not live. All we have left is the hope that the leadership of Dayland will be able to deal with the oncoming peril. There is a creeping worry that without a more muscular response, the country will eventually succumb to a death by a thousand cuts. So, here is an overview of the principles that should guide Dayland’s fightback—before it becomes too late.
2. The problem
Before I can talk about means, I must address the causes. Despite its size and advanced society, Dayland has no overt allies and the slightly tepid embrace of Mornland is not sufficient to compensate for this. Note, I am saying overt—that means no partners who are committed to the joint defence and who would mobilise their forces if Dayland were to be attacked. It doesn’t even have potential allies as in countries that would eventually fight on Dayland’s side. Admittedly, some of this information is very secret and there might be exceptions. The one worrying aspect is that this has never been the case before. One does not need to be a historian to realise that whenever an attack came from the dark side, at least half of Nightland was either neutral or on Dayland’s side. Some people will interject: “Oh, they are divided, at odds, it’s an illusion maintained by the printing presses, they would get a bloody nose” etc.
All of these statements are questionable.[2] The currently dominant empire of the Nightland has pretty much absolute control over its minions. Minor disputes are normal within any military, political and economic union. Note that none of the predicted cataclysmic ruptures between the partners in crime ever happened. No great economic crisis that has been predicted since before the occupation of the Borderlands has taken place. If anything, the push towards the lands of the light has intensified—the two are not mutually exclusive. Briefly, things are not looking good for Dayland, not because it is not doing well, but because a large portion of the “developed” world is still allied against it and this in itself is unprecedented and must be dealt with pronto.
The “problem” of the title is that such a situation always calls for active steps and measures aimed at weakening, confusing and discouraging the attacking opponent. Of course, such steps should always be combined with defensive and diplomatic moves but to remove the threat, a serious aggressive pushback on the part of Dayland is needed as soon as possible. When I say “aggressive”, I don’t mean crudely so. What I mean is that a fundamental change of heart is necessary. Over a thousand years of defensive wars have conditioned Dayland’s soldiers and politicians to avoid conflict as long as possible. Whether this is because of deficiencies in forward planning or deep morality is moot—the pattern of procrastination and delaying the inevitable has characterised Dayland’s military, diplomatic and political strategies for a very long time. This would not be much of a problem if it didn’t result in significant (and avoidable) losses and casualties.
Actually, it has become something of a cliché, general Winter and all. Daylanders are supposed to suffer horribly and even if they wake up in the end and prevail, the destruction wrought on them will set them back several decades—enough to strengthen Nightland and ensure its supremacy for the foreseeable future. It is this point that was countered by the great statesman who is currently at the helm of Dayland. He’d promised his opponents that Dayland would never again fight a war on its territory. Recently he had announced a substantial change to the country’s nuclear doctrine which from now on will treat any incoming missiles as nuclear—no petty stuff. And yet, this is far from enough. How come, you’ll ask? Well, if the president’s warnings and veiled threats had been sufficient, the Big Bad Wolf would not be knocking on the last piggy’s door. Admittedly, this door is made of a sturdier stuff than the previous ones but nevertheless—the fact that he has come so far should alert everybody at how precarious the situation is. We are one semi-successful colour revolution away from the ultimate victory of Nightland.
No human kindness will dissuade the scum of the earth to desist and embrace the path of peace and co-operation. The Mephistophelian financiers, venal leeches in the media, talentless parasites infesting countless NGOs and “institutes”, petty bureaucrats tasked with pulling down monuments and places of worship, businessmen sabotaging their own companies for the sake of a hidden hand and moronic generals issuing bloodcurdling threats while installing their missiles ever closer to Dayland’s borders—all of these despicable people must be given a message that they will understand and hopefully rethink their course.
3. The solution
Clearly, this is a vast topic and I have only a couple of thousand words (which I’m wasting) to outline a strategy that might or might not be successful but certainly represents a viable departure from the current dilatory posture by Dayland’s government. I shall deliberately ignore some recent attempts at countering the offensive and focus on what’s possible. One of the common quandaries in situations of this kind is that 95% of modern warfare is conducted secretly, in ways that are not only unknown but unknowable by us mere mortals. This is a world of secret institutions with large budgets and no democratic oversight, sophisticated intelligence capabilities and covert action. Although this is probably true to some extent, it makes one susceptible to a fallacy that human agency has no place in a modern war. This is analogous to what I call “cryptographer’s fallacy” which states that a brute force increase in the complexity of a cypher renders it unbreakable. As long as there is a faintest trace of human activity buried under the layers of technological obfuscation, human origins of the cypher remain discernible and actionable. This is my reasoning behind writing this. However sophisticated the enemy might appear, they cannot completely camouflage their weak spots. Even if they don’t possess any, intelligent and creative approach to counter-terror must bear fruit. The key here is unpredictability—not of the kind espoused by Donald Trump but something much more elaborate and advanced—something worthy of Russia’s genius.
Here, let me list a few principles that Dayland should embrace in order to produce a combination of a pushback and payback that is so badly needed at this moment.
3.1. By delaying the pushback, you are only making things worse for yourself. The damage/time function is passed its crossing point. The time to act is now.
3.2. There is no need to be mindlessly aggressive in the manner of the USA. The knowledge that such offensive weapons are available and can be used is often enough to dissuade the opponent. But remember, they have to be able to cause real pain.
3.3. This proposal runs against everything you have been taught and made to believe is right. Targeting “non-military” assets is an important part of this. You will have to stoop to your enemy’s level in order to rise again free from existential threat. And this time you must be ruthless—as ruthless as they are. Those sweet voices telling you to be “better” than your enemy do not necessarily wish you well.
3.4. Aggression is necessary and important in all aspects of statecraft. This does not mean a crude unyielding attack against all and sundry (this is not possible at the moment anyway) but a targeted, co-ordinated yet sub-threshold campaign of: sabotage, political warfare, targeted elimination of external and internal threats, painful reciprocal punishments for every inimical gesture and a ramping up of the threat of armed retaliation.
3.5. For this to work, you must dispense with any hopes that you will ever be accepted as equals by the West. The destruction of two of your previous incarnations in a span of about 60 years and the total war against the current one should be sobering enough. You must work for a new world in which your and other peoples will exist free from the existential threat posed by the eternal vulture.
3.6. Your adversary is neither superior nor supreme. His power rests on the pillage of ancient cultures and peoples and his time as the ruler of the world is coming to an end. That makes him dangerous but also prone to errors. Act like the brave guerrillas of old. Avoid direct punches (set battles) but fight back as fiercely as you can. It is not so much about results but attitude. He must know that any inimical moves will be costly and painful for him and his lackeys.
3.7. Once you accept the above, a whole new arsenal of subtle weapons will become accessible. This includes a myriad of fine-grain activities and micro-scale operations which can achieve remarkable results if capably co-ordinated and efficiently carried out. If you succeed in putting these in motion, you will not need hypersonic weapons (although they do help).
4. The strategy
It is here that things become interesting and difficult. How can a strategy be designed that is so sophisticated that the enemy cannot parry it (while its implementation does not involve undue effort)? First, one has to recognise that the power differential means that there is little room for error. Even more important than this is a lack of predictability which confounds the adversary and transfers initiative to the defending camp. And although the defender has fewer means to retaliate, he can make up for it by leveraging his assets and using them to his maximum advantage. These are not always visible. For example, … oh hell, enough of this silly charade! The ongoing stereotype about Russia is “gas and hackers”.
Although corny and offensive, the stereotype holds a grain of truth. For years, analysts have been speculating on the importance of gas pipelines as an appropriate deterrent. However, after five years of toing and froing on the gas front, it is becoming clear that this kind of weapon is very ineffective. The reasons are: a) it can be easily neutralised or bypassed and b) even if it’s not, it always leads to an eventual loss of influence (workings of the market, anti-Russian Western courts etc.). While it may be useful to have somewhere in the arsenal, history tells us that Russia would never use petrochemicals as a weapon even against its worst enemies. By contrast, the relentless “meddling” campaign in the West reminds us that Russia’s programmers and computer scientists are its top asset and I hope they are sufficiently incentivised to stay in Russia and protect her from the perennial aggressor. The future wars will be largely electronic.
In order to deprive Russia of freedom of action and oxygen of public sympathy, the West has embarked on an unprecedented coordinated campaign of demonisation of Russia as well as persecution, expulsion, arrest and assassination of its citizens. The degree of agreement in public opinion achieved by the new Nazis is mindboggling and I am not using this word lightly. All across the Western world Russian diplomatic property is being confiscated, ambassadors are being killed and diplomats expelled in their hundreds. The very mention of “Russia” is sufficient to trigger adverse associations in the majority of Westerners. Sanction after sanction is fired at the Russian state and its functionaries and capital projects are sabotaged without impunity.
What has been very surprising all the way through this escalating crisis is the apparent meekness of the Russian response to the enemy’s blows. By this I don’t mean complete inaction, but the belief that things are not irretrievably bad, that one event or another (e.g. election) could turn this crusade around and allow the Russians to breathe freely. Unfortunately, highly nuanced diplomatic warnings, allusions to possible outcomes, the tactic of always leaving an escape hatch ajar so that the partnyor doesn’t for one moment have to consider the consequences of his transgressions—are less than ineffective. For the adversary assumes that Russia is more afraid of an escalation (which is happening anyway) than offending or angering the evil behemoth (which is happening anyway).[3]
While going through the motions, the Americans are tightening the screws as we speak. Even the criminal geopolitical reprobate—Germany—dares threaten Russia openly without any meaningful response (Navalny, Byelorussia, Moldova, Ukraine etc.). In a word, Russia’s posture is dangerously passive. Although useful once, when a parity existed in the deadly power between the West and the East, this posture has long outlived its usefulness. It appears as a timorous, peace-at-all costs-seeking response to serious aggressive moves. The aggressor knows that Russian benevolence is not a consequence of power because this is only shown rarely and in exceptional circumstances (like the Americans who occasionally but very rarely give Russia a pat on the back). Rather, in Russia’s case it’s becoming a trope, a cliched modus operandi which hopes to appease the enemy and stay his merciless hand. But his hand won’t be stayed. He has ignored Russia’s pleading and president Putin’s warnings and is marching on. I am convinced that a change of tack is sorely needed. Judo might appear defensive but its ultimate aim is slamming an opponent against the tatami—and worse.
The three requirements that should guide a successful response strategy by Russia are:
4a. A deep change of heart
This point is perhaps the most important because it requires the most extensive social and psychological intervention. What do I mean by a “DCH”? In order to remove the curse of the West from its borders, first Russia needs to remove the West from its hearts. None of the super advanced hypersonic weapons will be worth a dime if those who are supposed to fire them idolise Hollywood and rap and fantasise about living in California or Bavaria (e. g. Gorbachev). I know that this sounds over the top but we are in an over-the-top situation where no rational dialogue is possible. We are dealing with an opponent who understands only brute force and considers Russians nothing more than dangerous semi-humans. I know, you’ll hear Americans say—oh, I’ve had Russian neighbours and they are lovely people, hard-working, keeping themselves to themselves blah blah. Aren’t you tired of that ….? The future for Russia will be very grim unless it breaks off its dependence on the West as an eternal magnetic pole of virtue and civilisation. Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe and Molière are dead and nothing will bring them back. Moreover, they have nothing to do with the unthinking racist, fascist, imperialist and chauvinist West as it is now.
The West is not a Nirvana of tolerance, gentility and democracy. It’s an artificial predatory organism whose genocidal hunger grows in proportion to the number of innocent lives it has snuffed out. It can sustain social peace at home as long as it is allowed to rob, steal and traduce abroad. Its long-term prospects being bleak, it is intent on dragging the world into the abyss not unlike what a dying Balrog did to Gandalf the Grey (damn that British propaganda). I am not advocating a total break with the West but a watchful, vary mistrust inspired by the awareness of West’s true intentions towards Russia. While it is difficult if not impossible to control the feelings of the millions of ordinary Russians, the example must come from the top. Credit where credit’s due—I am seeing a belated attempt to disrupt the activity of enemy agents inside Russia. I’ll quote Colonel Cassad: “Better late than never”.
4b. Aggressive forward posture
Emotionally, the hardest part for anybody who understands the underlying dynamics of the “European” imperialism and cares about Russia is the reactive posture of the Russian governing structures in the face of dehumanising treatment by the West. The cliches such as “open doors”, “international law”, “peaceful coexistence” and “always ready” etc. only embolden the enemy and show up Russian policy as weak, dilatory and unprepared to respond in kind (even if it Russia’s true strength is much greater).[4] This needs to change very soon if Russia is to stand any chance of regaining initiative in international relations. At the same time, the avalanche of slander and sabotage was so vast that waiting for it to rumble its way down the mountainside might have seemed like a good strategy.
Examples abound, for instance the humiliating treatment of Russia by the Bulgarians (South Stream, diplomat expulsions etc.). What should have been done was to expose Bulgaria to the maximum pressure especially economic and diplomatic. Subtle co-ordinated campaign of harassment of Bulgarian diplomats, businessmen and spies should have been par for the course. A concerted effort to harm Bulgaria might not have destroyed the country but could have contributed to a change in policy. If large gestures were out of question, an accumulation of small steps would have more than sufficed. But nothing ever came of it. The Bulgarians harassed Russian diplomats instead and the whole messy saga was forgotten. What hasn’t changed is the inimical posture by the country which owes its birth and survival to Russia. A more recent insulting treatment of Sergei Lavrov by the Croatian and “Bosnian” apparatchiks stick in one’s craw and reinforce the impression of severe weakness of the Russian foreign policy.
The recent shameful pronouncements by a Jewish president of the Ukraine whose grandfather had fought in the Red Army to the effect that Russia was guilty of starting WWII has been met by a mild rebuke from the Russian foreign ministry. A similar non-response was given following the threat by a Vukro-Nazi to deprive the population of Crimea of running water. Where are all the GRU illegals, Spetznaz snipers and sappers? What about the monuments to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War?
Every insult or threat directed at a Russian citizen (or symbol) irrespective of their status needs to be answered in kind. Let me give you a broad-brush example. For every Russian arrested abroad without a clear criminal case, a national of the offending country should be held in custody until the Russian has been released. If this is not possible, a company belonging to the offending country should be closed down and its property nationalised. For every Russian diplomat dying under less than completely innocent circumstances or being expelled, a foreign diplomat should be expelled in turn or a consulate closed down. This might be costly in the short term but would soon disabuse the barbarians of the notion that Russians are a meek and forgiving sort. Of course, these crude examples should be elaborated in order to confuse the enemy.
Sanctions are a matter of state policy but under no circumstances should they (or counter-sanctions) be applied half-heartedly. All sanctions must be treated as weapons of war. Consequently, they must never be used as a “warning” or a “slap”. Why? Because this kind of response must have been factored in by the enemy at the planning stage. Either they should be aimed at seriously harming the opponent or should be left in the rifle locker. I have the impression that Russia has been applying all of its economic weapons half-heartedly and very reluctantly.
Immediate and painful retaliation must follow any attack on Russia’s interests. Why? Because the cliché about “best served cold” is often just an excuse of the powerless. If the retaliation is not contingent on and contiguous with the original crime, it loses its meaning and its potency. Let me return to the South Stream—Russian pipeline that should have solved the problems of gas supply for the whole of Southern and Central Europe—was cancelled after a single visit to the quisling Bulgarian regime by a rabidly Russophobe US senator. After all the billions of roubles spent and thousands of hours of political, diplomatic and engineering work invested in the project, Russia’s only link with the Balkans was closed down irreversibly in a day. Russia’s response? Zilch, nada. Can this go on?
4c. Unpredictability/flexibility
If response in kind is not possible (I refuse to believe this), then small-scale but unpredictable retaliatory steps are the order of the day. One could argue that Russia’s responses are highly predictable. To illustrate—ever since say 2007, has Russia ONCE made a pro-active move that would inflict pain on its adversaries BEFORE they’d struck Russia? One can drown in excuses—Russians are trying to prevent a war (why is it their duty to do so?), they are polite (typical patronising Western head-patting) and a million others. A great deal has been made of President Putin’s stealthy moves in the Crimea and Syria. YES, that is the right way to go about things in foreign policy but at ALL LEVELS and most of the time (and often in advance of the enemy’s move). Instead of the Duma deliberating at how and when to respond (which leaves Russia an open book to its adversaries), a semi-clandestine organisation within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs needs to be formed which would work out strategies and scheduling of retaliatory responses in advance. This should be based on pseudo-random schedules where the timing and content of individual steps are not easily predicted. Furthermore, such steps should be individually intractable and only understandable when viewed as parts of a higher-level whole.
There is no reason why such strategies cannot be tweaked and adapted to real-life scenarios very quickly. The point is that the enemy reads Russia’s responses as a kind of simple code that is easy to break. “We shall respond symmetrically!” Who cares—the enemy knows this already. You should confound them by responding in a manner that gives your response maximum power. This is particularly important for a country that can compete with the West in terms of intellect but not money. In other words, I am asking for a wholesale change in strategy—from nuclear bombers to mini drone swarms (each element is insignificant but coordinated, large numbers of weak elements are capable of causing substantial damage).
I need to reiterate in conclusion that some of what I described above is starting to percolate into the official pronouncements and actions of the Russian government. They have changed Russia’s nuclear posture, restricted the space for activities of various foreign organisations and possibly social media. Further, the tone of Russian diplomacy has changed considerably in the last six to 12 months (although not perhaps as much as I would wish). This of course is very welcome but again predictable and easily ignored.[5] So in the spirit of the great victory of the Soviet people, I humbly propose: Not a step back!
This is an informal title of the Order 227 issued on 28th July 1942 by Joseph Stalin with the aim of stopping the seemingly unceasing advance by the Germans and their allies. This essay is a polemic and not an attempt at objective analysis. ↑
As I am finishing this piece, I read that Britain has exited the EU. I consider this a positive sign—the idea of a “united West” (a complete abomination and a death sentence for Russia) has gone for good. Furthermore, the Russian government has undertaken a number of positive and necessary steps aimed at reversing the enemy’s advance. ↑
I have studied this weakness of Russian statecraft in some depth. A very similar thing occurred in the years preceding WWI when Germany decided to assert its dominance in the Balkans. Russians tried to accommodate the brazen and insulting German demands until the very last moment. To those who disagree—if I am wrong, why is the West continuing with its aggressive plans despite all the warnings by Russia? ↑
Here we encounter an interesting problem. Constantly underplaying one’s strength is as dangerous as the opposite. For this reason alone, a more aggressive posture by Russia is called for. ↑
This is another danger of predictable behaviour. The enemy is incentivised to ignore it until it’s too late. By the way, public deliberation is fine as long as it has the potential of producing unexpected outcomes. ↑
The daughter of Iran’s top anti-terror commander, Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, who was martyred in a US assassination drone strike earlier in the year, hailed her father as the “conqueror of hearts” and a highly charismatic filed commander.
Zeinab Soleimani said in an exclusive interview with Beirut-based al-Mayadeen television network on Tuesday that what distinguished her father was that he was a “strong military field commander with very strong charisma, clever … and besides that he had a remarkably compassionate and affectionate heart as well.”
Zeinab said the top commander “used to capture the hearts of people,” and that, “My father used to find his way through people’s hearts, especially those who worked with them and those close to him.”
General Soleimani’s daughter underlined that her father’s field presence alongside other military forces was the result of his “belief in the necessity of standing by the oppressed.”
“He did not differentiate between the Lebanese, Syrian, Iranian, Palestinian or Yemeni people. Any aggression against people, their money and their honor was a red line for him,” Zeinab told al-Mayadeen television network.
She also said that the issue of Palestine and the Palestinian people was “very important” to General Soleimani, and stressed that, “he used all his capabilities to serve the Palestinian cause and the result is that we see today the strength of the Palestinian resistance movement.”
Zeinab concluded that those behind the brutal assassination of General Soleimani would pay the price “in the most horrific possible way.”
The US military assassinated General Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolution Guard [IRG], along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units [PMU], and their companions by targeting their vehicle outside Baghdad International Airport on January 3.
The cowardly act of terror was carried out under the direction of US President Donald Trump, with the Pentagon taking responsibility for the strike.
A senior Iranian official said on Sunday that the Islamic Republic has drawn up a list of 48 individuals against whom legal action will be taken in relation to the assassination of General Soleimani.
Both martyred commanders were viewed by the world’s freedom-seeking people as heroes who risked their lives taking on Daesh, the world’s most notorious terrorist group, on the battlefield. They played a key part in defeating the terror outfit.
Several million people attended the funeral processions held for the commanders in the Iraqi cities of Kadhimiya, Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf as well as the Iranian cities of Ahvaz, Mashhad, Tehran, Qom and Kerman.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution His Eminence Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei warned soon after the atrocity about a pending “harsh revenge” for the brutal assassination.
The IRG fired volleys of ballistic missiles at two US bases in Iraq on January 8. According to the US War Department, more than 100 American forces suffered “traumatic brain injuries” during the counterstrikes. The IRG, however, says Washington uses the term to mask the number of the Americans who perished during the retaliation.
Iran has also issued an arrest warrant and asked Interpol for help in detaining Trump, who ordered the assassination, and several other US military and political leaders behind the strike.
Anti-American sentiments have been running high in Iraq after the two senior commanders were assassinated in Baghdad, with Iraqi lawmakers unanimously passing a bill on January 5 that mandated the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq.
Iraqi resistance groups have pledged to take up arms against US forces if Washington fails to comply with the parliamentary order.
It sure looks like Biden will take over the White House one way or another, and while Trump and his supporters might still try a few things, the political correlation of forces inside the US ruling classes is clearly against Trump. As for the “deplorables” – they have been neutralized by stealing the election. Which means that Russia will soon face the most rabidly russophobic gang of messianic Neocons in history. So what can the world expect next?
The Dems are not meaningfully different from the Republicans. True, the Dems blame Russia for everything, while the Republicans blame China. Not much of a difference here: it is all about hate and scapegoating. And both of these factions of the oligarchic Uniparty like to blame Iran for, well, being located in the “wrong” part of the world, the Middle-East, which all US politicians (and not to mention their Israeli masters) want to control. As for the Israel Lobby, it has been trying to trigger a US attack on Iran for many decades. Recent US moves of key personnel and bombers might indicate that discussions of an attack on Iran are still very much taking place.
I don’t believe that these fundamental directions in US foreign policy will change much.
Why?
Primarily because the AngloZionist Empire and even the US as we knew them are basically dead, which means that irrespective of who is in control of the US, the objective means/capabilities of the Empire and the US will remain the same. In other words, when Biden promises to show Russia how tough and mighty he will be, he will not have any more capabilities to threaten Russia with than Trump had.
So the first thing we can expect is simply “more of the same”.
Now, in the Empire of Illusions which the United States has become, appearances matter much more than facts. US politicians have two quasi-reflexive reactions to any problem: use violence or throw money at it. Of course, using violence against Russia (or China and Iran) would be extremely dangerous. So throwing money at a problem is the way chosen by the US political elites (see here for the, rather boring, details).
A lot of that money will also be spent on ideological nonsense like supporting trans-gender rights in Africa, woke-awareness in the Baltic, “critical race theory” in Japan (good luck with that!), “Holocaust studies” in Poland and the like.
What will happen next is that this money will be spread amongst a pretty large US and EU bureaucracy (and its subcontractors) to all sorts of political PR actions aimed at presenting modern Russia as “Putin’s Mordor” whose “Nazguls” (scary GRU and/or SVR and/or FSB agents) run around the planet looking for more targets to infect with the totally ineffective, but still scary, “Novichok”. In the past, much of that money was spent inside Russia by all sorts of CIA-run NGOs and much of it was also spent on various propaganda efforts outside Russia. Again, this will not change, if anything, expect even more money poured into what are in reality strategic PSYOP operations.
The sad truth is that US politicians know very little about Russia, a country which they hate and fear, but not a country they even begin to understand. In this case, what US politicians will not realize is that Russia herself has changed a great deal in the past years: many new laws and regulation (see machine translated example here) were adopted which, in essence, “plugged” many political “holes” in the Russian legislation which allowed AngloZionist organizations to have a great deal of influence in Russia. As a result of these reforms, it has become far more difficult for western run NGOs to influence the Russian political scene.
As a direct result of these new rules, I expect that a higher ratio of money will stay allocated to activities situated in the West and less for Russian-based activities. In plain English, this means that more US printed money will be spent on completely useless activities. The only people benefitting from this will be the entire class of pseudo “Russia experts” whose only true expertise is on how to secure grant money. They will produce even more conferences and papers which nobody will care about, but which will allow the US Neocons and their deep state to show how “Biden is firm with Russia”. The typical US cocktail of waste, mismanagement and fraud (and let’s not forget good old corruption!).
Russia’s response to that will also be “more of the same”: Russian politicians will continue to express their disgust with their western “partners” (FYI – when Russians speak of “partners” it is understood by all that they mean this only sarcastically). Foreign Minister Lavrov and one of his deputies have recently made statements basically indicating that Russia will not seek any (!) form of dialog with the West, because, frankly, it is pretty clear to them that this is a total waste of time: Russia has nobody in the West to speak to: the only country with real agency (albeit severely limited by its subordination to Israel) would be the US, all the other countries of the West are really colonies and/or protectorates with no sovereignty at all.
What about all the many military provocations the Empire is organizing all around Russia? Do they concern Russia leaders or not?
Well, no and yes.
In purely military terms, US/NATO military capabilities are no real threat to Russia whose military is much smaller, but also much more capable than the western ones. Why? Simply because building a truly powerful military has been a core strategic priority for the Kremlin who needed a military actually capable of a) deterring the West from attacking Russia and b) defeating the West should deterrence fail. In sharp contrast, western militaries have not been training for real wars for decades already: most of what the US/NATO do is using western militaries for all sorts of propaganda purposes (like “sending messages” or “showing determination” etc.) and for counter-insurgency operations, not for fighting a real, major, wars.
Right now the Russian military is much more modern (about 80% of new gear on average across all military branches and services!) and much better trained for real combat operations. In sharp contrast, the US MIC is heavy on hot air (Space Force! Hypersonic missiles! Artificial Intelligence!) and short on any actually deployed and engageable weapon systems. Away from the propaganda machine (aka “corporate legacy ziomedia”), the reality is that the West is about 1.5-2 decades behind Russia in most critical military technologies.
Last, but not least, wars are not won by machines, computers or fancy engineering: they are won by soldiers, real men, who know what they are defending and why. The contrast between the typical Russian soldier (in any service or branch of the military) and his western counterpart could not be greater than it is today. Simply put: no western country can boast that it has soldiers like Russia has and, again, I don’t mean the “super dooper” elite Spetsnaz operators, I am talking about your very average, garden variety, infantry soldier, like the ones who saved Russia in the Chechen conflict in spite of operating in truly horrible and totally chaotic circumstances. These guys might not look like much, but as soldiers they are the kind every commander dreams about.
All this is to say that Russians have nothing to fear from all the western sabre-rattling, except maybe one thing: the rogue officer, on either side, who would suddenly decide to open fire (for whatever reason) thereby creating a situation which could escalate into a full-scale war very rapidly.
The other thing which is objectively bad for Russia is the number of key treaties the US has now withdrawn from: these treaties are most needed, especially as confidence building measures. Right now there are very few treaties left and that means that the US is desperate to try to suck Russia into an arms race.
This won’t work.
Why?
Putin himself explained it very well when he recently said that while the West throws huge sums of money at any problem, Russia allocates brains, not money. According to Putin, it is the use of brains, rather than wasting money, which allowed Russia to develop all the weapon systems mentioned by Putin for the first time in 2018. This made it possible for Russia to get ahead by a decade or more, while using only a small fraction of the kind of money the US, and other western countries, are allocating on “defense” (while not being threatened by anybody!). In the competition between the US money printing press and the Russian brains, you can be sure that the latter one will always prevail.
The bottom line is this: the US can spend many hundred billion dollars on “countering Russian (or Chinese) influence”, but this will do absolutely nothing to help the objective circumstances and capabilities of the Empire or the US.
So the real question is what will change on the level below direct military confrontation.
In a recent press conference, Putin mentioned something very interesting about the outgoing Trump administration. He said:
“The current administration introduced new sanctions against Russia 46 times – against our legal entities and economic operators. Forty-six times – this has never ever happened before. But at the same time, bilateral trade grew by 30 percent over the previous year, oddly enough, even despite those restrictions.”
So if the putatively pro-Russian Trump Administration sanctioned Russia 46 times, it is normal for the Russians to look at Biden with equanimity or even a resigned fatalism: “the West has always hated us, the West still hates us and the West will always hate us” – this truism is all but unanimously accepted amongst Russian politicians.
Still, we can count on Biden and Harris to try to show how “tough” they are on Russia and Putin: they will show their prowess mostly by demanding that their NATO/EU colonies and protectorates continue “send messages” to Russia and show their “unity” and “solidarity” with each other, mostly by parroting self-evidently nonsensical Anglo and German propaganda. Will the bilateral trade between Russia and the US continue to grow? Probably not as the list of corporations and agencies the US declares to be under sanctions will only grow further. But never say never, especially with the comprehensively hypocritical Dems…
How about the kind of self-evidently ridiculous stories about Russians using (a clearly ineffective) combat biological agent like the so-called “Novichok”, trying to kill irrelevant bloggers and failing to do so, or some variation on “animal Assad” “poisoning his own people”? Will that nonsense also continue? Probably, mainly simply because this is something which the Empire has demonstratively proved that it has the ability to do. So why not continue, especially with a press corps willing to parrot even the most ridiculous nonsense.
The bottom line is this: to get a sense of what any actor could do next, one always has to multiply intentions by capabilities. If there is one thing which the outgoing Maga Administration has shown, is that its declared intentions and actual capabilities are not at all commensurate: hence the long list of countries Trump threatened, but never meaningfully attacked. “Biden” (and I use this term very loosely, meaning “Biden and his real handlers”) will inherit the very same geostrategic toolkit Trump had at his disposal for four years and which did not make it possible for him to effectively flex muscles, not even against weak and nearby Venezuela! We can be pretty sure that the rhetoric about Russia will get even more hate-filled and paranoid. Petty harassment (such as arrest of nationals, closures of offices, expulsion from various international events, etc.) will also continue, not so much because they work, but because a lot of people depend on these for their salary.
How likely is a shooting war? In my personal opinion, not very likely at all. I think that the folks at the Pentagon are mostly aware of the real world out there, and they probably recognize that the US armed forces are in no condition to fight any halfway capable opponent.
How likely is it that the US will use a protectorate like the Ukraine or Georgia to reignite another local war? It is not impossible, especially since the US did support SBU infiltration of terrorists into Russia. Keep in mind that the sole goal of such (a, frankly, suicidal) attack would be to provoke Russia into a military response, not to actually achieve anything else. The main problem here is that the regular armed forces of the Ukraine and Georgia are in no condition to fight, and that the (US letter soup controlled) Ukrainian and Georgian special services have already tried this many times, and so far without success, mainly because, unlike all the western countries, Russia has the actual means to lock her borders when needed.
What about the reported plan to destabilize Russia by creating conflicts all along her periphery?
It would take way too long for me here to describe what is taking place in each of these countries right now, but I will offer just the following bullet points:
Russia has officially declared that she will never allow Belarus to be conquered by the West (irrespective of the means used). That ship has sailed.
Russia is slowly, but surely and very successfully “choking” the economies of the three Baltic statelets, mostly by denying them transit of Russian cargo and by letting them cut themselves off (yes, they did that to themselves!) from the Russian-Belarusian energy network.
Poland is, as always, very loud, and, also as always, highly irrelevant. Poles are only potentially dangerous to a very weak, divided country, or when backed by powerful patrons. Neither is true nowadays.
The Ukraine poses no threat to Russia, it is way too weak, too corrupt, too mismanaged and too poor to represent a threat to Russia. The Minsk Agreements have been de-facto rejected by the entire Ukronazi political class and the Donbass is now gone forever.
The Caucasus is now firmly in Russian hands (there is no force capable of challenging the Southern Military District or the 58th Combined Arms Army in the region). Those who believe that Turkey strengthened its position in the region simply do not understand the outcome of the recent war (especially the very interesting drone war which showed that while Armenia could not deal with them, Russian EW literally destroyed Turkish drones in mid-air (this also happened in Syria, by the way).
Central Asia is an inherently unstable region, mainly because these countries never succeeded in effectively transitioning from the Soviet period to full independence. And yes, the US has a great deal of influence in this region. But only Russia can provide effective security guarantees to the leaders of Central Asia, they all know that. Finally, Kazakhstan plays an important “buffer” role for Russia, putting distance between her and her chronically unstable southern neighbors.
In the Far East, Russia and China are enjoying a long honeymoon in which their already very deep relationship only gets deeper and their collaboration stronger (in spite of western PSYOPs trying to scare Russians about how China wants to take Siberia, and other silly fairy tales). Russia is now even supplying key strategic defense technologies to China.
Last, but most certainly not least, Russia has total superiority in the Arctic, where the West is many decades behind Russia. In fact, Russia is massively expanding her capabilities (civilian and military) in the Russian north, which will give her even more weight on our planet’s very rich north.
Now ask yourself: do you see any of that changing in the next 4 years, even assuming a rabidly hostile Biden Administration? I sure don’t.
Conclusion:
Yes, the political atmosphere between Russia and the Empire will get worse. Most of the “action” will take place in the public media space. The quasi simultaneous collapse of the Anglo-Zionist Empire and the United States (at least as we knew them before the election steal) will not give much time or energy to western leaders to pursue policies which have already failed in the past and for which they simply do not have the means.
Trump or Biden was never a meaningful choice for Russia (only the Russian court jester Zhirinovskii thought otherwise). It’s not much of a choice today either. The most likely consequence of these collapses will be that the world will split in roughly two sections: “Section A” which will include all the countries of the “collective West” and which will be busy trying to survive a crisis which has only begun and “Section B”: the rest of the world, which will try hard to decouple itself from the sinking West and try to develop itself in this rather unstable environment.
Also, many Russians remember the gerontocracy which ruled in the last years of the USSR and they know how such gerontocracies act (make no difference if the country is ruled by a Chernenko or a Biden – such rulers are always weak and clueless).
لا يستطيع المرء إلّا أن يتعجّب من مدى قصر نظر الحكم المغربي في إقدامه على خطوته المشينة الأخيرة في التطبيع مع الكيان الصهيوني، التي يصحّ فيها وفي نظيراتها بحق وصف اتفاقيات التتبيع بالكيان الصهيوني، بحسب تعبير أحدهم. فربط الحكم المغربي هذه الفعلة بالاعتراف الأميركي بسيادة المغرب على الصحراء الغربية يضيف إلى هذه الخطوة محاذير من الناحية الاستراتيجية، تضاف إلى المحاذير التقليدية لأي تعامل مع الكيان الغاصب كما سنجادل.
في البدء، إنّ كلّ اعتراف بالكيان الصهيوني يعدّ خيانة بالمطلق لمبادئ العقيدة والثوابت القومية، بغضّ النظر عن أيّ مبرّرات واهمة أو أيّ مكاسب تكتيكية قصيرة الأمد يفرح بها المطبّعون أو بالأحرى المُستتبَعون، ولا سيما في هذه المرحلة التي يعلن فيها الكيان الغاصب ضمّ القدس وأراضي الضفة الغربية. فكل اعتراف بالكيان الصهيوني في هذه المرحلة ينطوي على تنازل عن القدس والمقدسات الإسلامية والمسيحية في فلسطين، ولا تنفع معه تبريرات من قبيل كون الاعتراف بالكيان الصهيوني جاء في سياق ما يسمّى حلّ الدولتين المرفوض أصلاً، حيث من القصور توصيف الصراع العربي الصهيوني على أنه صراع على بقعة جغرافية، بل هو صراع مع كيان استيطاني واحتلالي وظيفي. ويشكّل هذا الكيان قاعدة متقدّمة زرعها الاستعمار القديم كامتداد له في قلب الأمة العربية والإسلامية يجب اجتثاثها، فلا وظيفة لهذا الكيان سوى إطالة زمن الهيمنة الإمبريالية على شعوب منطقتنا. وأما في حالة المغرب، فنجد أنّ هذا الاعتراف قد أضاف إلى كلّ هذه المحاذير العقدية والقومية والوطنية احتمالات دخوله في مرحلة اضطرابات عبر تجدد النزاع العسكري مع سكان الصحراء الغربية وجبهة البوليساريو. نشأت قضية الصحراء الغربية مع انتهاء الاستعمار الإسباني لتلك المنطقة في عام 1975، الذي ترك منطقة الصحراء الغربية مقسّمة بين دولتي المغرب وموريتانيا. وبعد انسحاب موريتانيا من المناطق التي كانت تسيطر عليها في الصحراء الغربية، وبعد الإعلان عن الجمهورية العربية الصحراوية الديموقراطية في عام 1976، استمر النزاع المسلّح حول منطقة الصحراء بين جبهة البوليساريو المطالبة بالاستقلال والمغرب على تلك المنطقة إلى عام 1991، حين قرّرت جبهة البوليساريو وقف العمليات العسكرية ضد الجيش المغربي، وصدر القرار الأممي الرقم 690 بشأن قضية الصحراء الغربية الذي نص في مضمونه على إجراء استفتاء لحسم هذه القضية، إما باستقلال الصحراء أو بانضمامها إلى المغرب. ولقد تباينت مواقف الأحزاب والقوى العربية بشأن قضية الصحراء، منذ نشأتها، بين مؤيّد لحق سكّان المنطقة الصحراوية في الاستقلال وتقرير مصيرهم، ولا سيما في ظِلّ حكم المغرب الملكي الذي يعدّ رجعياً ومتخاذلاً من الناحية الوطنية، وبين معارض للمزيد من التقسيم في الأقطار العربية بغض النظر عن طبيعة حكم هذه الأقطار. أما اليوم، وبعد مقايضة المغرب لتطبيعها مع الكيان الصهيوني بفرض سيادتها على الصحراء الغربية، فيُعتقَد أن يكون لهذا انعكاس على مواقف بعض القوى العربية من قضية الصحراء لجهة تأييدها لاستقلال منطقة الصحراء عن النظام المطبّع، وإعطاء جبهة البوليساريو المزيد من المشروعية الشعبية في قتالها من أجل الاستقلال، إضافة إلى أن الاعتراف الأميركي المسموم بسيادة المغرب على منطقة الصحراء الغربية، وتجاهله للقرار الأممي الرقم 690 والوصول لحل لهذه القضية الشائكة عبر الاستفتاء يفتح الباب أمام احتمالية انهيار وقف إطلاق النار الهش بين جبهة البوليساريو والمغرب. فهذا الاعتراف الخبيث وغير المسؤول يحشر جبهة البوليساريو في الزاوية من جهة تعويلها على قرارات الأمم المتحدة من أجل التوصل لحلّ عادل لقضية سكان منطقة الصحراء، ويضع منطقة المغرب العربي بعمومها أمام احتمالات تجدد دوامة العنف والصدام العسكري، سيما أن الاعتراف الأميركي لم يأخذ في الحسبان مواقف الدول المعنية بالأمر، من الجزائر وموريتانيا. وبهذا تكون أميركا كعادتها قد صبّت الزيت على النار في بؤر التوتر في وطننا العربي، ويجد المرء نفسه مضطراً إلى موافقة مستشار الأمن القومي الأميركي السابق جون بولتون في ما ذهب إليه في مقاله الأخير في مجلة «فورن بوليسي» الأميركية بهذا الشأن، حيث وصف قرار إدارة الرئيس دونالد ترامب، الذي ستنتهي ولايته قريباً، بالاعتراف بسيادة المغرب على منطقة الصحراء الغربية بالقرار الأهوج الذي يهدّد الاستقرار في منطقة المغرب العربي بعمومه. لا نودّ تحديد موقف من قضية استقلال الصحراء الغربية في هذا المقال، لكن إذا تبنّينا جدلاً الموقف المغربي من هذه القضية الذي يعد منطقة الصحراء الغربية جزءاً من الأرض المغربية، فيمكن وصف ما فعله الحكم المغربي بأنه قد اعترف بما لا يملك لمن لا يستحق، مقابل اعتراف من لا يملك له بما يستحق.
بهذا، نجد أنّ قرار الحكم المغربي بإخراج علاقاته السرية المشبوهة مع الكيان الصهيوني إلى العلن وبشكل رسمي، وانضمامه إلى قافلة الانبطاح أمام العدو الصهيوني، لن يعود عليه إلا بخسائر استراتيجية، سواء أكان في الداخل المغربي حيث يضع الحكم في مواجهة شعبه المغربي الأصيل الذي يرفض كلّ أشكال التعامل مع عدو الأمة الأول كسائر شعوب وطننا العربي والإسلامي، أم من ناحية كونه يرفع من احتمالات تفاقم التوترات ذات الطبيعة المزمنة على الحدود الجنوبية للمملكة المغربية، وهذا بالطبيعة ستكون له انعكاسات سيئة على سائر دول المغرب العربي. ولا ننسى ختاماً الإشارة إلى أنّ كلّ ما قدّمته الإدارة الأميركية الحالية في هذه المرحلة كمقابل لتطبيع الحكم المغربي مع كيان الاحتلال، لا يعدو كونه إعلان اعتراف بسيادة المغرب على أراضي منطقة الصحراء الغربية. وهذا الإعلان لا يُلزِم الإدارة الأميركية المقبلة ويمكنها التنصّل منه. فبأيّ أثمان بخسة ومسمومة يتقاطر جزء من النظام العربي المتهالك على بيع الثوابت الإسلامية والقومية والوطنية في أسواق نخاسة الأعداء؟ وبالتأكيد لا نستثني السلطة الفلسطينية من هذا، فهي باتت أسوأ من تلك الأنظمة العربية المتهالكة في الشكل والمضمون.
** كاتب فلسطيني وباحث سياسي
Morocco in the Midst of Western Sahara Storms After Normalization
The short-sightedness of the Moroccan government in its recent shameful agreement to normalize and establish diplomatic relations with the Zionist Entity called ‘Israel’ is truly puzzling. The Moroccan government stated that this agreement was the result of a deal with the current U.S. administration, where the U.S. recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. But this exchange adds additional strategic dangers to the usual perils presented by all normalization agreements with the Zionist Entity, as this article will argue.
First and foremost, any recognition of the Zionist Entity is an absolute betrayal of Arab rights and national principles, regardless of any flawed justifications or any short-term tactical gains that the normalizers rejoice in. This is more so after recent developments, where the occupation declared the annexation of Jerusalem and the West Bank. It is apparent that normalizing relations with ‘Israel’ at this stage means acceptance of this annexation and abandoning the Christian and Islamic Holy places in Palestine. Any attempt to justify such steps towards normalization with ‘Israel’ must be firmly rejected – justifications such as that those normalization agreements are in the context of the two-state solution, which is a non-solution in the first place.
The issue of Western Sahara is a remnant of the Spanish colonization of that region. After the end of Spanish colonization with the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, the Western Sahara region was divided between Morocco and Mauritania. Then, after Mauritania withdrew from the areas it controlled of Western Sahara, and the declaration of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in 1976, the armed conflict over the Sahara region between the Polisario Front for Independence and Morocco in that region continued. In 1991, the Polisario Front suspended military operations against Morocco, in return for a referendum on the future of Western Sahara status under the observation of the UN in accordance with UNSC resolution 690.
Since the inception of the Western Sahara issue, the positions of Arab political parties and Arab people in general has fallen into two main camps: those who support the right of the Sahrawi people to independence and self-determination, and who in their majority regard the Moroccan monarchy as autocratic and regressive; and those who are opposed to further partition of Arab countries regardless of the nature of the rule of these countries. However, after Morocco traded recognition of ‘Israel’ for the U.S. proclamation to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, it is believed that this may cast a further shadow over the legitimacy of Moroccan claims in Western Sahara in the eyes of many Arabs, while simultaneously giving more credence to the Polisario Front’s war of independence. Moreover, the poisoned U.S. proclamation in violation of international law and UNSC Resolution 690, will diminish the Sahrawi people’s hope of ever having the referendum on the future status of Western Sahara which they were promised by the UNSC. This will likely force the Polisario Front into a corner; and will lead them to question the international community’s commitment to reach a just solution to their cause. All this opens the door wide to the possibility of the collapse of the tenuous Polisario-Morocco ceasefire. The ramifications of this déjà vu situation are dire, as this will most likely spiral the whole region into instability, especially when the US proclamation on the thorny Western Sahara issue ignored the other regional countries positions on this matter, namely Algeria and Mauritania. And one finds himself here begrudgingly agreeing with the former U.S. national security advisor John Bolton, when he argued in his article published in the Foreign Policy Magazine ‘Biden Must Reverse Course on Western Sahara’, that the U.S. proclamation may negatively affect that fragile region. Thus, one finds that the US did what it does best, namely fueling unrest in the Arab region to appease the Zionist Entity.
The aim of this article is not to take a stance on the Western Sahara conflict, but one way of viewing what Morocco did by recognizing the Zionist’s sovereignty over historical Palestine in exchange for U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, is tantamount to Morocco giving what is not theirs to give, in exchange for the U.S. giving them what is not for the U.S. to give.
Arabs will continue to regard ‘Israel’ as illegitimate, the liberation of Palestine as one of their cornerstone principles, and in that the Moroccan people are no exception. Hence, the Moroccan government’s treacherous decision to normalize relations with the Zionist Entity will only cause Morocco to suffer strategic losses in the long run, be it driving a wedge between the government and its people on the internal front, or by stirring up a dormant conflict on Morocco’s southern borders with the Polisario Front and the Sahrawi people.
TEHRAN – A Moroccan journalist describes Israel as an “unnatural entity” which is “planted” in the region to represent U.S. interests and cause escalations.
“Israel is an unnatural entity based on expansion, and it does not have standards of a state,” Driss Addar tells the Tehran Times. “It is an advanced military garrison for America, which is the hidden state of the Jews of Khazaria.” The Moroccan journalist calls Israel an arrogant regime that is established based on expansionism. Following is the text of the interview:
Q: How do you see the decision of some Arab states like the UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan to normalize ties with Israel?
A: There are multiple reasons for each government, although the context that paved the way for Arab states to normalize their relationship with Israel was apparently the same.
But before answering your question, I would like to point out that regarding Morocco the step of normalization of ties was taken within the framework of joint Arab action and settlements based on the two-state solution.
The Moroccan step differs in terms of context and historical motives and also even the content of the statement issued in this context.
That is why the Palestinian Authority treated the Moroccan decision differently, in contrast to its position on the Abraham Accords, which was rejected by Morocco too.
The Arabs today are pushed into a corner, and their interaction with their geopolitics is limited to be a spectator or the functional tool for other powers.
So the Emirates’ normalization of ties with Israel is based on promised goals within the framework of building an Israeli-(Persian) Gulf coalition to confront Iran after America portrayed Tehran as an enemy.
In this concept, the previous friend becomes the enemy and the enemy becomes a close friend who is welcomed.
Israel and the United States are aware that geography in the East is senseless after the creation of chaos, breakup plans, and proxy wars, and today they are investing in this reality, with the certainty that the idea of a new Middle East has become impossible after Syria’s victory over a terrorist war that was imposed on it.
With the emergence of Russia as a new international power and Iran as a large regional power, the current U.S. administration wants to cripple the next administration by forming an Israeli-(Persian) Gulf alliance to prevent a U.S. return to the nuclear deal or laying landmines for Biden.
Q: Why did Morocco accept to normalize relations with Israel? It seems that there were informal relations with Israel before the announcement of normalization.
A: Morocco provides an explanation and justification for this normalization step and this agreement is limited to the transfer of the Moroccan community and a set of exchanges between the two sides.
Not to mention America’s recognition of the Moroccan Sahara, it contributed to this step while other countries do not have these incentives, which makes the Moroccan situation different.
Morocco has been playing a mediatory role in the past and wants to continue it now. In the context of the change in the regional system and the escalations over the Palestinian issue, Morocco adopted a different viewpoint that sees itself as more capable for mediation than Egypt or Jordan.
Here Morocco has determined an agenda, including finding a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Here we are not talking about the best way to achieve consensus within the framework of an official Palestinian demand; the point here is related to Morocco, as it started from the beginning and after the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a political solution and in the same framework that was agreed upon in the Arab world and in the (Organization of) Islamic Cooperation, that is the two-state solution.
So, Morocco has set an agenda realizing that the people reject the normalization of ties with Israel. So it did not call it normalization, but a statement that all wait for the implementation of the demands mentioned in it.
Morocco does not want to exclude the Palestinian cause but rather stated that this issue is equal to its national causes.
The issue is explained clearly in detail. So it is a conditional agreement that pledges a just solution to the Palestinian issue.
Moroccans are monitoring the progress of the agreement. Hence, unlike other forms of normalization, there is no signal of disregard or humiliation for the Palestinian cause in Morocco.
The agreements between the Arabs and the Israeli regime were raised under initiatives and joint actions, while this is a conditional initiative and not a blank check.
Morocco hopes that all parties in the conflict succeed in finding an opportunity for a fair settlement approvable by international, Arab, and Islamic communities, otherwise it will not be applicable. Any initiative needs to take into account the Palestinians’ rights to succeed.
I guess what is expected from this agreement is something greater than what is carried out by states that have fully normalized ties with Israel.
Over the years of conflict, the Israeli regime neither abides by UN resolutions nor Arab initiatives, and the siege on the Palestinian people is continuing.
This is something that cannot be overlooked. Morocco had officially closed the contact office during the second Palestinian uprising (Intifada) in 2000.
The issue here is not who will join the normalization process or not. We must seek the possible conditions to facilitate a comprehensive and complete peace in the Middle East (West Asia).
What distinguishes Morocco is that it has a large community within Israel and also officials in the Israeli government are still associated with their Moroccan origins.
Therefore, Rabat considers it an opportunity to resolve the conflict in a context that is under regional and international pressure.
Arabs are living in a difficult situation and Morocco is part of the Arab world and is concerned with resolving the Palestinian issue and considers it as a red line.
What happened is a conditional connection to mediate between Israel and Palestine. It is not a full normalization, because it would not be possible before settling the Palestinian issue.
Here we had to pause at the difference between contact mechanism, which is a pre-condition for any mediation, and full normalization that cannot be achieved in the absence of a solution.
Rabat says that the agreement does not compromise on the Palestinians’ legitimate rights.
Official Moroccan position has not changed as it sticks to a two-state solution. However, Morocco accepted conditional contact, clearly and within an agenda that approves the Palestinian cause in the context of its first national priority, which is contrary to the content of the Abraham Accords.
Q: Do you think that the normalization will benefit the Islamic and Arab worlds? Do you expect Israel to give up its expansion plans after the normalization of relations?
A: What I said is an explanation and not a justification, and therefore it falls within the framework of understanding the political possibilities.
But strategically it will not change the situation at all, because the problem is very deep, as we face a blockage in the proposed solutions.
Even the two-state solution is a long story presented a long time ago, but it is not practically possible. Given the Israeli rejection and the impossibility of the two states’ existence in this small geography, in which this Israeli regime was planted, this small area cannot host two states in terms of history and religion.
Therefore, it is not possible to expect significant results from normalization unless we go beyond the limits of the current static situation.
Israel is an unnatural entity based on expansion, and it does not have standards of a state. It can even be said that it is an advanced military garrison for America, which is the hidden state of the Jews of Khazaria, according to Tatiana Grachova, the Russian writer and author of the book “Hidden Khazaria”.
Consequently, this regime is established on expansionism, and this is the main reason for escalations in the region.
Despite Israeli arrogance, in the political process, one can only talk about an attempt to besiege and embarrass this regime.
Q: Don’t you think that Saudi Arabia would join others to normalize ties with Israel sooner or later? What will be its impact on the rest of the Arab countries?
A: The recent signals hint that Saudi Arabia will join the normalization process.
I don’t think that the Saudi normalization will create a different atmosphere or will have more serious repercussions rather than the previous steps in normalization. The main goal of these countries is forming an alliance with Israeli to surround Iran. The rest of the Arab countries, especially those close to the conflict zone, are in a different position. With the exception of Syria, whose position is clear on Israel as an enemy, the rest of neighboring Arab countries not only prefer to support normalization of ties with Israel but also support aggression against the resistance axis and occupied Palestine.
Q: Now how would you describe the position of Arab countries, governments, and people toward the Palestinian cause?
A: It is no longer possible to address the path and options of Arab policies.
But no one is against the right of the Palestinian people to resist the occupation, especially in its difficult circumstances.
Now the question here is how can the demands of the Palestinian people be fulfilled to confront Israeli malicious policies?
If you focus only on the dark reality of our region, you will see that the Palestinian cause is in its worst condition, but a strategic vision will say that the facts suggest important changes in favor of the Palestinian cause.
Rather, the victory of Syria, and the achievements of the resistance axis, is the most important cards that can hinder the deal of the century.
This deal cannot be passed without eliminating the Lebanese resistance and overthrowing the Syrian state, the two goals that were not achieved by the resistance of the nations of the region.
– نظراً لدسامة المواد التي تضمّنها كلام الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله في الملفات الإقليميّة من جهة، ولمحدوديّة الوقت الذي تحدّث فيه بإيجاز عن الوضع اللبناني من جهة مقابلة، لم ينل هذا الجانب من حديث السيد نصرالله الاهتمام الذي يستحق، لكن المعنيين بالشأن اللبناني في الداخل والخارج بعدما هضموا خلال يومين المواقف اللافتة التي صدرت عن نصرالله في الشؤون الإقليميّة وتقييم المعلومات التي كشف عنها والسقوف التي عالج من خلالها قضايا المنطقة، عادوا لتفحص ما قاله نصرالله لبنانياً فتوقفوا عند حجمها المحدود من جهة، كتعبير عن المكانة والأولوية اللتين تحتلهما القضايا الإقليميّة بحكم طبيعة المنبر الذي تمثله قناة الميادين التي أطلّ من خلالها نصرالله لمخاطبة جمهور أوسع من الجمهور اللبناني، الذي يمكن مخاطبته عبر قناة المنار كما جرت العادة بعدما حرمت المنار من فرصة الانتشار العربي والعالمي بحظرها عن بث الأقمار الصناعيّة، وربما أيضاً لأن اللحظة السياسية تضع الملفات الإقليميّة في الواجهة، سواء بسبب الفترة الانتقالية الرئاسية الأميركية وما تفرضه من تحديات، أو بسبب حرص السيد على منح الوقت والتركيز على قضية اغتيال قائد فيلق القدس الجنرال قاسم سليماني في سياق إحياء ذكرى اغتياله.
– رغم محدوديّة الوقت الذي خصصه نصرالله للشأن اللبناني فهو كشف عن أمرين لافتين، الأول يتصل بالحلول المفترضة للأزمة الاقتصادية، والثاني يتصل بالشأن الحكوميّ، وفي الشأن الاقتصاديّ تولّى تقديم إيضاح هام لتفسير عدم السير بالخيار الذي سبق ودعا للسير به، تحت عنوان التوجه شرقاً، خصوصاً بعدما تمّ الترويج لتفسير تعثر هذا المسار بعقبات تتصل بعدم واقعيّته، حيث تصدّى خصوم هذا الخيار للأمر من باب الترويج لتقارير ومعلومات تتحدّث عن عدم جهوزية الصين للتجاوب مع دعوات التوجه شرقاً، ولعدم قدرة إيران على تلبية متطلبات ما يترتّب على السير اللبناني بهذا التوجّه، لكن نصرالله أعاد طرح التحدي بالتأكيد على جدية الاستجابة خصوصاً من الصين وإيران، مفسّراً سبب الإحجام عن السير بخيار الشرق الى عدم نضج الموقف اللبناني الداخلي متحدثاً عن أن المسألة مسألة خيارات في لبنان، موحياً بأن القضية لم تنضج لدى الأطراف اللبنانية خصوصاً بين حلفاء حزب الله لترجمة هذا الخيار، بحيث إنه سيبقى خياراً مطروحاً على الطاولة حتى يختبر الجميع الخيارات الأخرى، فإن أفلحت عندها لا مشكلة لدى حزب الله في السير بها، لكن في حال تعثرت أو ظهرت كلفتها المرتفعة سياسياً أو اقتصادياً فعندها سيكون الطرح بالدعوة مجدداً لاختبار فرضية التوجه شرقاً جاهزاً. وكلام السيد نصرالله عن مسألة الخيارات يؤكد أن التحالفات التي يقيمها لا تعني التطابق في الرؤى، خصوصاً في الشق الاقتصادي حيث الخيار الغربي لا يزال هو المفضل عند الحلفاء الوازنين في معادلة الحكم، وكان لافتاً كلام السيد نصرالله عن عدم التجاوب مع عرضين إيرانيين واحد لتأمين المشتقات النفطية التي تمثل ثلثي مطلوبات العملات الصعبة في لبنان، مقابل سداد قيمتها بالعملة اللبنانيّة، والثاني لتأمين مستلزمات إعادة إعمار ما دمّره تفجير المرفأ من إسمنت وزجاج وألمنيوم وسواها من مكوّنات العمران، وعدم التجاوب هنا لا يقصد به حكماً الخصوم الذين لم يكونوا مع تقديم هذه العروض وليسوا اليوم، في السلطة المقرّرة.
– في الشأن الحكومي كان لافتاً حصر السيد نصرالله للعقد التي تعترض طريق تشكيل الحكومة بالشق الداخلي، بعد شبه إجماع للمتابعين والمحللين في الداخل والخارج لربط الحكومة بانتقال السلطة الرئاسيّة الأميركيّة الى الرئيس المنتخب جو بايدن، سواء مَن يقول ذلك متهماً الرئيس المكلف سعد الحريري بعدم القدرة على تشكيل حكومة يتمثل فيها حزب الله ولو بطريقة غير مباشرة عبر اختصاصيين يسمّيهم، وتراجعه عن تعهده لحزب الله بقبول تسميته لوزيرين من وزراء الطائفة الشيعيّة، بسبب التزامه بفيتو أميركي وسعودي واضح وصارم على أي توزير لحزب الله، ورفض أميركي سعودي للتعامل مع أي حكومة فيها شبهة هذا التمثيل. واعتبار التجاذب القائم بين الحريري ورئيس الجمهورية ذريعة حريريّة للتهرّب من تشكيل الحكومة بانتظار زوال مرتجى لهذا الفيتو مع تسلم بايدن للرئاسة واتجاهه لإعادة العمل بالتفاهم النووي مع إيران، وبالمقابل مَن يقول إن حزب الله يقف وراء تشدد رئيس الجمهورية لتعطيل ولادة الحكومة خدمة لربط تشكيل الحكومة بتفاوض إيراني أميركي بعد تسلم بايدن للرئاسة، وفيما يقف حلفاء حزب الله وراء التفسير الأول وقف خصومه وعلى رأسهم النائب السابق وليد جنبلاط وراء التفسير الثاني، وجاء كلام المبعوث الأممي يان كوبيتش عن انتظار السياسيين اللبنانيين لتسلم بايدن لفتح طريق ولادة الحكومة ساخراً، ليمنح المصداقية لهذا الربط، فجاء كلام السيد نصرالله كالماء البارد على رؤوس الجميع، فهو لم يقدّم التغطية لمطالب رئيس الجمهورية الحليف العماد ميشال عون، كي يضحك جنبلاط في سرّه ويغمز مؤشراً الى الربط التفاوضي، ولا هو اتهم الحريريّ بالربط أو حمّله المسؤولية، كي يضحك الحلفاء ويصفقون، فقال السيد نصرالله إن الأسباب داخلية وتتصل بالثقة المفقودة بين الرئيسين عون والحريري كاشفاً عن تواصل إيجابي مريح مع الحريري، ما يعني ثقة بأن لا مشكلة بتمثيل حزب الله حكومياً لدى الحريري، وثقة حريرية بأن حزب الله يقف في الوسط في قضايا الخلاف الحكومي وربما يكون وسيطاً أكثر مما هو طرف.
– كلام السيد نصرالله في الشأنين المتصلين بالداخل اللبناني فيهما إيضاحات لا تملك مصداقيتها إلا بصدورها عن شخص بمكانة ومسؤولية وحجم اطلاع السيد نصرالله، وتمنحان الأمل سواء لجهة بقاء الخيار الشرقي بديلاً ممكناً على الصعيد الاقتصادي ينتظر قناعة المسؤولين في الداخل لا أكثر ولا أقل، أو لجهة إمكانية تجاوز الأزمة الحكومية ببدائل وحلول داخلية لا علاقة لها بما يجري على الساحتين الإقليمية والدولية، وربما تتيح ولادة الحكومة قبل تولي بايدن مقاليد الرئاسة الأميركية، وبمسعى من السيد نصرالله.
غزة | بموازاة الانفجارات واستعراض القوة ومراقبة العدو الإسرائيلي مناورة المقاومة الفلسطينية في قطاع غزة، وزّعت «الركن الشديد» رسائل متعدّدة إلى الأطراف كافة في المنطقة والإقليم. فبينما تتّجه الأنظار تجاه تطبيع الدول العربية مع العدو، أكدت غزة تموضعها في الخندق الآخر الذي يتجهّز لمواجهة الاحتلال، معلنةً أن الحصار الإسرائيلي، وكذلك المصري، سياسات لا يمكنها أن تدفع القطاع إلى التنازلات. وقد تجلّت كبرى الرسائل والدلالات في تعليق صور كبيرة لقائد «قوة القدس» الراحل، الشهيد قاسم سليماني، قبل ليلة من المناورات، وعلى مقربة من الشق البحري للمناورة.
وعلمت «الأخبار»، من مصادر فلسطينية، أن المناورة المشتركة جرت بالتنسيق مع «الأصدقاء في حلف المقاومة» الذي دعا الفصائل إلى الاستعداد لسيناريوات؛ أبرزها المشاركة في مواجهة شاملة وكبرى ضدّ العدو لتحرير الأراضي الفلسطينية. وفي الوقت الذي ظنّ فيه عدد من الدول العربية أنه يمكن إنهاء ملف المقاومة في غزة، جاء القرار الفلسطيني موحّداً خلف خيار المقاومة بمناورة تُظهر جزءاً من قدراتها بعد سنوات من مراكمة القوة، مضيفة إلى ذلك رسالة بأن دعم بعض الدول العربية لضربة كبيرة ضدّ القطاع قبل مغادرة الرئيس الأميركي، دونالد ترامب، لن تكون ذات جدوى، فما تملكه المقاومة يؤهّلها للمشاركة في معركة التحرير وليس للحفاظ على بقائها في القطاع فقط، كما تشرح المصادر.
أيضاً، حملت «الركن الشديد» رسائل بالغة إلى رام الله، بعدما اختارت السلطة العودة علناً وبكلّ ما لديها إلى الحضن الإسرائيلي، مؤكدة خيار الوحدة في مواجهة الاحتلال الذي لا يعطي التنازلات إلّا تحت وقع الضربات. وكانت لافتة مشاركة أربعة أذرع عسكرية تنتمي إلى حركة «فتح»، وهي الأذرع التي لا يعترف بها رئيس الحركة، محمود عباس، بعد إصداره قراراً بحلّها كافة في 2007. مع ذلك، لم يكن غريباً تجاهل وسائل الإعلام التابعة للسلطة و«فتح» المناورة والاكتفاء بالترويج لاحتفالات الانطلاقة “الفتحاوية” الـ 55.
من رسائل المقاومة التحذير من أيّ ضربة كبيرة قبل رحيل ترامب
وفي الوقت الذي بات يشعر فيه الفلسطينيون بحالة أشبه بالضياع بعد انحدار السلطة وطنياً، وتغوّل الاحتلال على الضفة والقدس، وحفلة التطبيع العربية العلنية، جاءت المناورة بمكانة رسالة مهمّة لجميع الفلسطينيين في الداخل والخارج، تقول إن ثمة بصيص أمل وقاعدة صلبة يمكن الاعتماد عليها لمواجهة الاحتلال. كما تأتي هذه الخطوة تتويجاً لعمل المقاومة في غزة خلال السنوات الأخيرة على قاعدة تعبئة الشارع وبناء القدرة العسكرية. فخلال العام المنتهي 2020، كشفت المقاومة على مراحل مجموعة من عملياتها الأمنية في مواجهة الاحتلال، ليتبعها الكشف عن أن طائراتها نفذت مهمّات محدّدة فوق وزارة الأمن الإسرائيلية خلال حرب 2014، وكذلك الإفراج عن تفاصيل عملية «موقع أبو مطيبق» خلال الحرب نفسها، وليس أخيراً عثورها على «كنز عسكري» في بحر غزة واستخراجه وإعادته إلى الخدمة. أخيراً، يرى مراقبون أن «الركن الشديد» تُمثّل «بداية فعلية لعمل الغرفة المشتركة لعمليات المقاومة» بطريقة مختلفة لكن منظمة، ما قد يؤسِّس مستقبلاً لتنسيق أكبر على المستويين العسكري والأمني، ويمهّد لتطوّر عمل الفصائل تحت «هيئة أركان موحدة».
أطلقت فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية أمس، مناورة واسعة أولى من نوعها باسم «الركن الشديد».
وأعلنت «الغرفة المشتركة» لفصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية في غزة، أمس، عن انطلاق مناورة «الركن الشديد»، الأولى من نوعها.
وقال متحدث باسم الغرفة خلال مؤتمر صحافي، داخل أحد المواقع العسكرية للمقاومة: «نعلن بعون الله عن انطلاق مناورات الركن الشديد التي ينفذها مقاتلونا ومجاهدونا من كافة الأجنحة تحت قيادة الغرفة المشتركة».
وأطلقت الغرفة المشتركة رشقة صاروخية تجريبية باتجاه بحر قطاع غزة بالتزامن مع إعلان بدء المناورة.
وأوضح المتحدّث أن المناورة تُنفذ بالذخيرة الحية عبر سيناريوات متعددة ومتنوعة في مناطق القطاع من شماله حتى جنوبه.
وبيّن أن المناورات «تحاكي تهديدات العدو المتوقعة وتهدف إلى رفع كفاءة وقدرة مقاتلي المقاومة على القتال في مختلف الظروف والأوقات».
وشدّد على أن «هذه المناورات الدفاعية تأكيد على جهوزية المقاومة للدفاع عن شعبنا في كل الأحوال وتحت الظروف كافة».
وأكد أن «قيادة المقاومة جاهزة لخوض أي معركة للدفاع عن شعبنا وأرضنا، ولن تقبل أن يتغول العدو على أهلنا».
وقال: «سلاحنا حاضر وقرارنا موحد في خوض أي مواجهة تُفرض على شعبنا في أي زمان ومكان».
وحذّرت الغرفة المشتركة قيادة الاحتلال «بأن مجرد التفكير في مغامرة ضد شعبنا؛ سيواجه بكل قوة ووحدة وسيحمل الكثير من المفاجآت».
وأضاف «هذه المناورات المشتركة تعبر بوضوح عن القرار المشترك ووحدة الحال بين الفصائل بكافة أطيافها».
ويشارك في المناورة 12 جناحًا عسكريًا هم: كتائب القسام، وسرايا القدس، وكتائب الشهيد أبو علي مصطفى، وألوية الناصر صلاح الدين، وكتائب المقاومة الوطنية، وكتائب شهداء الأقصى – لواء العامودي، وجيش العاصفة، ومجموعات الشهيد أيمن جودة، وكتائب الشهيد عبدالقادر الحسيني، وكتائب المجاهدين، وكتائب الأنصار، وكتائب الشهيد جهاد جبريل.
هذا وأكدت الغرفة المشتركة لفصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية أن قرارهم موحّد في خوض أية مواجهة تُفرض على الشعب الفلسطيني في أي زمان ومكان، محذرة قيادة الاحتلال من أن «مجرد التفكير في مغامرة ضد شعبنا ستواجه بكل قوة ووحدة وستحمل الكثير من المفاجآت بإذن الله».
وفي السياق، تابع العدو الصهيوني هذه المناورات بقلق بالغ، ونشر «موقع إسرائيل نيوز24» خبراً تناول فيه المناورات العسكرية المشتركة لفصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية في غزة، وتضمن: «بدأت الساعة العاشرة من صباح اليوم (أمس) مناورات عسكريةٌ واسعةٌ النطاق، وهي الأولى من نوعها حيث تجري بمشاركة كافة الفصائل الفلسطينية في قطاع غزة، وعلى رأسها حماس والجهاد الاسلامي».
الموقع الصهيوني أضاف: «وفي المناورات العسكرية التي أطلق عليها «مناورات الركن الشديد» حيث ستديرها غرفة العمليات المشتركة للفصائل الفلسطينية في قطاع غزة، وحتى اليوم قامت كل جماعة مسلحة بإجراء مناورات وحدها، وهذه هي المرة الأولى التي يجرون فيها مناورات مشتركة تكون بها لكل فصيل دور ومناطق محدّدة، وهنا تكمن أهمية هذه المناورات».
من جهته قال موقع صحيفة «يديعوت أحرنوت» إن توقيت مناورة غزة يأتي بعد مناورات الجيش الصهيوني قبل أسابيع في فرقة غزة وعند الحدود الشمالية، وأضاف أن المناورة العسكرية «الركن الشديد» تدار للمرة الأولى من غرفة عمليات مشتركة تابعة للأذرع العسكرية في قطاع غزة.
Several dozens of coronavirus vaccines are being tested worldwide. By mid-December 2020 seven of them were approved for full or limited use worldwide. Here’s a brief overview.
With the TurkStream gas pipeline now running through Serbia, the Balkan country will enjoy numerous benefits when exports begin, such as energy stability, the opportunity to get cheaper gas, and additional tax revenue. On December 25, Serbia successfully tested the TurkStream pipeline project that will connect Russian gas to consumers in Europe, especially in the Balkans. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić revealed that the pipeline will be officially commissioned on December 30.
“The test run was successful. We did not publicize it too much but everything will start on December 30 as I promised. A small ceremony will be organized on that occasion because it is a huge deal for our country,” Vučić said.
The success of the test and Wednesday’s commissioning of the TurkStream brings an end to one of the most important projects in Serbian history. The gas pipeline strengthens the economic and geostrategic position of Serbia in the region as it can now become a hub to distribute Russian gas in the Balkans. The pipeline is 403 kilometers long and stretches from Zaječar on the border with Bulgaria to Horgoš on the border with Hungary.
There are numerous benefits that this gas pipeline will bring to Serbia, but the most important is energy stability. It is a two-way pipeline, meaning that gas can move between Bulgaria and Hungary in both directions. This is important because of energy security and, not only for Serbia, but for the entire Balkans network which can now be expanded.
The entire TurkStream pipeline within Serbian territory has not been built yet, but judging by the pace of the works so far, it will be completed without delay. Another compressor station remains to be completed in Serbia by June 2021.
The gas pressure on the TurkStream route is high enough that gas can pass from Bulgaria to Serbia. In fact, gas from Bulgaria can already be used in Pančevo, to the immediate east of Belgrade, for the needs of the gas power plant, such as generating electricity and heat. The extensive work for the gasification of Serbia, in full capacity, means that the TurkStream will allow Gazprom to export gas to the Republika Srpska, the Serbian-dominated entity that forms a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, thus being able to deliver gas to the entirety of the country and perhaps even onwards to Croatia and Montenegro.
Five more gas power plants are planned to be constructed in Serbia in the near future. They will be built next to the largest industrial centers in Serbia. 4% of the total electricity produced in Serbia will come from Pančevo, in which thermal energy from the refinery and all its plants will be supplied. With the TurkStream at full capacity, it will be possible to build plants near Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš and Kragujevac. When electricity is produced, thermal energy by-product will be used for large industrial plants, businesses and residential centers.
In addition to energy stability, Serbia will enjoy several other important benefits because of the passage of the TurkStream through its territory. Serbia will have minimum $40 cheaper gas per thousand cubic meters thanks to tax revenues that it will collect due to the transportation of gas through its territory to other countries. The Bulgarians negotiated with Gazprom a 27% lower price because imported gas from Ukraine passes through its territory to other countries. Serbia will be able to strike a similar deal so that Russian gas can reach Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Hungary, through its territory. It is also a benefit as servicing the gas pipeline and accompanying facilities has created job opportunities, and cheaper gas will inevitably lead to greater industrial output in other sectors.
The benefits of the TurkStream in Serbia will soon be realized as the most difficult part of the job was completed, laying pipes at the bottom of the Black Sea. It is for this reason that Russia prioritized finishing the TurkStream first, even though it has a much smaller capacity compared to Nord Stream 2. Nord Stream 2 has been continuously delayed due to Moscow’s anticipation that Washington would not only oppose the project, but pressure involved countries to withdraw and impose sanctions.
But with TurkStream to begin running in Serbia, it has not only consolidated Belgrade’s relations with Moscow, it gives hope to a country that was devastated by a decade-long NATO destruction in the 1990’s. Serbia has not been able to fully recover from the war, but cheap gas and job creation will transform the Balkan country, not only industrially, but also in terms of regional influence as it becomes a crucial energy hub for the entire region.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
The Joint Operations Room [JOR] – also known as the Common Room – of the Palestinian resistance factions announced the commencement of the Strong Support military drill. Fighters and mujahideen from all military wings are taking part in the drills using live ammunition in multiple scenarios extending from the north of the Gaza Strip to the south.
“Thank God, we remain loyal to the pledge to our martyrs and captives. We have not abandoned our pledge and promised to our people to continue the path of resistance, jihad, and struggle, with a pure rifle and a weapon drenched with the blood of the martyrs and the sweat of the fighters in the fields of giving,” the JOR’s spokesperson said. “The joint military and jihad work is not new to the fighters and the mujahideen from our rebellious Palestinian people.”
He explained that “these maneuvers simulate the expected threats from the enemy and aim to improve the efficiency and ability of the resistance fighters to carry out combat operations under various circumstances and at different times.”
“The maneuvers are an affirmation of the readiness of the resistance to defend our people in all cases and under all circumstances,” he added. “The leadership of the resistance is ready to fight any battle to defend our people and our land.”
The spokesman for the JOR affirmed that “we will not accept that the enemy poses a danger to our people, and our weapons are ready.”
Moreover, he pointed out that their “decision is unified in waging any confrontation imposed on our people at any time and place, God willing.”
“The occupation leadership must realize that the mere thought of an adventure against our people will be met with all strength and unity and will carry many surprises, God willing,” the spokesman warned. “These joint maneuvers clearly express a unified decision among the different wings of the resistance factions with all its spectrums.”
“Today, the resistance is stronger, stiffer, and more capable of confronting it, deterring it, and hurting it. It will not allow the Zionist enemy to impose rules of engagement that it does not accept.”
“The message of our resistance to the whole world is that our word will remain decisive, and our hand will remain with the power of God the highest. The shameful agreements and failed normalization ceremonies will not change anything on the ground.”
The spokesperson extended greetings from the resistance factions and the leadership of the Common Room to all people embracing the resistance and standing in the face of all conspiracies.
He saluted the souls of our righteous martyrs who watered this land with pure blood. He also saluted the wounded and injured, saying, “Greetings to the free and heroic prisoners who are the title of freedom and dignity.”
Palestinian Resistance groups started their first-ever joint military exercise on Tuesday.
The Joint Chamber of Military Operations for Palestinian Factions announced the start of the first joint military exercise across the Gaza strip.
Palestinian Resistance drones were flying over the Gaza strip, it added.
The Joint Chamber of Military Operations for Palestinian Factions announced that the Resistance to react ‘fiercely’ to any ‘Israeli’ ‘adventurism’.
The drill comes as part of the cooperation between Palestinian Resistance groups and in a bid to show continuous efforts aimed at raising their military readiness.
In one of their latest attacks, on December 26, Zionist fighter jets targeted a number of hospitals and schools in the Gaza Strip.
On December 27, the Spokesman for the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] said that the Zionist regime is responsible for the consequences of the recent attack on the Gaza Strip.
The resistance movement will not give up its national duty to defend the inalienable interests of the Palestinian people and to break the equations of the Zionist regime, Fawzi Barhoum stated.
Filed under: Palestine | Tagged: Gaza, Palestinian Resistance | Comments Off on Gaza’s Strong Support Military Drill: Our Decision Is Unified, And Our Weapons Are Ready
Normalisation with Israel is just the latest example of Arab rulers advancing their own interests at the expense of Palestinians
The Arab League summit meeting held in Mecca on 31 May 2019 (AFP)
Since the First World War, the Palestinians have been used as a bargaining chip by different Arab regimes to advance their own interests by sacrificing Palestinian rights.
Yet, apologists for the Arab regimes, which recently normalised relations with Israel, defend their governments’ decision with the same arguments the earliest normalisers – Egypt and Jordan – used decades ago, namely that these countries made sacrifices since 1948 by placing Palestinian interests above their own “national”, read regime, interests.
Their decisions to normalise with Israel now, they tell us, have finally placed their own national interests first, and yet at the same time in normalising they are also helping the Palestinians!
American propaganda
A major argument – proffered in this regard – relates to the American-sponsored ideological notion of “peace”, a cornerstone of American propaganda against peoples struggling against colonial and racist oppression, whether in the colonised world or inside the US itself.
Arab regimes have always put their own national interests first and had established ties and collaborated with Israel since 1948
“Peace”, which maintains oppressive colonial and racist relations, we are told, brings prosperity, whereas struggling against injustice and oppression, dubbed “war” in US lingo, brings destruction and poverty.
In contrast with the Arab peoples who have ceaselessly shown solidarity with the Palestinians since Britain issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, Arab regimes, as I have written in Middle East Eye before, have always put their own national interests first and had established ties and collaborated with Israel since 1948 – in the case of the Hashemite Amir Faisal since 1919. Apologists for Sadat’s surrender to Israel claimed for decades that President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s excessive zeal to defend the Palestinians led Egypt, as Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi put it in 2014, to sacrifice “100,000 Egyptian martyrs” for the Palestinians.
In fact, Egypt’s losses in the 1948 war, according to Egyptian military sources, were 1,168 soldiers, officers, and volunteers killed (as mentioned in Ibrahim Shakib’s book: The Palestine War 1948, p432-433), whereas other Egyptian official sources (noted in Benny Morris’ book, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, p406-407) put it at 1,400.
Moreover, King Farouk of Egypt entered the war in 1948 not because he placed Palestinian interests ahead of Egypt’s, but as analysts have shown, on account of his rivalry with the Iraqi monarchy for hegemony over the post-colonial Arab world.
Not only did Nasser not launch a single war against Israel, but also all of Egypt’s subsequent wars were fought to defend Egypt, not the Palestinians. In 1956 and in 1967, Israel invaded Egypt and occupied Sinai.
Former Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin (L) and President of Egypt Anwar el Sadat (R) in Alexandria on 9 September 1980 (AFP)
Egyptian soldiers died in these wars defending their country, not the Palestinians. Between 1968 and 1970, Israel and Egypt fought the “War of Attrition” in which Egyptian soldiers were killed defending their country against continuing Israeli aggression, a war fought on Egyptian soil; and in 1973, Egypt launched a war to liberate Sinai, not Palestine, and Egyptian soldiers were again killed defending their country against foreign occupation.
Sacrificing Palestinians
When Sadat signed the Camp David Accords in 1978, not only did he not defend the Palestinians, he in fact sacrificed the Palestinians and their right to independence in exchange for the return of Sinai to Egypt (without full Egyptian sovereignty) and a lavish US aid package that served to enrich the Egyptian upper classes and impoverish most of the population.Arab rulers and Israel’s leaders: A long and secret history of cooperationRead More »
The Jordanian regime, whose army was led by a British colonial general, entered the 1948 war to expand its territory, which it did by annexing central Palestine (renamed the “West Bank”) after the war. In 1967, the Israelis invaded Jordan and occupied the West Bank. In both wars, Jordanian soldiers died for Jordanian regime interests, not Palestinian interests.
When Jordan signed in 1994 its peace treaty with Israel, Palestinian interests were sacrificed yet again by Jordan’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist on stolen Palestinian land, and by securing some sort of Hashemite role over Muslim holy places in Jerusalem.
In exchange, Jordan also received a lavish US aid package benefiting the regime and the upper classes. In contrast with Egypt’s deal, Jordan’s deal was concluded without even requiring Israel to withdraw from any of the territories it occupied in 1967. Jordan’s “peace” with Israel, as a result, legitimised Israeli occupation and conquest and did not reverse any of it.
While historically Egyptian and Jordanian soldiers might have been told they fought these wars for Palestine, the truth of the matter is that, unbeknownst to them, they fought them for their regime’s interests. As for Sudan, Morocco, Bahrain and the UAE, it remains unclear how they had ever put Palestinian interests before their own.
Peace ‘dividend’
A related argument is the so-called “peace dividend“, heavily marketed by the Americans since the 1970s, wherein we are told all the money spent on wars and armaments with Israel would now be used for economic development and prosperity.
To prove their allegiance to the anti-Palestinian policies of the US and Israel, Gulf officials have ceaselessly attacked Palestinians in the oil-families-owned Gulf media
The irony, of course, is that the military budgets of Egypt and Jordan, abetted by huge US military aid packages as a reward, skyrocketed since they normalised with Israel. Economic development and state social benefits were in contrast reduced to unprecedented levels in both countries, bringing about massive poverty, and a decline in educational and health services. Even Jordanian officials who support the peace deal claim that Jordan has not properly cashed in on the “peace dividend”.
On the public relations front, as a result of congressional and media hostility to the Saudis and other Gulf countries after 9/11, the oil ruling families decided yet again to benefit at the expense of Palestinian interests by abandoning demands that Israel abide by international law and withdraw from the occupied territories as prerequisites to warmer relations. They quickly cosied up to Israel and its US lobby to stem the tide of such hostility by promising closer relations, which have now become open.
Pro-Palestinian protesters wave Palestinian flags and chant slogans against the US and Israel in Rabat on 10 December, 2017 (AFP)
None of this is the stuff of the past, but is part of ongoing normalisation, whereby President Trump announced huge Saudi, Moroccan, Bahraini, and UAE purchases of US arms during the preparation and brokering of the normalisation deals in 2019 and after, which will militarise the region more than ever.
To prove their allegiance to the anti-Palestinian policies of the US and Israel, Gulf officials have ceaselessly attacked Palestinians in the oil-families-owned Gulf media and press in the last few years. Such attacks have recently become more vigorous, especially in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
National interests
Ironically, the UAE had hoped to obtain the sophisticated F-35 fighter planes from the US in exchange for its peace with Israel. Israel and its supporters in Congress, however, refuse to allow this. Humiliated by this outcome, the UAE has suggested to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in order to assuage Israeli concerns, that Israeli fighter pilots take charge of the F-35s for a temporary period, after which they would train UAE pilots to replace them. How Gulf states became business partners in Israel’s occupation
Morocco has also finally received US legitimisation of its takeover and annexation of the Western Sahara and Sudan was removed from the US list of terrorism-sponsoring countries. Neither country conceded nor sacrificed any part of its national interest to obtain such rewards.
Rather, like other Arab countries since 1948, they sacrificed Palestinian rights enshrined in international law to obtain benefits for themselves. The Arab League, an enemy of Palestinian interests since its establishment, also refused to condemn these peace deals even though they contradict its standing policy.
Rather than sacrifice their national interests to defend the Palestinians, the Arab regimes have used every opportunity to sell out Palestinian rights to advance their own interests without respite.
Starting with the Hashemite Emir Faisal in 1919 who cooperated with the Zionists to ensure their support for his then Syrian kingdom, to King Mohammad VI’s normalisation with Israel to legitimise Morocco’s control of the Western Sahara, the Palestinians have been a God-send to Arab regimes which used and continue to use and abuse them for their own benefit.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.Joseph MassadJoseph Massad is Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York. He is the author of many books and academic and journalistic articles. His books include Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan, Desiring Arabs, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians, and most recently Islam in Liberalism. His books and articles have been translated to a dozen languages.
‘Israel’s’ Channel 13 is reporting that Iranian drones, such as those that attacked the Saudi oil company Aramco in the past, could reach ‘Israel’ from Yemen.
‘Israel’s’ Channel 13 touched on the soaring tensions between Iran and ‘Israel’ and their exchanges in the form of “strong action and words.” The broadcaster focused on the alleged deployment of an ‘Israeli’ submarine to the Persian Gulf, the launching of missiles from Gaza last weekend, and the new Iranian threats.
Channel 13 suggested that there were two important events. On the one hand there is “an Iranian desire to avenge the assassination of the nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and this draws ‘Israeli’ attention to what is happening in Yemen.” On the other hand, there is “the first anniversary of the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani on January 3 which prompted the Americans to offer muscle to face the Iranians in the Gulf.”
These two matters reportedly “pushed the ‘Israeli’ security establishment to advance their preparations,” underscoring their existing “fear of Iran’s attempt to accumulate capabilities in Yemen that could pose a threat to ‘Israel’.”
Channel 13 said, “It may sound strange to most ‘Israelis’ when hearing about Yemen, which has never been on the threat map. But yes, it is Yemen. Iranian drones, like those that attacked the Saudi oil company Aramco a year and a half ago, could reach ‘Israel’ from Yemen.”
Channel 13’s military affairs commentator Alon Ben David said, “When you hear about an ‘Israeli’ submarine in the Red Sea – its target not necessarily being in the Gulf – I say that what worries ‘Israel’ most, and the army spokesman has publicly expressed this, is the Iranian capabilities in Yemen.”
It is noteworthy that ‘Israeli’ media, quoting intelligence sources, said recently that “a military submarine belonging to the ‘Israeli’ navy crossed the Suez Canal above water.”
‘Israel’s’ Kan Channel stated that this step comes “amid a very tense period between ‘Israel’ and Iran,” indicating that this “submarine that crossed the Red Sea will head, according to Arab intelligence officials’ estimates, towards the Gulf.”
“القناة 13” الإسرائيليّة تتحدث عن أنّ الطائرات المسيّرة الإيرانيّة، كتلك الطائرات التي هاجمت شركة النفط السعوديّة أرامكو سابقاً، يمكن أن تصل من اليمن إلى “إسرائيل”.
تظاهرة لجماعة “أنصار الله” في العاصمة صنعاء عام 2019 (أ.ف.ب)
تحدثت “القناة 13″ الإسرائيليّة عن مستوى التوتر بين إيران و”إسرائيل” وتبادلهما رسائل “شديدة بالأفعال والكلمات”، خاصة بعد زعم إرسال غواصة عسكريّة تابعة للبحريّة الإسرائيليّة إلى الخليج، وإطلاق الصواريخ من غزة نهاية الأسبوع الماضي، والتهديدات الإيرانيّة الجديدة.
القناة الإسرائيليّة أشارت إلى وجود حدثين مهمين، من جهة “رغبة إيرانيّة للانتقام على اغتيال العالم النووي محسن فخري زاده، وهذا يشد الأنظار الإسرائيليّة إلى ما يحصل في اليمن”، ومن جهة أخرى “الذكرى السنويّة الأولى على اغتيال الجنرال قاسم سليماني، في 3 كانون الثاني/يناير المقبل، ما دفع الأميركيين إلى عرض عضلات بشكل كبير مقابل الإيرانيين في الخليج”.
هذان الأمران مجتمعان “دفعا إلى رفع الاستعدادات في المؤسسة الأمنية الإسرائيليّة”، بحسب القناة 13، التي أكدت وجود “خشية من محاولة إيران مراكمة قدرات في اليمن، يمكن أن تشكل تهديداً على إسرائيل”.
وقالت القناة 13: “الأمر قد يبدو غريباً لأغلب الإسرائيليين عند سماع اليمن التي لم تكن في أيّ مرة على خريطة التهديدات، لكن نعم إنها اليمن – الطائرات المسيّرة الإيرانيّة، كتلك الطائرات التي هاجمت شركة النفط السعوديّة أرامكو قبل سنة ونصف، يمكن أن تصل من اليمن إلى إسرائيل”.
كما رأى معلق الشؤون العسكريّة في القناة 13 ألون بن ديفيد، أنّه “عندما تسمع عن غواصة إسرائيليّة تتواجد في البحر الأحمر – وليس بالضرورة هدفها الخليج – أقول إن أكثر ما يقلق إسرائيل، وقد أعرب المتحدث باسم الجيش عن ذلك بشكل علني – القدرات الإيرانيّة في اليمن”.
يذكر أنّ وسائل إعلام إسرائيلية نقلت عن مصادر استخباراتيّة قولها مؤخراً، إن “غواصة عسكريّة تابعة للبحريّة الإسرائيليّة عبرت قناة السويس علناً من فوق الماء”.
وذكرت قناة “كان” الإسرائيلية أن هذه الخطوة جاءت “في خضم فترة متوترة جداً بين إسرائيل وايران”، مشيرة إلى أن هذه “الغواصة التي عبرت البحر الأحمر، ستتوجه بحسب تقديرات المسؤولين الاستخباراتيين العرب تجاه الخليج”.
The Zionist newspaper, Jpost, fabricated a report which alleged that Hezbollah was behind the captagon ship seized in Italy last July, knowing that the Italian authorities confirmed that drugs were made to fund the takfiri group.
JPost’s fabricated report was not confirmed by the Italian authorities which did not even comment on the rumors, according to Al-Manar correspondent in Italy.
The correspondent stressed that even the Italian media outlets disregarded JPost’s fabricated report , except a modest agency called “Agenzia Nova” which republished it so that the anti-Hezbollah media outlets in Lebanon and the Arab countries can endorse it.
Indeed, the anti-Hezbollah propaganda in Lebanon and the Arab countries waged a war of accusations against Hezbollah, knowing that the fabricated report has not been conformed by any Italian official.
It may have been President Bill Clinton who once justified his wrecking of the Balkans by observing that liberal interventionism to bring about regime change is a good thing because “Democracies don’t start wars with other democracies.” Or it might have been George W. Bush talking about Iraq or even Barack Obama justifying his destruction of Libya or his interventions relating to Syria and Ukraine. The principle is the same when the world’s only superpower decides to throw its weight around.
The idea that pluralistic democracies are somehow less inclined to go to war has in fact been around for a couple of hundred years and was first elaborated by Immanuel Kant in an essay entitled “Perpetual Peace” that was published in 1795. Kant may have been engaging in some tongue in cheek as the French relatively liberal republic, the “Directory,” was at that time preparing to invade Italy to spread the revolution. The presumption that “democracies” are somehow more pacific than other forms of government is based on the principle that it is in theory more difficult to convince an entire nation of the desirability of initiating armed conflict compared to what happens in a monarchy where only one man or woman has to be persuaded.
The American Revolution, which preceded Kant, was clearly not fought on the principle that kings are prone to start wars while republics are not, and, indeed, the “republican” United States has nearly always been engaged in what most observers would consider to be wars throughout its history. And a review of the history of the European wars of the past two hundred years suggests that it is also overly simple to suggest that democracies eschew fighting each other. There are, after all, many different kinds of governments, most with constitutions, many of which are quite politically liberal even if they are headed by a monarch or oligarchy. They have found themselves on different sides in the conflicts that have troubled Europe since the time of Napoleon.
And wars are often popular, witness the lines of enthusiastic young men lining up to enlist when the Triple Entente took on the Germans and Austrians to begin the First World War. So, war might be less likely among established democracies, but it should be conceded that the same national interests that drive a dictatorship can equally impact on a more pluralistic form of government, particularly if the media “the territory of lies” is in on the game. One recalls how the Hearst newspaper chain created the false narrative that resulted in the U.S.’s first great overseas imperial venture, the Spanish-American War. More recently, the mainstream media in the United States has supported the disastrous invasion of Iraq, the destabilization of Syria, and the regime change in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Libya.
So now we Americans have the ultimate liberal democratic regime about to resume power, possibly with a majority in both houses of Congress to back up the presidency. But something is missing in that the campaigning Democrats never talked about a peace dividend, and now that they are returning the airwaves are notable for Senators like Mark Warner asking if the alleged Russian hacking of U.S. computers is an “act of war?” Senator Dick Durbin has no doubts on the issue, having declared it “virtually a declaration of war.” And Joe Biden appears to be on board, considering punishment for Moscow. Are we about to experience Russiagate all over? In fact, belligerency is not unique to Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo. War is in the air, and large majority of the Democratic Party recently voted for the pork-bloated National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), endorsing a policy of U.S. global military dominance for the foreseeable future. If you are an American who would like to see national health insurance, a large majority among Democrats, forget about it!
But more to the point, the Democrats have a worse track record than do the Republicans when it comes to starting unnecessary wars. Donald Trump made the point of denouncing “stupid wars” when he was running for office and has returned to that theme also in the past several weeks, though he did little enough to practice what he preached until it was too late and too little. Clinton notoriously intervened in the Balkans and bombed a pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan and a cluster of tents in Afghanistan to draw attention away from his affair with Monica Lewinsky. His secretary of State Madeleine Albright thought the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. sanctions was “worth it.” Barack Obama tried to destroy Syria, interfered in Ukraine and succeeded in turning Libya into an ungovernable mess while compiling a “kill list” and assassinating U.S. citizens overseas using drones.
If you want to go back farther, Woodrow Wilson involved the U.S. in World War One while Franklin D. Roosevelt connived at America’s entry into the Second World War. FDR’s successor Harry Truman dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets in Japan, killing as many as 200,000. Japan was preparing to surrender, which was known to the White House and Pentagon, making the first use of nuclear weapons completely unnecessary and one might call it a “war crime.” Truman also got involved in Korea and John F. Kennedy started the intervention in Vietnam, though there are indications that he was planning to withdraw from it when he was killed. The only Democratic president who failed to start one or more wars was the much-denigrated Jimmy Carter.
So, it is Joe Biden’s turn at the wheel. One has to question the philosophy of government that he brings with him as he has never found a war that he didn’t support and several of his cabinet choices are undeniably hardliners on what they refer to as national security. The lobbies are also putting pressure on Biden to do the “right thing,” which for them is to continue an interventionist foreign policy. The Israeli connected Foundation for the Defense Democracies (FDD) has not surprisingly issued a collection of essays that carries the title “Defending Forward: Securing America by Projecting Military Power Abroad.” If one had to bet at this point “defending forward” will be what the Biden Administration is all about. And oh, by the way, as democracies don’t go to war with democracies, it will only be the designated bad guys who will be on the receiving end of America’s military might.Or at least that is how the tale will be told.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 
