اللعب على حافة الهاوية لم يعد متاحاً.. واشنطن أمام عالم متغيّر

2021-06-29

منذر سليمان وجعفر الجعفري

المصدر: الميادين نت

يثبت صنّاع القرار في واشنطن مرة تلو الأخرى مدى قصور رؤيتهم إلى المتغيرات الدولية والتظاهر بقدرتهم على الاستمرار باللعب بالأدوات السابقة.

سبق حادثة حلف الناتو قرب المياه الروسية إجراء موسكو مناورات ضخمة على مسافة 300 ميل من جزر “هاوايي” الأميركية.

برز مصطلح “اللعب على حافة الهاوية” بالتزامن مع نضوج صراعات النفوذ في العلاقات الدولية، ومع بدايات الحرب الباردة والعداء الأميركي المتأصل للتجربة السوفياتية ومحاصرتها في الولاية الأولى للرئيس الأسبق دوايت آيزنهاور (1953-1956). ويُنسب إلى وزير خارجيته جون فوستر دالاس ترجمة المصطلح بالتناغم مع اندلاع الحرب الكورية وتقسيم شبه الجزيرة، و”تحذيره” موسكو من كلفة “انتقام هائل ضد أهداف سوفياتية”.

عرّف دالاس مقصده بأنه “الفن الضروري” الذي ينطوي على امتلاك “القدرة على الوصول إلى حافة الهاوية من دون الدخول في الحرب”، أي ممارسة التهديد باستخدام القوة العسكرية، ومن ضمنها الحرب النووية، لفرض تراجعات على الاتحاد السوفياتي ضمن معادلة الصراع الكوني بينهما. وعليه، اعتمدتها واشنطن كركيزة أساسية لسياساتها ضد موسكو، وكانت أحد عناصر تدهور العلاقات بينهما منذئذ.

بعد الإفراج عن الوثائق الرسمية الأميركية لعهد آيزنهاور، تبيّن أنَّ الأخير ووزير خارجيته دالاس قرَّرا المضي في سياسة اللعب على حافة الهاوية، والتي تعارضت تماماً مع سياسة رئيس الوزراء البريطاني وينستون تشرشل المعروفة بـ”التعايش السلمي” مع الاتحاد السوفياتي (بحسب ما جاء في كتاب أستاذ التاريخ في جامعة دالاس، ديفيد واتري، “الدبلوماسية على شفير الانهيار: آيزنهاور وتشرشل وإيدن في الحرب الباردة”، 2014، ص 248)، بيد أن واشنطن وموسكو استطاعتا التوصّل إلى تفاهمات عملية بين الفينة والأخرى، وإجراء مناورات عسكرية مستقلة متبادلة، من دون الانزلاق إلى خطر نشوب حرب بينهما طيلة عصر الحرب الباردة، على الرغم من تدهور العلاقات بينهما في محطات عدة، وخصوصاً أثناء “ربيع براغ” ودخول القوات السوفياتية وحلف وارسو إلى تشيكوسلوفاكيا في العام 1968، وسبقه “أزمة الصواريخ الكوبية” في عهد الرئيس جون كنيدي ورئيس الوزراء السوفياتي نيكيتا خروتشوف. وقد كاد سوء تقديرات واشنطن يتسبَّب في اندلاع حرب نووية بينهما، فرضت على إثرها واشنطن حصاراً على كوبا لا يزال قائماً إلى اليوم.

إنَّ جردة سريعة لعلاقات الدولتين العظميين تشير بوضوح إلى تبدّل في سياسات واشنطن العدائية، على خلفية أزمتها الداخلية المتصاعدة نتيجة حرب فيتنام، و”تجميد” سياسة الاحتواء السابقة إلى حين، وانتهاج “سياسة الانفراج” في عهد الرئيس ريتشارد نيكسون، والتي استمرّت نحو 12 عاماً، شهد فيها المسرح العالمي انخفاضاً ملحوظاً في منسوب التوتر بينهما.

جاء التّحوّل النوعي في سياسة تصعيد واشنطن مع الرئيس الأسبق رونالد ريغان الذي أطلق العناق لسباق التسلح بين الطرفين، بتبنّيه “مبادرة الدفاع الاستراتيجي”، أو حرب النجوم، وإدخال أسلحة استراتيجية جديدة إلى الترسانة الأميركية، قاذفة الشبح والقنبلة النيوترونية، وإنعاش توجهات قوى اليمين المتشدد بموازاة الحقبة المكارثية، وربما أبعد منها، لاستعداء “إمبراطورية الشر”، كما أسماها ريغان.

تلك كانت أبرز تجليات “اللعب على حافة الهاوية” بين الدولتين العظميين، ثم تجدد الأمر مرة أخرى مع مجيء الرئيس دونالد ترامب وتصعيده منسوب “الأزمة” مع كوريا الشمالية، مهدداً باستخدام السلاح النووي ضدها، وما رافقها من توتر عالمي وضغوط دولية أسفرت عن لقاء قمة بين رئيسي البلدين، لكن سرعان ما بددت واشنطن نتائجها المرجوة نتيجة ضغوط داخلية قاسية، أرضيّتها عدم جهوزية الولايات المتحدة “لإنهاء حالة العداء” مع كوريا الشمالية ورفضها بشدة، وتجديد مطالبها بقلب نظام الحكم فيها.

تميّزت ولاية الرئيس الأسبق ترامب بإعلاء شعار “أميركا أولاً” على حساب النظام العالمي السائد منذ نهاية الحرب العالمية الثانية، وسعيه لتشكيل نظام عشوائي أطاح أسس التحالفات والتوافقات الدولية وقواعد “الاحترام المتبادل”، بيد أنَّ الرئيس الحالي جو بايدن ماضٍ في ترجمة تلك النظرة القاصرة بأسلوب أكثر سلاسة وجاذبية، بإقرار إدارته أنَّ “بعض أفعالنا في السنوات الأخيرة قوّضت النظام العالمي”. 

أما وجهة الإدارة، فهي “الحفاظ على النظام القائم على قواعد تشكل الصين تحدياً لها”، ما اعتبر قفزاً مقصوداً على التغيرات العالمية وتراجع هيبة الولايات المتحدة (مداخلة وزير الخارجية أنتوني بلينكن بالفيديو أمام مجلس الأمن الدولي، 7 أيار/مايو 2021).

تلك “القواعد” التي أرست علاقة عاصمتي العملاقين، واشنطن وموسكو، أسهمت في عدم انجرارهما إلى اشتباكات مباشرة ودخول عصر “ما بعد الحرب الباردة”، من دون ارتكاب أخطاء في الحسابات تؤدي إلى نشوب صراع شامل، لكن المشهد العام لم يخلُ من تحديات بينهما استخدمت فيه الأسلحة الحديثة وإرساء رسائل ردع متبادلة بينهما.

لقد شهد الأسبوع المنصرم، 23 حزيران/يونيو الجاري، خرق المدمّرة الحربية البريطانية “أتش أن أس ديفندر” حدود روسيا، قبالة سواحل شبه جزيرة القرم، ما دفع سلاح الجو الروسي إلى إطلاق 4 قنابل تحذيرية بالقرب منها، بينما أنكرت البحرية البريطانية الحادث برمته على خلفية عدم اعترافها بسيادة روسيا على شبه الجزيرة. ويعتبر المراقبون العسكريون أنها المرة الأولى منذ الحرب الباردة التي تستخدم فيها روسيا ذخيرة حيّة “لردع سفينة تابعة لحلف الناتو”، وهو إجراء لم يكن مسموحاً به ضمن قواعد اشتباك الحرب الباردة.

وعلى أثر الحادثة، سارعت روسيا إلى نقل مقاتلتين تحملان صواريخ “فرط صوتية” من طراز (الخنجر)، إلى قاعدة حميميم في سوريا، للمشاركة في مناورات في مياه البحر المتوسط (25 حزيران/يونيو 2021).

وسبق حادثة حلف الناتو قرب المياه الروسية إجراء موسكو مناورات عسكرية ضخمة في المحيط الهادئ على مسافة 300 ميل من جزر “هاواي” الأميركية، شارك فيها نحو 20 سفينة حربية ومقاتلات متطورة وقاذفات بعيدة المدى، واقتراب بعض قطعها البحرية بنحو 20 ميلاً بحرياً من شواطئ “هاواي”. 

استنفر الجانب الأميركي، ورفع درجة جهوزيته ومراقبته للمناورات العسكرية بنشر 3 مدمرات وقطع عسكرية أخرى في المياه الإقليمية، وفسّر الخطوة “غير المسبوقة” لروسيا بأنها جزء من خطة متكاملة لتطوير قدراتها العسكرية في مرحلة ما بعد الحرب الباردة واستعراض القوة بعيداً عن حدودها الجغرافية.

وزارة الدفاع الروسية أوضحت أنَّ هدف المناورة هو اختبار قدرة أسلحتها على “تدمير مجموعة من حاملات الطائرات المعادية”، ما أشار إلى تذخير القاذفات الروسية بصواريخ مضادة للسفن. اعتبر الجانب الأميركي أن العقيدة الروسية الجديدة تتمحور حول تكثيف الهجمات على شبكات الدفاع الجوي المعادية، استكمالاً للعقيدة السابقة بقصف سريع للسفن بصواريخ مضادة، لكن الجديد هو دخول الصواريخ التي تفوق سرعتها سرعة الصوت بعدة مرات، والتي تشكل تحدياً جاداً للترسانة الأميركية في وضعها الراهن.

الردّ أو الاستعراض الأميركي على المناورة الروسية أعلن عنه بإجراء “اختبار الصّدمات” ضد أحدث حاملة طائراتها “يو أس أس جيرالد فورد”، مستخدمة 40،000 رطل (18،143 كلغم) من المتفجرات، في مياه تبعد نحو 100 ميل عن ولاية فلوريدا، للتيقن من قدرتها على تحمل “ظروف المعركة”.

وسجّلت “هيئة المسح الجيولوجي” الأميركية الانفجار بأنه يعادل زلزالاً بقوة 3.9 درجات على مقياس ريختر. تعرضت الحاملة لتأثير انفجار هائل، عندما كانت على بعد 500 قدم (152 متراً) من مركز الانفجار، ولحقها بعض الأضرار، ثم عادت إلى حوض جاف لإجراءات الصيانة والإصلاحات (نشرة سلاح البحرية “يو أس أن آي”، 19 حزيران/يونيو الجاري).

يُشار إلى أنَّ “اختبار الصدمات” جاء ثمرة جهود وإلحاح رمز معسكر الحرب الأميركي، السيناتور الراحل جون ماكين، للتيقّن من أدائها والقدرة على اعتمادها كمقدمة لتوفير الميزانيات المطلوبة لحصد نتائج مُرضية.

يزهو القادة العسكريون في واشنطن بقدرتهم على تدمير بطاريات الصواريخ الأسرع من الصوت قبل إطلاقها، وذلك استناداً إلى “عقيدة الدفاع الراهنة”، التي تقتضي إنشاء شبكات دفاعات موازية زائدة عن الحاجة، للتغلب على إمكانية خروج حاملة الطائرات من الخدمة واعتماد حاملتي طائرات لكل مجموعة قتالية، وللتطورات الحديثة أيضاً في تقنيات وسائل الدفاع الجوي الأميركي، فضلاً عن حرب التشويش الإلكترونية.

ليس مستبعداً على مراكز صنع القرار الأميركي الجنوح إلى ارتكاب أخطاء تجاه نيات روسيا، أو قراءة عزم الرئيس الروسي على نشر قوة بلاده على المستوى العالمي، يدعمها انتعاش موجة عداء جديدة ضدها، وخصوصاً منذ انتخابات العام 2016 الرئاسية. 

يجادل هؤلاء في أنَّ مواصفات اللعب الناجح على “حافة الهاوية” يقتضي توفّر موارد كافية لانتشار القوة بعيداً من الحدود الجغرافية، ولا يزال معظم استراتيجيي واشنطن ينظرون إلى روسيا بازدراء شديد، وبأنها “محطة وقود متنقلة”، كما وصفها السيناتور الراحل جون ماكين، وإصرارهم على اعتبار قوة الاتحاد السوفياتي سابقاً بأنها وهمية.

سياسة الرئيس بايدن نحو روسيا، كما تشير إليها الأدبيّات السّياسيّة المتعددة، تستعيد نموذج “الاحتواء” السابق وما أدى إليه من تجارب قاسية في الداخل الأميركي، والاستنزاف المستمر لمواردها الاقتصادية، والتدهور السريع في بناها التحتية التي بدأ الحديث عن ترميمها مؤخراً. 

يمكننا القول إن صنّاع القرار السياسي الأميركي في الفترة الراهنة يثبتون مرة تلو الأخرى مدى قصور رؤيتهم إلى المتغيرات الدولية، والتظاهر بقدرتهم على الاستمرار باللعب بالأدوات السابقة نفسها للسيطرة على العالم، الذي لم يعد كما كان إبان الحرب الباردة.

Canada’s government is seeking to silence Canadian journalists at home and abroad with a draconian censorship bill

June 30, 2021 

Eva Bartlett

RT.com

As a Canadian journalist, I could be subject to a censorship bill which, if passed in Senate, means the government in Canada can effectively shadow-ban and censor my voice into oblivion, along with other dissenting voices.

After seeing his tweet on the issue of Bill C-10, recently passed in the House of Commons, I spoke with Canadian journalist Dan Dicks about this. He explained that the bill is being presented as being about Canada bringing Big Tech companies under the regulation of the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), to have them display more Canadian content.

“But what people are missing,” he cautioned, “is that there were clauses put into this bill, protections for certain publishers and content creators that would protect people like myself and yourself.”

Those clauses, he said, were recently removed from the bill, leading many content-creating Canadians aware of the bill to worry they will be treated the same as a broadcaster or a programmer, subject to the regulations of the CRTC.

The bottom line is that, beyond the mumbo jumbo of the government, this is the latest attack on freedom of expression, and on dissent. 

“It really appears that it’s a backdoor to be able to control the free flow of information online, and to begin to silence voices that go against the status quo,” Dicks said, warning that fines for violators could follow.

“It’s not looking good for individual content creators. Anybody who has any kind of a voice or a significant audience, where they have the ability to affect the minds of the masses, to reach millions of people, they are going to be the ones who are on the chopping block moving forward.”

Names like James Corbett come to mind. Although based in Japan, as a Canadian he would be subject to the bill. And with his very harsh criticisms of many issues pertaining to the Canadian government, he is a thorn they would surely be happy to remove under the pretext of this bill.

Or Dicks, who likewise creates videos often critiquing Canadian government actions.

Or researcher Cory Morningstar, authors Maximilian Forte, Mark Taliano, Yves Engler, or outspoken physicist Denis Rancourt, to name a handful of dissenting voices. Agree or not with their opinions, they have the right to voice them.

Or myself. I’ve been very critical of Canada’s Covid policies and hypocrisy, as well as Canada’s whitewashing of terrorism in Syria, support to neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and unwavering support for Israel which is systematically murdering, starving, and imprisoning Palestinian civilians–including children.

An article on the Law & Liberty website, which describes itself as focussing on “the classical liberal tradition of law and how it shapes a society of free and responsible persons,” notes the bill enables “ample discretion to filter out content made by Canadians that doesn’t carry a desirable ideological posture and [to] prioritize content that does.”

The article emphasizes that the bill violates Canadians’ right to free expression, as well as “the right to express oneself through artistic and political creations, and the right to not be unfairly suppressed by a nebulous government algorithm.”

It noted that Canadians with large followings, like Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad and Steven Crowder, “each enjoy audiences which far exceed any cable television program.”

As with my examples above, these prominent Canadian voices likewise risk shadow-banning under this bill.

But, worse, there is another bill, C-36, that also portends heavy censorship: the “Reducing Online Harms” bill. This one not only involves censorship, but hefty fines and house arrests for violators

The same  Law & Liberty article notes, “Canada is also expected to follow the template of Germany’s NetzDG law, which mandates that platforms take down posts that are determined to constitute hate speech—which requires no actual demonstrated discrimination or potential harm, and is thus mostly subjective—within 24 hours or to face hefty fines. This obviously will incentivize platforms to remove content liberally and avoid paying up.”

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), rightly, contests this bill, noting, “the proposed definition of hate speech as speech that is ‘likely’ to foment detestation or vilification is vague and subjective.” 

Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, is likewise extremely critical of the bills.

Trudeau has made every issue about race, gender and religion since his election. Now he wants to criminalize everyone who disagrees with his tribalist vision.C-36 is the worst attack ever against free speech in Canada.https://t.co/6Z5EefmviP— Maxime Bernier (@MaximeBernier) June 25, 2021

The CCF points out the potential complete loss of Canadians’ fundamental rights with these bills.

It should be common sense that these bills are extremely dangerous to Canadians, however cloaked in talk of levelling playing fields and of combating hate speech they may be.

سلاح الكلمة The weapon of the word.

**Please scroll down for the English Machine translation**

29/06/2021

بثينة شعبان 

المصدر: الميادين نت

استمرّ الغرب بتطوير نهجه بالاهتمام بالكلمة إلى جانب الطلقة، فكانت الحرب الإعلاميّة لا تقلّ أهميّة عن السلاح المستخدم في الحروب.

إنّ الكلمة في هذا الصراع هي من أمضى الأسلحة، كما أن المثقفين والمفكرين والكتّاب المؤمنين بقضاياهم جنود أساسيون.

متى سيدرك العرب أنَّ أهمية أيّ حدث تقاس بديمومة نتائجه وآثاره والقدرة على التأثير في الواقع من خلال هذه النتائج؟ ومتى سيكفّون عن التهليل والترويج، ويبدأون بتكريس الوقت والجهد لمراجعات حقيقية معمّقة وشاملة، تعزّز الصواب وتصحّح الأخطاء، لمنع الوقوع فيها مرة أخرى وتكرارها؟ 

من يتفكَّر في التاريخ الحديث للسياسات الغربية في المنطقة والعالم، لا بد من أن يصل إلى استنتاج مفاده أنهم يستفيدون من كلّ تجربة يخوضونها، ويتخذون القرارات التي تجنّبهم الوقوع في الأخطاء ذاتها مرة أخرى، وتمكّنهم من تحسين أدائهم في المرات القادمة. 

على سبيل المثال لا الحصر، اكتشفت الولايات المتحدة إبان حربها على فيتنام أنَّ الإعلام الحرّ في حينه أدى دوراً مهماً في صناعة الرأي العام الأميركي والعالمي لمصلحة فيتنام وإيصال حقيقة جرائم العدوان الأميركي فيها إلى معظم البشر؛ فقامت بعد ذلك بتغييرات جذرية في البنى الإعلامية، من الملكية إلى المواضيع والأسلوب، وحتى إلى اللغة والجمل والصياغة، بحيث لم نشهد أيّ صرخة إعلامية حين احتلَّت الولايات المتحدة العراق في العام 2003 لأسباب واهية، بل قامت في هذه الحرب بتطوير سيطرتها الإعلامية، ليصبح الإعلام المسموح به هو الإعلام المرافق للقوات فقط، بحيث يحتاج أي خبر إعلامي لموافقة القائد العسكري الأميركي في العراق. 

وقد استمرّ الغرب بتطوير نهجه بالاهتمام بالكلمة إلى جانب الطلقة، فكانت الحرب الإعلاميّة المضلّلة التي شنّها لتبرير قصف ليبيا، والعدوان على سوريا من خلال أدواته الإرهابية، والترويج للحرب على شعب اليمن، وهو ما لا يقلّ أهميّة عن السلاح المستخدم في هذه الحروب. 

ولهذا كله، توقف الغرب وقفة مهمة، إذ تمكن الشباب الفلسطيني والعربي وأحرار العالم من كسر الاحتكار الغربي للإعلام خلال الهبّة الفلسطينية المباركة، واستخدموا الإعلام الجديد لإيصال حقيقة ما يجري إلى أرجاء الأرض، وكشف كذب الصهيونية والوسائل الإعلامية المماثلة لها، والتي اعتادت أن تكون الوحيدة التي توصل النسخة التي تريد عن الأحداث إلى عقول الشعوب وقلوبهم في البلدان الغربية، بحيث أصبح دعم هذه الشعوب لجرائم الكيان الصهيوني ضد الفلسطينيين أمراً مسلماً به لا يجرؤ أحد على تحديه.

حين خرج مئات الآلاف في الولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا وفرنسا وكندا وأستراليا يحملون الأعلام الفلسطينية، ويعبرون عن دعمهم للحق الفلسطيني ولشعب فلسطين في أرضه ودياره، دقّ ناقوس الخطر لديهم بأن إحدى أهم أدواتهم، وهي “التضليل الإعلامي”، تتعرّض لتحدٍّ غير مسبوق من قِبل من فَهِم الآلية وقرر أن يستخدمها لمصلحته حقوقه.

من هنا، يجب أن نقرأ أيضاً قرار السلطات الأميركية حجب مواقع قنوات “العالم” و”المسيرة” و”اللؤلؤة” و”فلسطين اليوم” و”نبأ” و”الكوثر” على الإنترنت، لأنَّ هذه القنوات هي قنوات مقاومة، وهي توضح الوقائع لجمهور المقاومة كي لا يكون ضحيّة للتضليل الإعلامي الغربي. لقد وصل قلق الولايات المتحدة إلى أنها اتخذت قرارات قضائية، واستولت على 33 موقعاً يستخدمها اتحاد الإذاعات والتلفزيونات الإسلامية، و3 مواقع إلكترونية يستخدمها “حزب الله”.

وفي الوقت الذي يُعتبر هذا العمل تقييداً صارخاً لحرية التعبير، وعملاً شائناً لكمِّ الأفواه غير المنسجمة مع الإرادة الأميركية، فإنّ هذا العمل يعبّر عن مدى القلق الذي يشعر به أصحاب القرار في الولايات المتحدة، وفي الغرب عموماً، من اتساع مساحة الفهم الحقيقي لما يقومون به من جرائم بحق الإنسانية، ودور الشبكات الإعلامية المقاومة والإعلام الجديد في إرساء أسس هذا الفهم المستحدث إلى حدّ ما. 

كما يتزامن ذلك مع إعلاء صوت الإعلام الرسمي والخاص في الصين وروسيا، وتصدّي القيادات الصينية والروسية لكلّ تصريح ينطلق من الغرب، وتقديم الجواب المناسب له، وضمان نشر هذا الجواب في الفضاء الإعلامي الغربي. هذا كلّه يعتبر جزءاً لا يتجزّأ من تشكّل العالم المتعدّد الأقطاب، والوعي بأهمية امتلاك الشرق لصوته وأدواته، وأن لا يصل هذا الصوت إلى الدول المستضعفة فحسب، وإنما إلى الدول التي تمتلك أدوات التضليل والهيمنة وتشغّلها أيضاً.

وفي هذا الإطار، إنّ تصفية المقاوم العربي الشريف نزار بنات، والذي استخدم الكلمة والفكر سلاحاً ضدّ العدوان والمعتدين، تعتبر سابقة خطيرة ومشؤومة في أعقاب الهبّة الفلسطينية والمنجزات التي تتحقّق ببطء، ولكن باستمرار، من حيث إنارة درب الناس بالكلمة الصادقة المعبّرة عن الواقع، بعيداً عن النفاق الغربي وتلاعبه بالحقائق والوقائع والأسلوب والجملة والكلمة.

إنّ أكثر ما تأثّرتُ به لخسارة الشهيد نزار بنات هو ما قالته والدته المكلومة: “أعطوا الحرية للمثقفين؛ فنزار كان موسوعة، وحرام أن يموت هكذا”. في هذه الجمل، عبّرت هذه السيدة المقاومة، والتي ربّت نزار على المقاومة، عن حرصها على القضية وعلى فلسطين، رغم خسارتها الشخصيَّة لابنها، لكنها اعتبرته خسارة لفلسطين وللقضية، لأنه كان موسوعة.

 كم هي نبيلة أولاً! وكم هي محقّة ثانياً! لأنهم في الحرب على امتلاك الصوت، يريدون تصفية الأصوات الحرّة والمنتمية في كلّ مكان، كما فعلوا دائماً، من ناجي العلي، إلى غسان كنفاني، إلى مئات الشباب المثقف المقاوم، وفي الوقت ذاته يحجبون المواقع ووسائل الإعلام.

لقد لفت نظري في مؤتمر الأمن الدولي الذي عُقد في سانت بطرسبرغ منذ أيام أنّ وزير خارجية الجزائر شكر روسيا على دعم سوريا في مكافحة الإرهاب. وفي المؤتمر ذاته، حذّر الرئيس بوتين من أنّ النظام العالمي يتمّ تقويضه، وأنّ محاولات البعض لتحقيق مصالحهم وتعزيز أمنهم على حساب أمن الآخرين مستمرةٌّ من دون رادع، بينما أكّد أنّ روسيا تحاول توسيع قاعدة التعاون الخلّاق بين الدول على أسس متساوية وبالوسائل السّياسية والدبلوماسيّة. وفي الأمم المتحدة، أكّد مندوب الصين، في وجه المحاولات الغربية لفرض فتح المعابر إلى سوريا، أنّ “تحسين الوضع الإنساني في سوريا يتطلّب جهوداً عالمية مشتركة ونهجاً شاملاً”.

إذاً، اليوم في المنطقة والعالم، وصلنا إلى نقطة يشعر فيها الغرب بأنّه يكاد يفقد سيطرته وهيمنته على منابع الثروات العربية التي ينهبها، من خلال قمع شعوبنا وتصدير أدواته الإرهابية، وهو يتحسّس بداية خلل في احتكاره التاريخي لإيصال الصورة التي يريد إلى أذهان الشعوب. 

من ناحية أخرى، هناك يقظة صينية – روسية – إيرانية – فنزويلية – سورية – فلسطينية – جزائرية، تشمل عدداً كبيراً من دول العالم، ضاقت ذرعاً بالهيمنة الغربية، وقرّرت اجتراح الأساليب والسبل لإيصال صوتها إلى مبتغاه. نحن في مرحلة قلق شديد لدى القطب الواحد من فقدان هيمنته، وإدراك متسارع للأقطاب الأخرى بقدرتهم المؤكدة على بناء عالم جديد على أساس المصير المشترك والكرامة المتساوية لبني البشر. 

إنّ الكلمة في هذا الصراع هي من أمضى الأسلحة، كما أن المثقفين والمفكرين والكتّاب المؤمنين بقضاياهم جنود أساسيون. علينا جميعاً الانتباه إلى محاولات الفتك بهم أو تشويه ما يكتبون وما يقولون لمصلحة القوى المعادية، فالعملاء المأجورون اليوم يعملون في الداخل والخارج، وقد يكون عملاء الداخل أكثر قدرة على إلحاق الأضرار بقضايانا. لا وجهات نظر في مسألة الحقّ والباطل، ولا وجهة نظر بين الانتماء والخيانة. المرحلة مرحلة حسم ووضوح وشجاعة على تسمية الأشياء والأشخاص بمسمّياتها، وعلى تأبّط الصبر والمثابرة والإيمان بالانتصار زاداً مستمرّاً لكلّ الشرفاء المؤمنين بقضايا شعوبنا المحقّة والعادلة. فلنُعِد للّغة مكانتها، وللكلمة المقاومة مكانها المشرّف، وللمثقفين المقاومين الدعم والاحترام والتقدير والمؤازرة في مهمتهم التاريخية النبيلة.

The weapon of the word.

• Buthaina Shaaban 
• Source: Al-Mayadeen Net
• June 28 17:28

The West continued to develop its approach to taking care of the word alongside the shot, and the media war was as important as the weapon used in the wars.

The word in this conflict is the one who has spent the weapons, and intellectuals, intellectuals and writers who believe in their causes are essential soldiers.

When will The Arabs realize that the importance of any event is measured by the permanence of its consequences and its effects and the ability to actually influence through these results? When will they stop cheering and promoting, and start devoting time and effort to real, in-depth and comprehensive reviews that promote right and correct mistakes, to prevent them from falling back and repeating them?

Those who reflect on the recent history of Western politics in the region and the world must come to the conclusion that they benefit from every experience they experience, make decisions that avoid making the same mistakes again, and enable them to improve their performance in the coming times.

To name a few, during its war on Vietnam, the United States discovered that free media at the time played an important role in making American and global public opinion in Vietnam’s interest and communicating the truth about the crimes of American aggression to most people; The war is developing its media control, so that the permitted media is only the media accompanying the forces, so that any media news needs the approval of the U.S. military commander in Iraq.

The West has continued to develop its approach to taking care of the word alongside the shot, and the misguided media war it has waged to justify the bombing of Libya, the aggression against Syria through its terrorist tools, and the promotion of war against the people of Yemen, which is as important as the weapon used in these wars.

For all this, the West stopped an important pause, as the Palestinian and Arab youth and the free world were able to break the Western monopoly of the media during the blessed Palestinian gift, and used the new media to convey the truth of what is going on all over the earth, and uncovered the lies of Zionism and similar media, which used to be the only one that brought the version of events to the minds and hearts of the peoples in western countries, so that their support for the crimes of the Zionist entity against the Palestinians became taken for granted by no one dares to Challenged.

When hundreds of thousands of people in the United States, Britain, France, Canada and Australia came out carrying Palestinian flags and expressing their support for the Palestinian right and the people of Palestine in their land and homes, they sounded the alarm that one of their most important tools, “disinformation,” was subjected to an unprecedented challenge from understanding the mechanism and decided to use it for its own benefit.

Hence, we should also read the decision of the U.S. authorities to block the sites of the channels “Al-Alam”, “March”, “Pearl”, “Palestine Today”, “Akhbar” and “Kawtar” on the Internet, because these channels are channels of resistance, and they clarify the facts to the audience of resistance so as not to be a victim of Western media misinformation. The United States is concerned that it has taken judicial decisions, seizing 33 sites used by the Islamic Radio and Television Union and three websites used by Hezbollah.

While this action is a blatant restriction of freedom of expression, and an outrageous act of unconscionable mouths with American will, this action reflects the extent to which decision makers in the United States, and in the West in general, feel about the breadth of real understanding of their crimes against humanity, and the role of resistance media networks and the new media in laying the foundations for this fairly new understanding.

This also coincides with the raising of the voice of the official and private media in China and Russia, the response of Chinese and Russian leaders to every statement emanating from the West, providing the appropriate answer to it, and ensuring that this answer is published in the Western media space. All of this is an integral part of the multipolar world, and awareness of the importance of the East having its voice and tools, and reaching not only vulnerable States, but also states that possess and occupy disinformation and hegemony.

In this context, the liquidation of the Arab resistance, The Honorable Nizar Banat, who used the word and thought as a weapon against aggression and aggressors, is a dangerous and ominous precedent in the wake of the Palestinian donation and the achievements that are being achieved slowly, but constantly, in terms of lighting the path of the people with a sincere word expressing reality, away from Western hypocrisy and manipulating facts, facts, methods, sentences and words.

What was most affected by the loss of martyr Nizar Banat was what his grieving mother said: “Give freedom to intellectuals; Nizar was an encyclopedia, and he must die like this.” In these sentences, this resistance lady, who raised Nizar on the resistance, expressed her concern for the cause and Palestine, despite her personal loss of her son, but considered it a loss for Palestine and for the cause, because it was an encyclopedia.

How noble she is first! And how right she is again! Because in the war on the possession of sound, they want to filter free and belonging voices everywhere, as they have always done, from Naji al-Ali to Ghassan Kanafani, to hundreds of educated resistance youth, while blocking websites and the media.

I was struck at the International Security Conference held in St. Petersburg a few days ago that the Algerian Foreign Minister thanked Russia for supporting Syria in the fight against terrorism. At the same conference, President Putin warned that the world order was being undermined, that attempts by some to achieve their interests and enhance their security at the expense of the security of others continued unchecked, while stressing that Russia was trying to expand the base of creative cooperation between states on an equal basis and by political and diplomatic means. At the United Nations, in the face of Western attempts to force the opening of crossings into Syria, the Chinese representative stressed that “improving the humanitarian situation in Syria requires joint global efforts and a comprehensive approach.”

So, today in the region and the world, we have reached a point where the West feels that it is almost losing control and dominance over the sources of Arab wealth that it plunders, by suppressing our peoples and exporting its terrorist tools, and is feeling the beginning of a flaw in its historical monopoly to convey the image it wants to the minds of peoples.

On the other hand, there is a Sino-Russian-Iranian-Venezuelan-Syrian-Palestinian-Algerian vigilance, which includes a large number of countries in the world, fed up with Western hegemony, and has decided to go through the methods and ways to get its voice to its goal. We are in a period of great concern among the pole of the loss of its dominance, and an accelerated realization of other poles of their proven ability to build a new world on the basis of common destiny and equal dignity for human beings.

The word in this conflict is the one who has spent the weapons, and intellectuals, intellectuals and writers who believe in their causes are essential soldiers. We should all pay attention to attempts to kill them or distort what they write and what they say for the benefit of hostile forces, as the paid agents today work at home and abroad, and agents at home may be better able to harm our causes. No views on the question of right and wrong, nor a view between belonging and betrayal. The stage is a stage of determination, clarity and courage in naming things and people by their names, and on the patience, perseverance and belief in victory has continued to increase for all honest people who believe in the issues of our peoples that are right and just. Let us return to the language of its place, the word resistance has its honorable place, and the resistant intellectuals have support, respect, appreciation and support in their noble historical mission.

Iraq’s Nujaba Urges Supporting Resistance in Push to Restore Country’s Sovereignty

29/06/2021

By Staff, Agencies

Iraq’s al-Nujaba Movement, part of the Popular Mobilization Units [PMU] or better known by the Arabic name as Hashd al-Shaabi, has called on all Iraqi institutions to throw their weight behind the resistance to restore the country’s sovereignty.

Nujaba Secretary General Sheikh Akram al-Kaabi issued the call on Tuesday, one day after US warplanes targeted three locations belonging to Hashd al-Shaabi in the border town of al-Qaim in Iraq’s western Anbar Province.

The US strike killed four Iraqi fighters who were performing their duties of preventing the infiltration of Daesh [Arabic for ‘ISIS/ISIL’] terrorists from Syria into Iraq.

Kaabi “invited all the military institutions to support the resistance in restoring the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and promised the evil occupiers that military resistance would have the final say on the battlefield and make Iraq proud.”

He also noted that the US targeting of the 14th Hashd al-Shaabi Brigade “proved that the [current] foolish US government is following in the footsteps of the former ignorant administration.”

“The evil occupiers should know that martyrdom is our path and we have performed the ablution of martyrdom in our burial shrouds for the great battle,” Kaabi said, stressing that the political strategy seeking the expulsion of US occupation forces has failed.

“Until the complete liberation of Iraq from your evil [presence], we will not retreat, we will not give up and we will respond twofold to any attack,” he warned the Americans.

The Nujaba chief further thanked the officials in charge of Iraqi checkpoints for facilitating the passage of the resistance fighters.

He also criticized the mercenaries who slander about pro-resistance individuals and institutions, saying, “Their prosecution will be near and heavy, and sooner or later they will be tried for their great crimes and treachery.”

Related Videos

Related News

• Iraqi and Syrian resistance hit US Military Base in Eastern Syria with at least 8 rockets
• Iraqi resistance vows revenge after murderous US airstrikes
• Breaking: Biden Bombs Syria and Iraq; Psychopaths Claim ‘Self-Defense’
• Biden Forces in Al Omar Oil Field Get Bombed Back by the Resistance

‘Israeli’ Occupation Starts Demolishing Occupied Al-Quds’ Silwan Neighborhood

29/06/2021

By Staff, Agencies

Confrontations with the Zionist military erupted after the demolition of a Palestinian business by Zionist occupation forces began in the al-Bustan area of the occupied East al-Quds neighborhood of Silwan on Tuesday.

The Zionist occupation forces accompanied by bulldozers entered the Palestinian neighborhood and destroyed a butcher’s shop in Silwan. Soldiers used tear gas and batons to push back residents and Palestinian activists as they carried out the demolition.

At least four Palestinians were injured in the confrontations, according to the Palestine Red Crescent.

The Zionist forces also fired rubber-coated steel bullets to disperse angry Palestinians amid calls through mosque loudspeakers for residents to gather to protect their homes, witnesses said.

On June 7, the occupied al-Quds municipality issued a series of demolition orders to residents of the al-Bustan area in Silwan.

The 13 families affected, consisting of some 130 people, were given 21 days to evacuate and demolish their houses themselves. Failure to do so would mean the occupation regime’s municipality would destroy the houses and families would have to cover the demolition costs – an estimated $6,000.

Since 2005, residents of al-Bustan have received warnings to demolish nearly 90 homes under the pretext of building without a permit, in favor of a Zionist settler organization that seeks to turn the land into a national park and link it to the archaeological so-called ‘City of David’ area.

Silwan is located to the south of al-Quds’ Old City, adjacent to its walls.

At least 33,000 Palestinians live in the neighborhood, which has been targeted by ‘Israeli’ settler organizations for years. In some cases, Palestinian landowners have been forced to share homes with Zionist settlers.

Some of these Palestinian families have been living in Silwan for more than 50 years since they were displaced from the Old City in the 1960s.

Biden Forces in Al Omar Oil Field Get Bombed Back by the Resistance

 ARABI SOURI JUNE 29, 2021

Biden forces illegally occupying the Al Omar oil field in northeastern Syria get bombed back by the resistance forces less than a day after Biden forces bombed posts used by the resistance to guard the Syrian – Iraqi borders against ISIS.

Rocket missiles fell on the residential compound housing the oil thieves in the US military in the Al Omar oil field east of the city of Deir Ezzor, northeast of Syria in the early evening yesterday 28 June 2021.

The video is also on BitChute.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1rkE8G7uxAirceWku60-zXdIguYt6CTPs

Biden air forces flew combing sorties over the area trying to figure out from where the missiles were believed to have come from.

Al Omar oil field is the largest oil field in Syria, the oil field does not need any democracy spreading, any free speech promoting, or any ‘inclusiveness’ or ‘diversity’ which the US regimes need to force export to, the oil produced by this field is smuggled by the Biden forces into Iraq, the same task that was formerly carried out by Trump forces who took over from ISIS which was selling the oil to the regime of the Turkish madman Erdogan instead.

Ever since ISIS handed over Al Omar oil field to the Kurdish SDF terrorists under the supervision of the Trump forces, the ISIS terrorists never carried out any attack against the oil field and only attacked the Syrian army and its allies across the Syrian desert east of the country, and attacked the Iraqi army and PMU across the Iraqi open desert west of the country.

The rockets attack came about 18 hours after the Biden forces bombed buildings across the Syrian – Iraqi borders targeting and killing a Syrian child and injuring 3 other civilians in Bu Kamal on the Syrian side of the border, and killing 4 PMU fighters on the Iraqi side of the border, the PMU fighters guard the borders against ISIS terrorists.

After Biden forces carried out their heinous attack late night bombing against Syria and Iraq, the Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres called on all parties for restrain, that couldn’t have been applied at the time since the Iraqi PMU did not attack US forces inside the USA, now, however, after the US illegal forces in Syria got attacked, the UN chief’s call for restrain can be considered, if Biden doesn’t want loads of body bags flying back home.

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 the Telegram app.

لبنان: الكارثة المتفاقمة والحلول الغائبة!؟

العميد د. امين محمد حطيط

في العام 1967 أحجم لبنان عن دخول الحرب التي شنّتها «إسرائيل» على دول الطوق يومها بذريعة الضعف وعدم القدرة الدفاعية التي تحمي أرضه، ولما انتهت الحرب بعد أيامها الستة المعدودة ارتدّت «إسرائيل» على لبنان فألغت اتفاقية الهدنة معه من جانب واحد وشرعت في قضم أرض لبنانيّة في مزارع شبعا، القضم الذي استمرّ حتى العام 1973، حيث سيطرت «إسرائيل» على كامل المزارع ولم يحرك لبنان ساكناً خشية أن يُضمّ إلى القرار 242 ويضطر للتفاوض على الأرض ويسقط الحدود الثابتة باتفاقية «بوليه نيوكمب» 1923 والمؤكد عليها باتفاقية الهدنة 1949. ومن جهة أخرى نذكر أيضاً بأنّ لبنان الذي لم يشارك في حرب 1967 والتزم سياسة الحياد فيها من أجل حماية اقتصاده على أبواب فصل الصيف يومها وجد اقتصاده بعد الحرب ينهار ويظهر بأنه ضحية لتلك الحرب التي وضعت حداً للطفرة والنمو الاقتصادي اللبناني وتسبّبت بزعزعة أركانه أو لنقل هزة كبرى غيّرت مسارات النمو ووضعت حداً للبحبوحة. 

بدأت بذكر هذه الواقعة اليوم ليس من أجل السرد التاريخيّ طبعاً، ولكن من أجل الإشارة إلى حقيقة ثابتة في تاريخ لبنان مفادها القول إنّ تجنّب المواجهة أو الاتجاه إلى الحياد أو كما يُقال ابتداعاً وخرافة لبنانية «النأي بالنفس»، أنّ كلّ ذلك لا يضمن دائماً الحقوق ولا يؤدّي إلى حمايتها ولا يمكن من استرجاعها إنْ اغتصبت، خاصة إذا كان العدو الذي يهدّد تلك الحقوق من نسخة وطبيعة العدو «الإسرائيلي» وكان المُعتدى عليه دولة كلبنان واهنة هشة في نظامها وسلطتها وماليتها. اليوم تكاد الصورة ذاتها تستعاد، إذ إنّ لبنان الرسمي وفي مواجهة الحرب الكونية التي شنّت على سورية وعلى محور المقاومة زعم انه التزم سياسة «النأي بالنفس»! وهي أغرب بدعة يمكن أن يتسامع بها في العلاقات الدولية، خاصة اذا كانت الدولة متشابكة مع محيطها اللصيق في الجغرافية والتاريخ والديمغرافية والاقتصاد، ولو لم تبادر المقاومة لامتشاق السلاح والدفاع عن لبنان على الأرض السورية ابتداء ثم على الأرض اللبنانية هي والجيش اللبناني بعد وصول العماد ميشال عون إلى رئاسة الجمهورية، لكان الإرهابيون فعلوا في لبنان ما سبق لهم وارتكبوه من جرائم القتل والتشريد والتخريب والتدمير التي ارتكبوها في سورية والعراق. 

لقد استطاعت المقاومة بقرارها الأوّلي الذي لم يتوقف عند «سياسة النأي بالنفس» الغبية، أن تحمي لبنان من الإرهاب، لكن الحرب الكونيّة التي قادتها أميركا ومعها «إسرائيل» ضدّ سورية لم تكن عسكرية فقط، بل تعدّدت صنوفها وسقوفها وأشكالها وشملت في ما شملت الحرب الاقتصادية والإرهاب الاقتصادي، وهنا بدل أن يساهم لبنان في تخفيف آثار العدوان على سورية ويدافع عن نفسه عبرها خاصة بعد أن وضع قانون قيصر الأميركي موضع التنفيذ وهو القانون الذي ادّعت أميركا كذباً انه لا يمسّ لبنان، فقد كان العكس تماماً حيث ساهم الممسكون بالقرار الاقتصادي والمالي في لبنان في الحرب على سورية بشكل إجرامي وحرموا السوريين من أموالهم المودعة في لبنان كما حرموا المودعين اللبنانيين أيضاً من مالهم وطبّقوا «قانون قيصر» بشكل أسوأ مما كان يطلب واضعوه الأميركيون، وظنّ هؤلاء جهلاً او ارتهاناً بأنّ في ذلك كسباً للرضا الأميركي وصيانة للاقتصاد اللبناني، وأغفل هؤلاء أيضاً ما حاكته أميركا للبنان من خطة عدوان هي خطة بومبيو التي تتضمّن الانهيار الاقتصادي والمالي. 

وهكذا تأكد على أرض الواقع بأنّ الحرب الاقتصادية على سورية شملت لبنان وكشفت عوراته الاقتصادية والمالية دفعة واحدة وأظهرت على الطبيعة الكارثة الاقتصادية الحقيقية التي يعيشها لبنان بسبب نهب الأموال العامة من قبل المسؤولين وبسبب الفساد المستشري في الإدارة العامة وعلى كلّ الصعد، وبسبب سياسة الامتيازات والاحتكارات والوكالات الحصرية، وبسب السرقات المبرمجة بما أُسمي الهندسات المالية التي وضعها حاكم مصرف لبنان ما أدّى إلى إثراء المصارف وإغنائها من مال المودعين من لبنانيين وغير لبنانيين ومنهم سوريين قيل إن رصيد ودائعهم في لبنان تخطى الـ 25 مليار دولار. هكذا وبلمح البصر انكشف الاقتصاد اللبناني وظهر وهنه وخواؤه وظهرت الطبقة السياسية والاقتصادية والمالية على حقيقتها بأنها زمر من اللصوص منهم الكثير من العملاء للخارج، والفاسدون المفسدون الذين قادوا لبنان إلى الانهيار والجوع والبطالة والويلات. 

لم تكن الحرب الاقتصادية على سورية وخطة بومبيو الإجراميّة هي السبب الوحيد للانهيار الاقتصادي اللبناني، بل كانت تلك الحرب أحد الأسباب التي فاقمت الأزمة والسبب الرئيسي الذي كشف عن الحقيقة. وشكلت رداً مباشراً وعملياً على أولئك الذين فاخروا بسياسة النأي بالنفس وقاطعوا سورية وامتنعوا حتى عن الحديث معها لا بل إنّ مسؤولين كباراً يعلم القاصي والداني أنّ الرعاية السورية هي التي بنت لهم مواقعهم وأنتجت لهم أمجاداً يتغنون بها الآن، قاطعوا سورية وعملوا مع أميركا ضدها بشكل بشع. 

إنّ مأساة لبنان باتت حقيقية كارثية قائمة، والكارثة الأفظع هي عدم الاعتراف بالمسؤولية عنها والإصرار على التمسك بالأشخاص والأساليب ذاتها التي أدت إلى الكارثة، متناسين الحكمة القائلة بانّ «المقدمات ذاتها تؤدي إلى النتائج ذاتها» أو أن تطابق المقدّمات يحكم بتطابق النتائج، وبالتالي فإنّ تماثل الأشخاص والأدوات والأساليب يؤدّي إلى نتائج متماثلة. وفي حالنا يعني أنّ لبنان سيكون أمام مأساة تتفاقم وليس أمام إشكالية يتبعها حلّ. 

والغريب في الأمر أنّ من يتفحّص مسارات وآلية البحث عن حلّ لمأساة لبنان يصاب بالذهول، حيث إنه يجد أولاً أن المتسبّبين بالكارثة هم أنفسهم يستأثرون بالبحث عن حل بعد أن أوكل إليهم أمر الإخراج منها، وأنّ أدوات إنتاج الكارثة هي نفسها الأدوات التي يتمّ التمسك بها والأفظع من ذلك هي الدعوة أو الإصرار على سياسة العزلة والنأي بالنفس أو ما ابتدع بتسميته «الحياد الناشط» الذي ليس له مكان في القانون إلا في أوهام وخيال مَن يطلقه. 

أما الحلّ الذي نراه فإنه يجب أن يُرسى على قوائم ثلاث تتمثل بإصلاح سياسي واقتصادي ومالي. ففي السياسة لا بدّ من تغيّر أو إصلاح جذري يضع حداً للطبقة السياسية الفاسدة التي ترفع شعار حقوق الطائفة وتنهب أموال الطائفة والوطن والمجيء بمن يعمل للوطن والدولة والشعب ولا يكون مطواعاً للخارج. وفي الاقتصاد يجب أن يقوم الإصلاح على شقين أو فرعين فرع في الماهية وعبره نتحوّل إلى الاقتصاد الإنتاجي الذي قضت عليه سياسات ما بعد 1992، وفرع استراتيجي يقوم على الاندماج الاقتصادي التكاملي مع المحيط وبشكل خاص الدول العربية الثلاث التي توجّه اليها الرئيس ميشال عون بمبادرته طارحاً السوق الاقتصادية المشرقية، (بدأت مصر مع الأردن والعراق بهذا التعاون الفاعل وندعو إلى انضمام لبنان وسورية لهما) كما والانفتاح على الشرق بشكل عام وعلى الصين وإيران وروسيا بشكل خاص مع وضع حدّ لسياسة الاحتكارات والتبعية للغرب. وأخيراً الإصلاح النقديّ الذي يجب أن تقوم به لجنة من الخبراء يضع حداً للدولرة ويعيد إلى القطاع المصرفي الثقة ويحرر أموال المودعين أو على الأقل يضع جدولاً زمنياً لإعادتها حتى ولو طال الوقت بضع سنين، فالمهمّ ألا تضيع. 

هذه برأينا الخطوط الكبرى للحلّ، لكن للأسف لا نرى مَن يسعى اليه بشكل يدعو إلى طمأنينة ما بل نرى استشراء في النهب والسيطرة واستباحة الدولة الأمر الذي يطرح السؤال: متى يتحرّر اللبناني من زعيمه الجلاد، ومن مرجعيته الخارجية الظالمة المستبدة ويعمل باستقلالية القرار وليس بالحياد التافه، يعمل بإرادة وقرار مستقلّ من أجل نفسه ووطنه؟ وهل ستبقى الحلول غائبة حتى تلك اللحظة؟ 

Will the Russians sink a British ship the next time around?

June 28, 2021

To begin, let’s recap what just happened in the Crimean waters. First, the HMS Defender deliberately entered the Russian waters under the pretext that the Brits don’t recognize what they call the “annexation” of Crimea. The Brits deny it, but after seeing 4 bombs explode ahead of the HMS Defender, they altered their course as the Russians demanded.

Next, before looking into this deeper, let’s also keep in mind the following fact: the entire Black Sea is a de facto “Russian lake” meaning that Russia has the full military control of the Black Sea. For those alternatively gifted, let me explain what this means:

• The Bal and Bastion coastal defense missiles can sink any ship in the Black Sea in minutes.
• The Black Sea Fleet has seven advanced diesel-electric attack submarines, arguably the most advanced on the planet.
• The HMS Defender was operating without any air cover but detected over 20 Russian military aircraft overflying it.

For a more detailed discussion of this reality, please see these four (here, here, here and here) articles by Andrei Martyanov. For a more detailed discussion of the laws of the sea, please see this discussion by Nat South.

In other words, the HMS Defender was a sitting duck with no chance of survival had the Russians decided to fire in anger. General Konashenkov, who is in charge of contacts with the media, had this to say about the outcome of the British provocation: (emphasis added)

“The epic fiasco of the provocation of the British destroyer Defender in the Black Sea, which abruptly changed course from Russian territorial waters after the warning shots of the patrol ship, will remain a fragrant stain on the reputation of the Royal Navy for a long time”

(-: Thereby suggesting that the Brits soiled their pants and ran for their lives 

Speaking of anger: I have been parsing the Russian media over the past couple of days and I will only say that there are A LOT of commentators who are mad at the Kremlin for NOT opening fire in earnest and sinking the Defender.

Furthermore, several Russian officials have now indicated that the next time around, the intruders would be destroyed.

Did I mention that the British Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice declared in an interview that the Brits plan to repeat such operations in the future?

This now begs the question: would the Kremlin really risk WWIII by sinking a British Navy Ship trying to, to use a British expression, “poke the Russian bear”?

Interestingly, the Brits deny that the Russians fired any munitions ahead of the Defender. Why would they do that? My personal explanation is that the British government does not want to freak out the British and European public opinion. But if they are hiding the truth, it means that this is a truth which makes them uncomfortable. What do you think they might be hiding?

Still, the two UK reporters who were on the Defender (by total coincidence, I am sure), both reported hearing explosions and seeing Russian combat aircraft. The Russian FSB also released video footage taken from the Russian border patrol ships which were shadowing the HMS Defender. You can clearly see the Russian firing their guns ahead of the HMS Defender:

The Russians also have radar footage from many sources and it has been really easy for them to prove that the Defender changed course and left after four bombs exploded ahead on its course.

The reason for all this? “We don’t recognize the annexation of Crimea”. Which makes no sense because EVEN if the UK does not recognize the Russian “annexation” of Crimea (and, along with that, the democratic will of the people of Crimea), they should still recognize the indisputable fact that Russia is the “occupying power” which, therefore, has the legal right to deny any ship “innocent passage” if it believes that this ship is a threat, collecting intelligence or used for propaganda purposes (again, read Nat South’s superb discussion on the applicability of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to this situation). As usual, the Brits are lying about everything, including what the UNCLOS really says…

Now let’s look at this from the Russian point of view.

First, the Russians remember how the Brits declared a 200 miles zone around the Malvinas Islands (“Falklands” in UK parlance) and immediately sunk the cruiser General Belgrano as soon as it entered this zone. The Russians also remember how the Turks shot down a Russian SU-24 over Syria because it had penetrated in Turkish air space for exactly 6 seconds. The HMS Defender spent about 30 minutes in Russian waters.

Can you really blame them for feeling that “some are more equal than others”?

The Brits, being the superior race which only they think they are, declared that they only changed course because a slower Russian vessel was ahead of them and they decided to pass it from the open waters side. In fact, the Brits are so superior to the mongoloid Russian hordes and their dictator that they refused to even reply to the Russian coast guard vessel when it threatened to open fire if the Brits did not change course.

NOT talking to Russia, ever, seems to be the latest fad with NATO. The same goes for the EU which is now hostage to the 3B+PU nutcases.

(I wonder, does anybody still believe this crap? Does anybody still believe that Great Britain is, well, great? In Russia the expression “мелкобритания” is increasingly used. Translated into English this would be something like “Tiny Britain”)

Anyways, all of the above clearly shows one of two things:

• The Brits do not believe that Russia could sink a UK warship
• The Brits are willing to risk a major military incident possibly leading to war in order to maintain tensions between Russia and the collective West (aka the AngloZionist Empire).

This begs the question: are the Brits correct, or are they delusional?

First, we need to understand the purpose of this provocation: to disrupt the planned summit between the EU and Russia which France and Germany seemed to support, and which the 3B+PU and the Netherlands and the Czech Republic (iirc) categorically opposed (the Ukraine is not member of the EU, but they sure acted as if they had some kind of moral veto power over EU decisions). Sure, the UK has Brexited and should therefore not have any say in EU decisions, but the Anglosphere has enough power over the EU to make this completely irrelevant. We also know that Boris Johnson personally gave the order to the HMS Defender to enter Russian waters. Obviously, that kind of high level decision could not have been taken without Uncle Shmuel’s approval, thus we are dealing with a very deliberately calculated action. If this was the goal, it has been a total success and the Brits just screwed over Macron and Merkel.

Second, this is really largely irrelevant for Russia. If the EU cannot muster enough political courage to talk to Russia, then Russia will directly talk with those countries which want to talk to Russia. To put it bluntly, Russia does not give a damn about the 3B+PU. As for the Netherlands, they are a big investor in the Russian economy and Russians don’t care about what the Dutch might or might not say, as long as they keep investing (in Euros, by the way!), which, so far, they still are. Besides, considering the economic size of Holland, even if they stopped investing this would only be a minor nuisance for Russia. In fact, Merkel has even declared that if the EU cannot agree to have a dialog with Russia, Germany would seek other venues for this purpose.

Third, what just happened is yet another clear sign that the EU is profoundly dysfunctional. After the end of the USSR in 1991, russophobic Neocons in the West decided to make the Russians “pay” by incorporating ex WTO and ex Soviet Republics into NATO. At first, it looked great, but now it has become clear that the blowback from this truly idiotic policy has many unexpected benefits for Russia and major problems for the Empire. They include:

• Russia got rid of all the Soviet periphery which was bleeding the Soviet Union dry.
• None of the newly created states has become a viable, successful state.
• The Empire spent many billions trying to prop up these newly independent states (ex USSR and eastern Europe) and tried to turn them into some anti-Russia showcase. They totally and comprehensively failed.
• Now the UK and, even more so, the 3B+PU have taken the EU hostage and are preventing the countries which matter from, well, mattering anymore.
• Countries bordering Russia are now all demanding NATO troops, which puts the latter in the worst possible position, right across the Russian border and, therefore, within range of too many Russian weapons to list here.
• Last, but not least, the stupid and, frankly, totally irresponsible actions of countries like the UK and the Ukraine risk involving all of Europe in a most dangerous and devastating war.

Bottom line is this: the leaders of the AngloZionist thought they had scored big with the expansion of the EU and NATO. Now they are screwed in a major way and with no solution in sight.

This all is hardly big news, but yet another confirmation of the advanced state of collapse of both NATO and the EU. Conversely, the more EU countries decide to hold bilateral talks with Russia, the better for the future of the European continent.

As for the Brits, they are clearly suffering from phantom pains for their lost empire. Think of it, in less than one century the British Empire went from being the empire upon which the sun never sets, (Britannia rules the waves, etc.) to being the USA’s poodle which nobody respects or takes seriously. Bojo is desperate to prove that he is a “new Churchill” which will teach the damn Russians (and Chinese!) to kowtow to the UK or, failing that, at least kowtow to the Anglosphere. And, as a typical western politician, Bojo is both too ignorant and too narcissistic to understand the risks he is taking.

The Brits seemed to be combining imperialist arrogance (and delusion!) with a truly shocking lack of PR skills. Not only did they deny that the Russians opened warning fire ahead of them, only to have the FSB prove this denial false by publishing the video of the Russian coast guard vessel firing ahead of the Defender, but now they came up with a truly clumsy piece of nonsense about how a “super dooper secret” dossier on the British plans was somehow apparently found by a passer-by in a heap of trash behind a bus stop in Kent (you think I am joking, then see here). Needless to say, the Russians openly made fun of the Brits saying that “007 agents agents aren’t what they used to be”. Furthermore, it now appears that some top UK officials were very much opposed to this move which was demanded by Johnson personally (see here and here).

What about the British military?

We know that their actual capabilities are laughable. But what about their understanding of the situation?

I am not a mind reader and I don’t know what the British sailors (and their bosses) were thinking, but there is one thing which I am sure of: the next time around (and, there will be a next time according to UK ministers), the Russians will use force. If possible, they will try to ram the intruding vessel; if not, they might strike at the intruding vessel’s engines/props to disable it and, possibly, tow it. Should the intruding vessel try to fire back, the Russians would probably fire a torpedo and disable it. That is my best guess. I also decided to ask Andrei Martyanov (a former Soviet Navy officer) what he thinks will happen the next time around. Here is his reply:

“Most likely, they will open fire, but first only with small-caliber naval artillery (30-mm from the Russian border patrol ship or even 76-mm), and that fire will be aimed at the propeller-steering group (i.e. at the stern) to begin with. At the same time, the coastal defense batteries will actively track the intruder with their targeting radar, plus the Russian will “hang” 15-20 Su-24 and SU-30SM in immediate readiness to use more serious means – for example, the supersonic (M = 3.5) anti-radiation X-31 and take out the mast with its radar. That is just for starters. Next, the Russians will gage the reaction of the intruder: if they try to shoot at any Russian target, they will be sunk. But this would only happen inside Russian territorial waters. Outside Russian waters the Russians will only monitor their moves. Lastly, do not forget – there are anywhere between 4 and 7 Project 636 submarines at any one time patrolling the Black Sea, each capable of firing 6 3M54 anti-ship missiles in one salvo.”

The British paratroopers also recently engaged in a major airdrop in Jordan. The Brits see that as, quote “as show of force to ISIS and Russia”. Russia’s reaction? The Russian Aerospace Forces dispatched two MiG-31K carrying the Kinzhal hypersonic missiles to the Russian Aerospace base in Khmeimim, thus showing the Brits that their ships in the Mediterranean and Black Sea sail at the pleasure of Russia. Again, this won’t be reported by the western legacy ziomedia in order to keep the public opinion totally unaware of the risks Bojo and his gang are taking in the name of their phantom pains about empire. Russian Aerospace Forces Tu-22M3M were also recently deployed to Khmeimim.

Here is a short video of the Russian MoD Zvezda channel to give you an idea of how this all looks (in Russian, but no translation needed) and which quite openly shows whom the Russians consider their likely target.

Here is a Zerohedge article discussing some of this.

Does anybody still remember what happened when the “invincible” British Navy tried to participate in Trump’s (totally failed) cruise missile attack on Syria? The British subs in the Mediterranean were shadowed by not one, but apparently two Russian submarines. That convinced the British sub commander that firing its missiles would be suicidal. The Brits gave up and left the area.

There is a pattern here: western politicians make a lot of very loud statements; the Russians simply take whatever actions they deem necessary, which frees them from the need to make threats of roaring statements in the first place.

This approach has a problem: only highly specialized people in the West are fully aware of what the Russians are doing and even less people fully understand the implications of the Russian actions. Add to this a western media which lies for a living, and this results in a population in Europe which is almost totally unaware of the very real risks the reckless actions of their (supposed) representative governments engage in. How many Brits will realize that a grinning and apparently happy Boris Johnson has almost stumbled into a war with Russia? Very few I bet. If anything, the common folk in the West are told that (a) their military is the best and (b) that the Russian military is much weaker and the Russians understand that. Ergo: there is no risk.

Then there is the fact that while the general population is kept in total ignorance, western political elites are mostly composed of folks with very strong narcissistic tendencies combined with a total inability to learn from mistakes (both theirs and those of others). Needless to say, history does not inform these people either. Finally, since these folks can never admit a mistake, however minor or serious, they cannot change course; doubling down over and over is pretty much all they are capable of.

Conclusion:

There is no doubt that the Biden Administration has taken a very different course towards Russia (and Iran, by the way!) than the one favored by the Trump administration. I attribute this change of policy to the likely realization by top Pentagon officials that the US desperately needs to “catch its breath” and that the US military is in no condition to take on any other halfway competent military. Even if this is a ploy to win time for reorganizing, I welcome this as, by definition, anything is preferable to war, especially a full-scale war. However, there are clearly interests in both the US and Europe which are desperately opposed to any form of detente with Russia and who want to maintain an atmosphere of crisis and tensions just short of war. Of course, I don’t believe in any meaningful differences between the various factions competing for power on a strategic level: they all want to destroy, submit, break up and otherwise devastate Russia. This 1000 year old dream of the western ruling elites (pretty much all of them) still remains the strategic target of the West. But on a tactical level there appear to be two factions, one which understands that the Empire desperately needs a break to regroup and refine its strategy and another one which still seems to believe that the Empire is invincible and appears to be hell-bent on triggering as many conflicts/wars as it deems necessary to restore Uncle Shmuel’s worldwide hegemony.

That second group, clearly strong, has ties with the UK and the 3B+PU gang who are desperate to remain relevant and who understands that should there ever be any type detente (or even a tense modus vivendi) agreed upon between Russia and the West, that group would become comprehensively irrelevant to the future of our planet. While we can disagree with this logic, we have to remain aware that for countries like the UK or the 3B+PU this is truly an existential issue and that they see a continuation of tensions as the only path to political survival. On this specific point, I happen to agree with them.

I mentioned that ever since Dubya, all the US Presidents who came to the White House were extremely weak, which resulted in the breakup of any single US foreign policy into many different, and often contradictory, “mini foreign policies” by various branches of the government (Congress vs White House, plus a Pentagon foreign policy, a CIA foreign policy, a Foggy Bottom policy, a DoE policy, etc. etc. etc.). Hence, for example, the recent seizure by Uncle Shmuel of the PressTV domain name. (BTW – the domain name https://www.presstv.ir/ still works!).

This all makes for a very dangerous brew. Especially since the Russians clearly and sincerely believe that they cannot back down any further.

I therefore conclude that a future military incident, with the use of fire in anger, and possibly resulting in a real war, remains not only possible, but even likely, unless the factions in the West which want a time-out to regroup manage to get the russophobic nutcases under control.

Will that happen? I doubt it very much. Biden is not only weak and senile, his Administration has been organized with wokeness and (pseudo) “diversity” as opposed to competence or expertise. Thus, the collective Biden (which I designate as “Biden” as opposed to the real Biden) is probably too weak to get the crazies under control, even for a short time.

And here is the really scary thing: from the Russian point of view (and Russians all understand all of the above), sinking a British ship might well be the best solution. Why? Because once this happens, it will be impossible to conceal from the western public opinion that its so-called “leaders” are reckless, incompetant, delusional and simply dangerous narcissists who are now willing to risk a continental war (possibly nuclear!) just in order to keep denying the reality of their irrelevance. If Russia wanted to invade the UK, I believe that most Brits would be willing to risk it all to defend their motherland. But I very much doubt that a majority/plurality of Brits would support the notion of dying for Crimea even if they believe that Russia “annexed” the peninsula and is now “oppressing the Ukrainian people of Crimea”. Nor would they want to die over MH17, Skripal, Syria, Navalnyi or the oppressed homos in Chechnia.

There is one more thing I think Putin could do: make a solemn speech and directly address the people of the West telling them the truth about what the western political leaders are doing. He could honestly tell the people in the West that Russia has retreated as far as she could. He can tell the people of the West that Russia did what she so often did in history, she traded space for time and that the four years break of the Trump Administration has allowed Russia to fully rearm, retrain and reorganize her armed forces which are now quite capable of taking on both the US and NATO and prevail.

Yes, I know, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi tried to appeal to the people of the West and, in both cases, the democratic and free western media completely obfuscated these admittedly naive and clumsy attempts. But if Putin speaks directly to the people of the West, and explains to them what a war (even a conventional one) would mean for Europe, they would have to listen. Putin could clearly indicate to the people of the West which actions of the Empire Russia could never and would never tolerate. Finally, he could clearly spell out why the Russian people would prefer war to any surrender to the Empire. And, just to make sure that the message gets through, the Russian Navy might want to have one of its Yasen-M class SSGN surface somewhere in the Channel or the Tu-160 practice a cruise missile release on London (only electronically, of course). Hussein and Gaddafi did not have such capabilities. Russia does, and she should make use of them.

Fear, especially existential fear, might well be the only thing which could break through the wall of silence and disinformation which the western media has been feeding the people for decades.

How much hope do I place in the Biden Administration taking control of the nutcases or for Putin to directly address the people of the West? Not much at all. And the next best outcome is for Russia to sink a US/UK warship (or shoot down an aircraft) without triggering a continental war. Is that even possible? Yes, I think so. Very dangerous, but possible.

Does Russia have any other choice? If so, I don’t see it. Do you?

Post scriptum: this just in – the USS Ross (DDG-71), an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer in the United States Navy, has just entered to Black Sea on her way to Odessa where the Ukies are preparing monoevers if their “mosquito fleet” in the latest “Sea Breeze” NATO maneuvers (the biggest ones to date – 30 countries participate!). The Ukies have also declared that the Ross plans to follow the exact same course as the Defender did. The Russians? They announced that the USS Ross is now a “fat target” on their coastal defense missiles Bal and Bastion. As for Foreign Minister Lavrov, he just authored a seminal article entitled “The Law, the Rights and the Rules” which, still using diplomatic language, shows the utter disgust even Russian diplomats feel for the incompetence and hypocrisy of the West.

“More of the same” seems to be the trend of the day…

Breaking: Biden Bombs Syria and Iraq; Psychopaths Claim ‘Self-Defense’

MIRI WOOD JUNE 28, 2021

The Biden regime has again bombed Syria and has also bombed Iraq. At approximately 0100 Damascene time, Biden regime bomber jets targeted two neighborhoods in Abukamal, eastern Deir Ezzor near the border, and one in Iraq.

https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=443226&action=edit

One Syrian child was murdered, three other civilians were injured and several homes destroyed in this most recent Biden regime war crime on Syrian territories, four Iraqi troops were killed on Iraqi territories.

 most recent Biden regime war crime on Syrian territories, four Iraqi troops were killed on Iraqi territories.

The psychopath Dr. Strangelove’s of the Pentagon, CENTCOM, and the US Department of Defense outrageously claimed “self defense.” Calling deadly bombs “precision airstrikes,” the mass-murderers perversely twisted international law on war crimes: “As a matter of international law, the United States acted pursuant to its right of self-defense,” under the guise of protecting “US interests in Iraq” which the same criminal liars and unindicted war criminals declared were being ”targeted” by “Iran-back groups.”

The US degenerate liars neglected to mention in their self-victimized statement that the US has no interests in Iraq (or in Syria), and that in January 2020, the Iraqi Parliament politely voted for the yanqui putos to leave their country. Instead of leaving the country it destroyed, the US launched a criminal plot to incite a civil war in Iraq.

The Biden regime forces are also criminally in Syria — a war crime — and continuing to steal Syrian grain, Syrian oil, and occasionally to murder indigenous Syrians. Invasion, occupation, theft of food and Syria’s oil are also war crimes.

— Miri Wood

Postscript: We offer a reminder that not all US politicians are Arab-hating war criminals. Former Senator Mike Gravel died yesterday at the age of 91. Here is a short video from a debate when he ran for president, and called out the warmongers on stage with him:

Addendum by Arabi Souri:

This latest illegal war crime added to the very long list of war crimes committed by the consecutive regimes of the United States in both Syria and Iraq takes place merely two days after the PMU, the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units, carried out a formal military parade in Baghdad under the supervision and in the attendance of the Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi who confirmed the PMU is an integral body of the Iraqi armed forces and on the eve of the tripartite summit in Baghdad with the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah.

The Iraqi PMU military parade on 26 June 2021 in Baghdad:

We’re not sure who is really advising the head of the ‘most inclusive and diverse’ junta at the White House after the Israeli Netanyahu is removed from power after decades of dictating the US foreign policies in the region and far beyond, or what guides the US policies in the region, it’s obviously not related to any US interests and is seen in the region as demented Joe Biden who vowed to u-turn on Trump’s policies is sewing more body bags for US soldiers sent to plunder the wealth of both Syria and Iraq, the victims of the war crimes and their families and tribesmen will not sit idle and will seek harder revenge, the US ‘strategists’ should know this by now.

Feel free to try out Syria News‘ donate button:

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 the Telegram app.

Related

• Dozens Of Trucks With Military Supplies Arrived At U.S. Base In Syria’s Hasakah
• Turkey To Push Outwards From Idlib, As SAA Rains Punishment
• Struggle For Power In Greater Idlib: Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham To Expel Senior Chechen Leader
• NATO Turkey and NATO SDF Destroy Allouk; One Million Syrians without Water
• NATO’s Terrorists Murder 3 Civilians in Afrin and a Lawyer in Quneitra

Syrian FM Dr Faisal Mikdad: western hypocrisy on humanitarian assistance

Iraqi resistance vows revenge after murderous US airstrikes

29/06/2021

الرئيس بشار الأسد بكامل حيويّته لقاء الساعات الثلاث…

*أستاذ العلوم السياسية والعلاقات الدولية، والأمين العام المساعد للتجمع العربيّ الإسلاميّ لدعم خيار المقاومة، ورئيس الجمعيّة العربيّة للعلوم السياسيّة.

 د. جمال زهران*

لم يكن لقاءً عادياً أو معتاداً، كسابقه من اللقاءات التي تجاوزت العشرة، بل كان لقاءً مختلفاً، بل وفريداً للغاية. فصباح يوم الاثنين 14 يونيو/ حزيران من الساعة 11 صباحاً وحتى الساعة الثانية بعد الظهر، ولمدة ثلاث ساعات متصلة وبلا توقف نهائياً، كان اللقاء مع الرئيس الدكتور بشار الأسد بكامل حيويته وشبابه يرحب بنا، وبكلمات مقتضبة بسيطة، ثم يتيح الفرصة لجميع الحضور والبالغ عددهم 25 رمزاً من رموز العمل السياسي والحزبي والوطني، في أغلب الدول العربية، بطرح أسئلتهم وهمومهم على الرئيس، ويجيب على كلّ نقطة طرحت من دون تردّد.

من حيث الشكل أولاً: فقد تمّ ترتيب اللقاء على أعلى المستويات، بهدف تقديم خالص التهنئة للرئيس بتجديد ثقة الشعب السوري، وتقديم التهاني للشعب السوري، بالتدافع والتدفق نحو صناديق الانتخابات في يوم «ماراثوني» طويل بدأ من السابعة صباحاً واستمر حتى منتصف الليل، بعد أن تمّ التمديد لخمس ساعات وفقاً لما نص عليه الدستور والقانون، لاختيار من يريد من المرشحين الثلاثة الكبار في القيمة والمكانة، وبإرادته الحرة الأبية، وكان الاختيار صائباً بتجديد الثقة في الرئيس الأسد، وسط متابعة العالم والإقليم، ومتابعة منظمات حقوقية عالمية.

ومن حيث الشكل ثانياً: فإنه قد تمّ التنبيه علينا قبل مقابلة الرئيس الأسد، ألا يرتدي أحد الحضور «الكمامة» نهائياً، وفي المقابل عدم مصافحة الرئيس أو احتضانه كما كان معتاداً من قبل، الأمر الذي يعكس تحدياً أكبر في مواجهة وباء كورونا، ويؤكد، أنّ مَن انتصر على الإرهاب، لا بدّ أنه سينتصر على الوباء الكورونيّ!

ومن حيث الشكل ثالثاً: فإنه بمجرد وصول السيارات، إلى مبنى الرئاسة، ننزل فنجد باباً وقد انفتح، ونجد الرئيس بشوشاً في استقبالنا يأتي إلينا بحيويّته المعتادة ليستقبلنا فرداً فرداً، ثم يدعونا جميعاً لدخول القاعة للجلوس في جلسة دائرية تضمّ جميع الحضور، وقد شاركتنا السيدة الدكتورة بثينة شعبان (المستشار السياسي الأول للرئيس بشار)، طوال الجلسة، وهي تجلس في منتصف الجانب الأيمن وبعيداً عن الرئيس، وتمسك ورقة وقلماً، لتكتب وقائع اللقاء والحوار الذي تمّ فيه.

ومن حيث الشكل رابعاً: فإنّ الرئيس بشار، يجلس في المنتصف وعن يمينه وعن يساره وفي مواجهته، جميع الحضور في شكل دائري، يتسم بالأسريّة والعائليّة، والودّ، وليست أمامه لا «ترابيزة» يضع عليها أوراقاً، وليس أمام أحد ذلك أيضاً، ولا يمسك ورقة ولا قلماً، ويردّ في لباقة ووضوح وشفافية يلمسها مَن يلقاه عن قرب، على كلّ نقطة يثيرها أيّ من الحضور، من دون تردّد، الأمر الذي يعكس ويؤكد امتلاكه ناصية الرؤية القوميّة العروبيّة الواضحة، التي هي المعين الأساسي، بل والبوصلة لكل سياساته. وأشهد أنه لم يترك أيّ كلمة أو تساؤل رئيسي أو فرعي، لأيّ من الحضور، إلا وأجاب عليه أو علق عليه وبإسهاب بلا نظير.

ومن حيث الشكل خامساً: بعد مرور نصف ساعة من بداية اللقاء، سأله منسق الوفد، هل هناك وقت محدّد ننتهي عنده سيادة الرئيس، حتى يتمّ تحديد عدد المتحدثين الآخرين، وتقديراً لقيمة الوقت عندكم، قال على الفور: «لا… لا سقف للوقت معكم، فأنتم الشعب العربي هنا في سورية، ممثلو الشعب في كلّ قطر، وأنا أحبّ أن أستمع إلى صوت الشعب ورأيه، بلا قيود أو حواجز أو سقف زمني، على عكس اللقاءات الرسميّة، المحدّدة الوقت والأشخاص والتي تتسم بالطابع الرسمي. أما الحديث مع الشعب العربي برموزه القوميين والمقاومين والمناضلين، فهو أمر مختلف وممتع، وأستفيد منه، ويساعدني في تفهّم المحيط العربيّ الحقيقيّ وتطلعات شعبنا العربي في كلّ قُطر، وهمومه، وآماله. ولا شك في أنّ هذا أمر نادر الحدوث في أي قٌطر عربي. فالمعتاد أن يحدث اللقاء مع الرئيس، ليتحدث واحد أو اثنين، ثم يتحدث الرئيس لدقائق، ثم التقاط صورة تذكارية، وينتهي الأمر في أقلّ من 20 دقيقة، وهو ما شاهدته كثيراً، وعشته واقعياً، حتى لا يتصوّر أحد أيّ شبهة انحياز لشخص الرئيس الأسد. فعندما يخصص الرئيس الأسد ثلاث ساعات للحوار مع نحو 25 شخصية عربية، كلّ لها وزنها في الوطن العربي، فهذا شيء كبير، ويمثل لقاء «القيمة» لحق الشعب العربي في الحوار مع الرؤساء الحقيقيين الذين يمثلونه في قمة السلطة. علماً بأنه سبق أن شاركت في لقاء مع الرئيس الأسد منذ سنوات بسيطة، استمرّ 4 ساعات، وكتبت وقائع ما دار في ذلك اللقاء. ومن ثم فهذا ليس بأمر جديد في لقاءات الرئيس بشار الأسد، أعانه الله على مهامه القوميّة والوطنية.

ومن حيث الشكل سادساً: فإنني عندما التقيته مباشرة عند الدخول، كنت قد أعددت كتابي عن سورية: رمز الصمود والمقاومة، لإهدائه له، فما كان منه فوراً، أن ردّ عليّ، لقد وصلني منذ نصف ساعة من د. نجاح العطار (نائبة الرئيس)! والمعنى أنّ السيد الرئيس يتمتع بالذهن الحاضر، بكونه يتذكر أنّ الكتاب ذاته وصله وأكيد اطلع عليه، والدليل حضور هذا الكتاب في ذهنه، والتعليق المباشر عليه عند مجرد تسليمه لسيادته.

ومن حيث الشكل سابعاً: عندما بدأ اللقاء بعد جلوس الرئيس، دعانا إلى البدء بالتعارف، وبدأ باليمين، وكنت أجلس على يساره، وعندما وصل دوري، قال، لا.. لا… د. جمال أعرفك جداً، فاستأذنت سيادته لتأكيد جديد، فوافق، فقلت له، بالإضافة إلى أنني الأمين العام المساعد الأول للتجمع العربي والإسلامي لدعم خيار المقاومة، فإنني أصبحت الآن رئيساً للجمعية العربية للعلوم السياسية منذ عامين، وباعتبارها جمعية عروبيّة قوميّة، ولها دستور مقاوم ضدّ الاستعمار والصهيونية منذ عام 1985، وحتى الآن، فإنني أدعو سيادتكم لدعمها ورعاية نشاطاتها والإذن لتنظيم مؤتمراتنا العلميّة هنا في دمشق قلعة العروبة، فابتسم ببشاشة وجهه المعروفة، وقال طبعاً موافق، وأشار إلى الدكتورة بثينة، لمتابعة الأمر والاستجابة لما يطلبه د. جمال وفوراً، وشكرني.

وعلى الرغم من أنّ آخر واقعتين من حيث الشكل، تخصّني شخصياً، إلا أنّ الإشارة لهما واجبة، لتعلقهما بطبيعة شخصية الرئيس بشار الأسد وذهنه الحاضر وعروبته فكراً وسلوكاً، وهو صانع القرار السياسيّ في الوطن العربي، الذي تعرّض بلده سورية الحبيبة، لأكبر مؤامرة في التاريخ، حيث تكالب عليها الذئاب، ولم يكن هؤلاء يدركون أنّهم يدخلون عرين «الأسد»، ولن يخرجوا منها إلا جثثاً مفحمة. واستطاع الرئيس الأسد أن ينتصر بمثلث القوة والصمود، وأركانه هي (القائد والشعب والجيش). والحمد لله، على أنّ سورية تمكنت من الانتصار وكسر مؤامرة «المصيدة»، ولم تُصب بالانهيار، كما حدث مع بلدان عربية شقيقة. أما ما حدث من عصف ذهني في اللقاء، فذلك هو ما سيتضمّنه المقال المقبل بإذن الله.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Iraqi and Syrian resistance hit US Military Base in Eastern Syria with at least 8 rockets

29/06/2021

Kinzer: “The great curse of our press in the West is willingness to accept the official narrative. So many people in the American press who write about the world are merely stenographers.”

JUNE 28, 2021

 EVA BARTLETT

Here is the video interview I did with award winning journalist & author Stephen Kinzer.

My article on it was published yesterday.

TV report on Muslim Brotherhood’s varying stances towards Israel

June 27, 2021

Description:

A TV report on the divergent political stances towards Israel of the Muslim Brotherhood’s various branches across the Arab and Islamic world.

Source: Al Mayadeen TV (You Tube)

Date: June 7, 2021

(Note: Please help us keep producing independent translations by contributing a small monthly amount here )

Transcript:

UAE’s foreign minister Abdullah Bin Zayed put the name of the Muslim Brotherhood next to (the names of) Hezbollah and Hamas in a striking statement in which he attacked both resistance groups.

The Muslim Brotherhood movement however, no longer has a unified (political) direction, as it has undergone radical shifts following the so-called Arab Spring, especially when branches of (the movement) came to power in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco. (The movement( was also strongly present in the Syrian crisis. (During this time), the objective of the US and the West in general was to support the movement’s branches in order to develop a new policy that accepts Israel, then normalizes (relations) with it.

It is normal for the branches of the movement in different countries to have their differences. However, with its rise into positions of power and its need to deal with projects such as the “Deal of the Century” and the subsequent surrender (to Israel) agreements,  the movement has witnessed a deep divergence in attitudes and (political) positioning.

In Morocco, for example,  the Justice and Development Party faced a dilemma in relation to its convictions (on the one hand), and the needs of the government (on the other), but this did not prevent it from normalizing (relations) with Israel.

In Tunisia, the Renaissance movement (Ennahda) has stifled – on many occasions – the (parliamentary initiative) to criminalize any normalization with the Israeli occupation, despite Ennahda expressing its support for the Palestinian people and its opposition to normalization.

While in power, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt adhered to the Camp David Accords, (thereby) obliterating the history of the movement, However, after losing power, it rejected the American Deal of the Century and its implications.

The harm caused by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to the current fighting against the submissive (‘peace’) projects (with Israel), and the provocative stances of some of its leaders against the Palestinian resistance factions during the “Sword of al-Quds” battle also goes without saying.

Many labels have been used (by the movement) to justify abandoning (its) principles, such as rationality and keeping ‘in touch’ with the (changing) circumstances. In fact, Qatar and Turkey acted as the supporter and the model for some of the Brotherhood branches, in that Doha maintains strong relations with Tel-Aviv, while Ankara has official relations with the Israeli entity.

However, unlike the aberration and illusions of the aforementioned branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, other branches in Algeria and Jordan have taken honorable positions against normalization (with Israel) to the point where they called for direct confrontation against the ‘Deal of the Century’ and the Gulf normalization projects with Israel. 

---

Subscribe to our mailing list!

Related Posts:

• (Video): Cleric praises ‘pious’ Saudi royals for…
• Hamas’ Leader in Gaza: ‘All our thanks goes to Iran…
• Iran & Russia set to sign comprehensive strategic…
• Iraq’s Hezbollah: ‘We have entered Quds equation…
• Saudi FM: Ties with Israel would be “extremely…
• Syria’s Mufti: We must reject states that ‘support’…
• Saudi Analyst: ‘Israeli enemy’s presence in Gulf…
• Hamas leader: We hope Hezbollah will intervene, but…
• Yemeni/Syrian Uni students from Aleppo protest…
• (Video): Fmr Iraqi PM calls for region-wide armed…

Article by Sergey Lavrov, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, “The Law, the Rights and the Rules”, Moscow, June 28, 2021

June 27, 2021

https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4801890

The frank and generally constructive conversation that took place at the June 16, 2021 summit meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden in Geneva resulted in an agreement to launch a substantive dialogue on strategic stability, reaffirming the crucial premise that nuclear war is unacceptable. The two sides also reached an understanding on the advisability of engaging in consultations on cybersecurity, the operation of diplomatic missions, the fate of imprisoned Russian and US citizens and a number of regional conflicts.

The Russian leader made it clear, including in his public statements, that finding a mutually acceptable balance of interests strictly on a parity basis is the only way to deliver …The Russian leader made it clear, including in his public statements, that finding a mutually acceptable balance of interests strictly on a parity basis is the only way to deliver on any of these tracks. There were no objections during the talks. However, in their immediate aftermath, US officials, including those who participated in the Geneva meeting, started asserting what seemed to be foregone tenets, perorating that they had “made it clear” to Moscow, “warned it, and stated their demands.” Moreover, all these “warnings” went hand in hand with threats: if Moscow does not accept the “rules of the road” set forth in Geneva in a matter of several months, it would come under renewed pressure.

Of course, it has yet to be seen how the consultations to define specific ways for fulfilling the Geneva understandings as mentioned above will proceed. As Vladimir Putin said during his news conference following the talks, “we have a lot to work on.” That said, it is telling that Washington’s ineradicable position was voiced immediately following the talks, especially since European capitals immediately took heed of the Big Brother’s sentiment and picked up the tune with much gusto and relish. The gist of their statements is that they are ready to normalise their relations with Moscow, but only after it changes the way it behaves.

It is as if a choir has been pre-arranged to sing along with the lead vocalist. It seems that this was what the series of high-level Western events in the build-up to the Russia-US talks was all about: the Group of Seven Summit in Cornwall, UK, the NATO Summit in Brussels, as well as Joseph Biden’s meeting with President of the European Council Charles Michel and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen.

These meetings were carefully prepared in a way that leaves no doubt that the West wanted to send a clear message: it stands united like never before and will do what it believes to be right in international affairs, while forcing others, primarily Russia and China, to follow its lead. The documents adopted at the Cornwall and Brussels summits cemented the rules-based world order concept as a counterweight to the universal principles of international law with the UN Charter as its primary source.

In doing so, the West deliberately shies away from spelling out the rules it purports to follow, just as it refrains from explaining why they are needed. After all, there are already thousands of universal international legal instruments setting out clear national commitments and transparent verification mechanisms. The beauty of these Western “rules” lies precisely in the fact that they lack any specific content.When someone acts against the will of the West, it immediately responds with a groundless claim that “the rules have been broken” (without bothering to present any evidence) and declares its “right to hold the perpetrators accountable.” The less specific they get, the freer their hand to carry on with the arbitrary practice of employing dirty tactics as a way to pressure competitors. During the so-called “wild 1990s” in Russia, we used to refer to such practices as laying down the law.

To the participants in the G7, NATO and US-EU summits, this series of high-level events signalled the return by the United States into European affairs and the restored consolidation of the Old World under the wing of the new administration in Washington. Most NATO and EU members met this U-turn with enthusiastic comments rather than just a sigh of relief. The adherence to liberal values as the humanity’s guiding star provides an ideological underpinning for the reunification of the “Western family.” Without any false modesty, Washington and Brussels called themselves “an anchor for democracy, peace and security,” as opposed to “authoritarianism in all its forms.” In particular, they proclaimed their intent to use sanctions to “support democracy across the globe.” To this effect, they took on board the American idea of convening a Summit for Democracy. Make no mistake, the West will cherry pick the participants in this summit. It will also set an agenda that is unlikely to meet any opposition from the participants of its choosing. There has been talk of democracy-exporting countries undertaking “enhanced commitments” to ensure universal adherence to “democratic standards” and devising mechanisms for controlling these processes.

The revitalised Anglo-American Atlantic Charter approved by Joseph Biden and Boris Johnson on June 10, 2021 on the sidelines of the G7 Summit is also worth noting. It was cast as an updated version of the 1941 document signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill under the same title. At the time, it played an important role in shaping the contours of the post-war world order.

However, neither Washington, nor London mentioned an essential historical fact: eighty years ago, the USSR and a number of European governments in exile joined the 1941 charter, paving the way to making it one of the conceptual pillars of the Anti-Hitler Coalition and one of the legal blueprints of the UN Charter.

By the same token, the New Atlantic Charter has been designed as a starting point for building a new world order, but guided solely by Western “rules.” Its provisions are ideologically tainted. They seek to widen the gap between the so-called liberal democracies and all other nations, as well as legitimise the rules-based order. The new charter fails to mention the UN or the OSCE, while stating without any reservations the adherence by the Western nations to their commitments as NATO members, viewed de facto as the only legitimate decision-making centre (at least this is how former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen described NATO’s role). It is clear that the same philosophy will guide the preparations for the Summit for Democracy.

Labelled as “authoritarian powers,” Russia and China have been designated as the main obstacles to delivering on the agenda set out at the June summits. From a general perspective, they face two groups of grievances, loosely defined as external and internal. In terms of international affairs, Beijing is accused of being too assertive … Russia stands accused of adopting an “aggressive posture”in a number of regions. This is the way they treat Moscow’s policy aimed at countering ultra-radical and neo-Nazi aspirations in its immediate neighbourhood, where the rights of Russians, as well as other ethnic minorities, are being suppressed, and the Russian language, education and culture rooted out. They also dislike the fact than Moscow stands up for countries that became victims to Western gambles, were attacked by international terrorists and risked losing their statehood, as was the case with Syria.

Still, the West reserved its biggest words to the inner workings of the “non-democratic” countries and its commitment to reshape them to fit into the Western mould. This entails bringing society in compliance with the vision of democracy as preached by Washington and Brussels. This lies at the root of the demands that Moscow and Beijing, as well as all others, follow the Western prescriptions on human rights, civil society, opposition treatment, the media, governance and the interaction between the branches of power. While proclaiming the “right” to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries for the sake of promoting democracy as it understands it, the West instantly loses all interest when we raise the prospect of making international relations more democratic, including renouncing arrogant behaviour and committing to abide by the universally recognised tenets of international law instead of “rules.” By expanding sanctions and other illegitimate coercive measures against sovereign states, the West promotes totalitarian rule in global affairs, assuming an imperial, neo-colonial stance in its relations with third countries. They are asked to adopt the democratic rule under the model of the Western choosing, and forget about democracy in international affairs, since someone will be deciding everything for them. All that is asked of these third countries is to keep quiet, or face reprisals.

Clearheaded politicians in Europe and America realise that this uncompromising policy leads nowhere, and are beginning to think pragmatically, albeit out of public view, recognising that the world has more than just one civilisation. They are beginning to recognise that Russia, China and other major powers have a history that dates back a thousand years, and have their own traditions, values and way of life. Attempts to decide whose values are better, and whose are worse, seem pointless. Instead, the West must simply recognise that there are other ways to govern that may be different from the Western approaches, and accept and respect this as a given. No country is immune to human rights issues, so why all this high-browed hubris? Why do the Western countries assume that they can deal with these issues on their own, since they are democracies, while others have yet to reach this level, and are in need of assistance that the West will generously provide.

International relations are going through fundamental shifts that affect everyone without exception. Trying to predict where it will take us is impossible. Still, there is a question: messianic aspirations apart, what is the most effective form of government for coping with and removing threats that transcend borders and affect all people, no matter where they live? Political scientists are beginning to compare the available toolboxes used by the so-called liberal democracies and by “autocratic regimes.” In this context, it is telling that the term “autocratic democracy” has been suggested, even if timidly.

These are useful considerations, and serious-minded politicians who are currently in power, among others, must take heed. Thinking and scrutinising what is going on around us has never hurt anyone. The multipolar world is becoming reality.Attempts to ignore this reality by asserting oneself as the only legitimate decision-making centre will hardly bring about solutions to real, rather than farfetched challenges. Instead, what is needed is mutually respectful dialogue involving the leading powers and with due regard for the interests of all other members of the international community. This implies an unconditional commitment to abide by the universally accepted norms and principles of international law, including respecting the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their domestic affairs, peaceful resolution of conflict, and the right to self-determination.

Taken as a whole, the historical West dominated the world for five hundred years. However, there is no doubt that it now sees that this era is coming to a close, while clinging to the status it used to enjoy, and putting artificial brakes on the objective process consisting in the emergence of a polycentric world. This brought about an attempt to provide a conceptual underpinning to the new vision of multilateralism. For example, France and Germany tried to promote “effective multilateralism,” rooted in the EU ideals and actions, and serving as a model to everyone else, rather than promoting UN’s inclusive multilateralism.

By imposing the concept of a rules-based order, the West seeks to shift the conversation on key issues to the platforms of its liking, where no dissident voices can be herd. This is how like-minded groups and various “appeals” emerge. This is about coordinating prescriptions and then making everyone else follow them. Examples include an “appeal for trust and security in cyberspace”, “the humanitarian appeal for action”, and a “global partnership to protect media freedom.” Each of these platforms brings together only several dozen countries, which is far from a majority, as far as the international community is concerned. The UN system offers inclusive negotiations platforms on all of the abovementioned subjects. Understandably, this gives rise to alternative points of view that have to be taken into consideration in search of a compromise, but all the West wants is to impose its own rules.

At the same time, the EU develops dedicated horizontal sanctions regimes for each of its “like-minded groups,” of course, without looking back at the UN Charter. This is how it works: those who join these “appeals” or “partnerships” decide among themselves who violates their requirements in a given sphere, and the European Union imposes sanctions on those at fault. What a convenient method. They can indict and punish all by themselves without ever needing to turn to the UN Security Council. They even came up with a rationale to this effect: since we have an alliance of the most effective multilateralists, we can teach others to master these best practices. To those who believe this to be undemocratic or at odds with a vision of genuine multilateralism, President of France Emmanuel Macron offered an explanation in his remarks on May 11, 2021: multilateralism does not mean necessity to strike unanimity, and the position of those “who do not wish to continue moving forward must not be able to stop … an ambitious avant-garde” of the world community.

Make no mistake: there is nothing wrong with the rules per se. On the contrary, the UN Charter is a set of rules, but these rules were approved by all countries of the world, rather than by a closed group at a cosy get-together.

An interesting detail: in Russian, the words “law” and “rule” share a single root. To us, a rule that is genuine and just is inseparable from the law. This is not the case for Western languages. For instance, in English, the words “law” and “rule” do not share any resemblance. See the difference? “Rule” is not so much about the law, in the sense of generally accepted laws, as it is about the decisions taken by the one who rules or governs. It is also worth noting that “rule” shares a single root with “ruler,” with the latter’s meanings including the commonplace device for measuring and drawing straight lines. It can be inferred that through its concept of “rules” the West seeks to align everyone around its vision or apply the same yardstick to everybody, so that everyone falls into a single file.

While reflecting on linguistics, worldview, sentiment, and the way they vary from one nation or culture to another, it is worth recollecting how the West has been justifying NATO’s unreserved eastward expansion towards the Russian border. When we point to the assurances provided to the Soviet Union that this would not happen, we hear that these were merely spoken promises, and there were no documents signed to this effect.There is a centuries-old tradition in Russia of making handshake deals without signing anything and holding one’s word as sacrosanct, but it seems unlikely to ever take hold in the West.

Efforts to replace international law by Western “rules” include an immanently dangerous policy of revising the history and outcomes of the Second World War and the Nuremberg trials verdicts as the foundation of today’s world order. The West refuses to support a Russia-sponsored UN resolution proclaiming that glorifying Nazism is unacceptable, and rejects our proposals to discuss the demolition of monuments to those who liberated Europe. They also want to condemn to oblivion momentous post-war developments, such as the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, initiated by our country. The former colonial powers seek to efface this memory by replacing it with hastily concocted rituals like taking a knee ahead of sports competitions, in order to divert attention from their historical responsibility for colonial-era crimes.

The rules-based order is the embodiment of double standards. The right to self-determination is recognised as an absolute “rule” whenever it can be used to an advantage. This applies to the Malvinas Islands, or the Falklands, some 12,000 kilometres from Great Britain, to the remote former colonial territories Paris and London retain despite multiple UN resolutions and rulings by the International Court of Justice, as well as Kosovo, which obtained its “independence” in violation of a UN Security Council resolution. However, if self-determination runs counter to the Western geopolitical interests, as it happened when the people of Crimea voted for reunification with Russia, this principle is cast aside, while condemning the free choice made by the people and punishing them with sanctions.

Apart from encroaching on international law, the “rules” concept also manifests itself in attempts to encroach on the very human nature. In a number of Western countries, students learn at school that Jesus Christ was bisexual. Attempts by reasonable politicians to shield the younger generation from aggressive LGBT propaganda are met with bellicose protests from the “enlightened Europe.” All world religions, the genetic code of the planet’s key civilisations, are under attack. The United States is at the forefront of state interference in church affairs, openly seeking to drive a wedge into the Orthodox world, whose values are viewed as a powerful spiritual obstacle for the liberal concept of boundless permissiveness.

The insistence and even stubbornness demonstrated by the West in imposing its “rules” are striking. Of course, domestic politics is a factor, with the need to show voters how tough your foreign policy can get when dealing with “autocratic foes” during every electoral cycle, which happen every two years in the United States.

Still, it was also the West that coined the “liberty, equality, fraternity” motto. I do not know whether the term “fraternity” is politically correct in today’s Europe from a “gender perspective,” but there were no attempts to encroach on equality so far. As mentioned above, while preaching equality and democracy in their countries and demanding that other follow its lead, the West refuses to discuss ways to ensure equality and democracy in international affairs.

This approach is clearly at odds with the ideals of freedom. The veil of its superiority conceals weakness and the fear of engaging in a frank conversation not only with yes-men and those eager to fall in line, but also with opponents with different beliefs and values, not neo-liberal or neo-conservative ones, but those learned at mother’s knee, inherited from many past generations, traditions and beliefs.

It is much harder to accept the diversity and competition of ideas in the development of the world than to invent prescriptions for all of humanity within a narrow circle of the like-minded, free from any disputes on matters of principle, which makes the emergence of truth all but impossible. However, universal platforms can produce agreements that are much more solid, sustainable, and can be subject to objective verification.

This immutable truth struggles to make it through to the Western elites, consumed as they are with the exceptionalism complex. As I mentioned earlier in this article, right after the talks between Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden, EU and NATO officials rushed to announce that nothing has changed in the way they treat Russia. Moreover, they are ready to see their relations with Moscow deteriorate further, they claimed.

Moreover, it is an aggressive Russophobic minority that increasingly sets the EU’s policy, as confirmed by the EU Summit in Brussels on June 24 and 25, 2021, where the future of relations with Russia was on the agenda. The idea voiced by Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron to hold a meeting with Vladimir Putin was killed before it saw the light of day. Observers noted that the Russia-US Summit in Geneva was tantamount to a go-ahead by the United States to have this meeting, but the Baltic states, siding with Poland, cut short this “uncoordinated” attempt by Berlin and Paris, while the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry summoned the German and French ambassadors to explain their governments’ actions. What came out of the debates at the Brussels summit was an instruction to the European Commission and the European Union External Action Service to devise new sanctions against Moscow without referring to any specific “sins,” just in case. No doubt they will come up with something, should the need arise.

Neither NATO, nor the EU intend to divert from their policy of subjugating other regions of the world, proclaiming a self-designated global messianic mission.The North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation is seeking to proactively contribute to America’s strategy for the Indo-Pacific Region, clearly targeted at containing China, and undermining ASEAN’s role in its decades-long efforts to build an inclusive cooperation architecture for Asia-Pacific. In turn, the European Union drafts programmes to “embrace” geopolitical spaces in its neighbourhood and beyond, without coordinating these initiatives even with the invited countries. This is what the Eastern Partnership, as well as a recent programme approved by Brussels for Central Asia, are all about. There is a fundamental difference between these approaches and the ones guiding integration processes with Russia’s involvement: the CIS, the CSTO, EurAsEC and the SCO, which seek to develop relations with external partners exclusively on the basis of parity and mutual agreement.

With its contemptuous attitude towards other members of the international community, the West finds itself on the wrong side of history.

Serious, self-respecting countries will never tolerate attempts to talk to them through ultimatums and will discuss any issues only on an equal footing.

As for Russia, it is high time that everyone understands that we have drawn a definitive line under any attempts to play a one-way game with us. All the mantras we hear from the Western capitals on their readiness to put their relations with Moscow back on track, as long as it repents and changes its tack, are meaningless. Still, many persist, as if by inertia, in presenting us with unilateral demands, which does little, if any, credit to how realistic they are.

The policy of having the Russian Federation develop on its own, independently and protecting national interests, while remaining open to reaching agreements with foreign partners on an equal basis, has long been at the core of all its position papers on foreign policy, national security and defence. However, judging by the practical steps taken over the recent years by the West, they probably thought that Russia did not really mean what it preached, as if it did not intend to follow through on these principles. This includes the hysterical response to Moscow’s efforts to stand up for the rights of Russians in the aftermath of the bloody 2014 government coup in Ukraine, supported by the United States, NATO and the EU. They thought that if they applied some more pressure on the elites and targeted their interests, while expanding personal, financial and other sectoral sanctions, Moscow would come to its senses and realise that it would face mounting challenges on its development path, as long as it did not “change its behaviour,” which implies obeying the West. Even when Russia made it clear that we view this policy by the United States and Europe as a new reality and will proceed on economic and other matters from the premise that we cannot depend on unreliable partners, the West persisted in believing that, at the end of the day, Moscow “will come to its senses” and will make the required concessions for the sake of financial reward. Let me emphasise what President Vladimir Putin has said on multiple occasions: there have been no unilateral concessions since the late 1990s and there never will be. If you want to work with us, recover lost profits and business reputations, let us sit down and agree on ways we can meet each other half way in order to find fair solutions and compromises.

It is essential that the West understands that this is a firmly ingrained worldview among the people of Russia, reflecting the attitude of the overwhelming majority here. The “irreconcilable” opponents of the Russian government who have placed their stakes on the West and believe that all Russia’s woes come from its anti-Western stance advocate unilateral concessions for the sake of seeing the sanctions lifted and receiving hypothetical financial gains. But they are totally marginal in Russian society. During his June 16, 2021 news conference in Geneva, Vladimir Putin made it abundantly clear what the West is after when it supports these marginal forces.

These are disruptive efforts as far as history is concerned, while Russians have always demonstrated maturity, a sense of self-respect, dignity and national pride, and the ability to think independently, especially during hard times, while remaining open to the rest of the world, but only on an equal, mutually beneficial footing. Once we put the confusion and mayhem of the 1990s behind us, these values became the bedrock of Russia’s foreign policy concept in the 21st century. The people of Russia can decide on how they view the actions by their government without getting any prompts from abroad.

As to the question on how to proceed on the international stage, there is no doubt that leaders will always play an important role, but they have to reaffirm their authority, offer new ideas and lead by conviction, not ultimatums. The Group of Twenty, among others, is a natural platform for working out mutually acceptable agreements. It brings together the leading economies, young and old, including the G7, as well as the BRICS and its like-minded countries. Russia’s initiative to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership by coordinating the efforts of countries and organisations across the continent holds a powerful consolidating potential. Seeking toEfforts to bring more democracy to international relations and affirm a polycentric world order include reforming the UN Security Council by strengthening it with Asian, African and Latin American countries, and ending the anomaly with the excessive representation of the West in the UN’s main body.

facilitate an honest conversation on the key global stability matters, President Vladimir Putin suggested convening a summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council that have special responsibility for maintaining international peace and stability on the planet.

Regardless of any ambitions and threats, our country remains committed to a sovereign and independent foreign policy, while also ready to offer a unifying agenda in international affairs with due account for the cultural and civilisational diversity in today’s world. Confrontation is not our choice, no matter the rationale. On June 22, 2021, Vladimir Putin published an article “Being Open, Despite the Past,” in which he emphasised: “We simply cannot afford to carry the burden of past misunderstandings, hard feelings, conflicts, and mistakes.” He also discussed the need to ensure security without dividing lines, a common space for equitable cooperation and inclusive development. This approach hinges on Russia’s thousand-year history and is fully consistent with the current stage in its development. We will persist in promoting the emergence of an international relations culture based on the supreme values of justice and enabling all countries, large and small, to develop in peace and freedom. We will always remain open to honest dialogue with anyone who demonstrates a reciprocal readiness to find a balance of interests firmly rooted in international law. These are the rules we adhere to.

عمرو علان: “نزار بنات” يعري وظيفية السلطة.. فما هي الآفاق؟

عمرو علان

مِن أين يمكننا البدءُ بشكلٍ صحيحٍ؟ فهل نبدأ مِن توصيف جريمة اغتيال الشهيد نزار بنات على أنها جريمةٌ ضد حرية التعبير؟ أم ننطلق مِن كونها جريمة ضد حرية الرأي؟ أم من كونها جريمة فسادٍ أو تجاوزٍ لحدود الصلاحيات داخل جهازٍ أمنيٍّ في ظل دولةٍ ناجزةٍ؟ أم من كونها جريمة ضد “حقوق الإنسان” بمعناها الفضفاض والقابل للتأويل كيفما اتَّفَق؟

يجزم البعض أن هذه المنطلَقات سالفة الذكر تُغيِّب – بقصد أو بدونه – حقيقة توصيف ما جرى وتسلخه عن سياقاته، فما جرى كان في الواقع جريمةٌ ضد خَيارات نزار بنات في الأصل، وذلك بصفته جزء من نهجٍ يقاوم أو يدعو لمقاومة الاحتلال.

لقد جاءت هذه الجريمة المروِّعة لتثبت مجدداً صواب عموم ما طرحه الشهيد وآخرون في توصيف ما انتهت إليه السلطة الفلسطينية، التي يصح فيها ما صح في سائر التجارب السابقة لسلطات الحكم الذاتي تحت ظل الاحتلال في تجارب شعوبٍ أخرى، والتي لا تؤدي في نهاية المطاف إلا إلى خلق مصالحٍ اقتصاديةٍ لطبقةٍ برجوازيةٍ متسلطة، تملك زمام الأمر في مجتمع شعبها الواقع تحت الاحتلال، وعلى ضوء التجارب التاريخية فإن هذه الطبقة البرجوازية تستمدّ “شرعية” وجودها من الاحتلال ذاته، ويصير بقاؤها مرتبطاً ببقاء الاحتلال ومرهوناً باستمراريته.

وفي الحالة الفلسطينية، فإن الطبيعة الوظيفية للكيان الصهيوني تدعم حتمية قيام هذه العلاقة الجدلية بين الاحتلال وسلطة الحكم الذاتي، فأي “دولةٍ” تقام على جزءٍ من الأرض الفلسطينية المحتلة، لا تضع في حساباتها حقيقة أن وجود الكيان الصهيوني يشكل حاجزا أمام أي تكامل عربي أو إسلامي، وهذا منسجم مع طبيعة هذا الكيان بصفته امتداداً للقوى الاستعمارية الغربية وحامي مصالحها، فلابد من أن ينتهي الحال بتلك “الدولة” كجزءٍ من إستراتيجية إدامة هذا الكيان بغض النظر عمن يتولى زمام الحكم فيها، فكيف بسلطة حكمٍ ذاتيٍ كما هو حال السلطة الفلسطينية أو بالأصح سلطة أوسلو؟

حقيقة الصهيوني رئيس فلسطين محمود عباس

لهذا فلا أمل يرجى من حدوث تحوّلٍ في مسار السلطة الفلسطينية، فالمسألة ليست خطأً في التقدير يمكن معالجته بالحوار، أو مسألة وجود إستراتيجية تحرير لدى السلطة الفلسطينية تختلف عن إستراتيجيات فصائل المقاومة، بل إن مكمن القضية يعود إلى الخيارات التي اتخذتها “م.ت.ف” في مرحلةٍ سابقةٍ وأفضت إلى إنشاء سلطة الحكم الذاتي الفلسطينية، تلك الخيارات التي – بالطبيعة – أوصلت السلطة الفلسطينية إلى ما انتهت إليه كأحد الأدوات التي يستخدمها الاحتلال الصهيوني لإدامة احتلاله، وهذه مسألةٌ بنيويةٌ، ترتبط بالظروف الموضوعية لوجود هذه السلطة واستمرار بقائها.

هذه الرواية لم تَعُد تنظيراً، بل باتت واقعاً ملموساً، وإلا فما هو مسوغ عدّ السلطة الفلسطينية “التنسيق الأمني” مقدساً رغم وصول “عملية السلام” إلى طريقٍ مسدودٍ بإقرار الجميع؟ هذا إذا ما تجاهلنا كون “التنسيق الأمني” هو تعريف العمالة بحد ذاتها، ونتمنى لو يشرح أحدٌ لنا الفرق بين جيش لحد اللبناني ومعتقل الخيام وبين السلطة الفلسطينية ومعتقلاتها.

وعليه فإن البعض يرى وجوب وضع جريمة اغتيال نزار بنات في هذا السياق، حالها في ذلك حال الجرائم التي سبقتها ضد مقاومين آخرين، تلك الجرائم التي لعبت فيها السلطة الفلسطينية دوراً رئيسًا بالتعاون مع قوات الاحتلال، إما ليصفِّيهم جسديًا أو ليتم اعتقالهم، فمثلًا ألم يكن الشهيد باسل الأعرج مطلوباً من قبل أجهزة أمن السلطة الفلسطينية؟

تعيد جريمة اغتيال نزار بنات طرح القضية الجدلية في الشارع الفلسطيني عما إذا كان قد حان الوقت للفصائل الفلسطينية الإسلامية والوطنية – وفي طليعتهم حركة “فتح” وباقي فصائل “م.ت.ف” – أن تسمي الأشياء بمسمياتها، وترفع الغطاء الوطني عن سلطة التنسيق الأمني الذي تمنحه إياه، أم أن حالة التكاذب الوطني ستستمر لفترةٍ أطول؟

لعلنا نستطيع أن نستشف الجواب من أحد فيديوهات نزار بنات التي دفع حياته ثمناً لها، والتي قال فيها إن وصف الخلاف بين حركة “فتح” وحركة “حماس” بصفتها حركة مقاومةٍ بالانقسام يجانب الصواب، ولعل الأصح وصفه بالفرز بين مشروعين لا يمكن الجمع بينهما، هذا في النظرة للمشروع الوطني، أما بالنسبة للخلاف على الحكم فهي مسألةٌ أخرى.

وفي الختام، يظل التعويل في الطليعة على أن يُغلِّب أبناء حركة “فتح” المصلحة الوطنية على الخلافات الأخرى المرتبطة بالحكم، ويجروا عملية مراجعة حقيقية للخيارات السياسية السابقة التي ثبت عقمها، ويقوموا بعملية تَقييم موضوعيٍ ومنصفٍ لتجربة سلطة الحكم الذاتي، وأي وضع انتهت إليه، وهي بهذا لم تشذ عن تجارب شعوبٍ أخرى مع سلطات الحكم الذاتي تحت سياط الاحتلال، ويبقى الرهان والأمل الكبيران معقودين على وطنية أبناء حركة “فتح” لتفادي الأسوأ.

لقد آن الأوان لأصلاء حركة “فتح” طيّ صفحة الماضي، ونزع الشرعية عن عملاء “التنسيق الأمني” وسلطتهم، الذين استنزفوا كل رصيد حركة “فتح” النضالي أو كادوا، وليتذكر الفلسطيني أنه مازال يعيش مرحلة التحرير، وفعلياً لا دولة لديه أو كيان ليحكمه، فلينجز الفلسطينيون التحرير أولاً وبعدها ليخوضوا في خلافات الحكم وطبيعته وشكله كما يحلوا لهم.

كاتب وباحث سياسي

Atlas of the World Proves it again: It’s Palestine, Not ‘Israel’ (Video)

28/06/2021

It’s Palestine, Not ‘Israel’

Palestine has been and will remain the motherland of Palestinians, despite all falsifications and piracy launched by the Zionist entity’s and its backer, the United States.

The video below shows an Atlas of the World that was issued in 1926, referring to the territories between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River as Palestine and not ‘Israel’.

https://english.almanar.com.lb/ajax/video_check.php?id=106361

Labeling Palestine on the world map has been for years an issue of dispute, with many western sides referring to the occupied territories as ‘Israel’.

For example, there has never been a label of Palestine on Google Maps. Instead, there have been labels of West Bank’ and Gaza Strip.

Source: Websites

Imam Khamenei: Westerners’ Impudence Strange, Odd

28/06/2021

By Staff, Agencies

Leader of the Islamic Revolution His Eminence Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei criticized French government and other Western states for being just so-called advocates of the human rights and said Westerners’ effrontery is something strange and odd.

Imam Khamenei made the remarks in a meeting held in Tehran on Monday with Judiciary Chief, and Iran’s president-elect, Sayyed Ebrahim Raisi and staff of the office.

The meeting was held in commemoration of the June 28 martyrdom of Ayatollah Mohammad Hosseini Beheshti – the first Judiciary chief of Iran – and 72 others in 1981.

The Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization [MKO] terrorist outfit was behind the attack.

As His Eminence noted, MKO at that time did commit a big crime against the Iranian nation.

“Members of the MKO terrorist group are walking free in France and other European countries,” Imam Khamenei said.

“The French government and others shamelessly preach human rights despite hosting these killers, supporting them, and even giving them the podium in their national parliaments,” His Eminence said. “That is to say, the brazenness of these Westerners is really an extraordinary and strange thing.”

Their confession to those crimes and murders are available, Imam Khamenei underlined, noting that “however, they are freely living in and traveling to France and other European countries which are so-called supporters of the human rights.”

Imam Khamenei also thanked Judiciary Chief Ebrahim Raisi for bringing about a great change to the Judiciary since he assumed office more than two years ago.

“In these two years and a few months that he was in charge of the Judiciary, he really worked hard, he strove, and good things were achieved in the Judiciary,” Imam Khamenei said.

Elsewhere in his remarks, His Eminence hailed the June 18 presidential election as “truly an epic”, saying no one can take the magnificence of the election away from the country. 

“Where in the world is it common to see that all members of the opposition propaganda apparatus get actively involved to scare people away from voting in the election,” Imam Khamenei said.

“Attempts are still made – they [the opposition] write letters and speak via the cyberspace – to deny the greatness of this election, but to no avail,” His Eminence said.

“This effort is in vain. Analysts who had their eyes fixed on this election understand what has happened.”

Yemenis Talk of ‘Immense Loss’ To Drone Strikes

28/06/2021

By Staff, The Guardian

Relatives of people martyred in drone strikes in Yemen have written to the UK’s war secretary to ask about his country’s involvement in the killings and request that he meet them.

In a piece by Haroon Siddique published by The Guardian, the family members said they have suffered “immense loss” of loved ones – including children – at the hands of US targeted drone strikes and are demanding to know what part the UK has played.

Among the bereaved signatories are members of the al-Ameri and al-Taisy families who between them have lost 34 relatives, nine of them children – the youngest just three months old – in a series of strikes over several years. They included a US drone strike in 2013 on the wedding of Abdullah al-Ameri and Warda al-Taisy.

The letter to war secretary Ben Wallace, seen by The Guardian, says: “The loved ones that have been taken from us are not ‘collateral damage’ or casualties of war. We live far from any battlefield and have no connection to militant groups of any kind. Can you tell us, face to face, that the UK played no role in the missile attacks that have ripped our families to pieces?

“We would like to know: was the UK involved in the strikes that killed our family members? Did UK intelligence feed into the strikes? Were our family members selected for death from US bases on British soil? And do UK pilots fly the surveillance missions that continue to terrorize our communities?”

The US drone program has been criticized as unlawful. The extent of the UK’s role has long been the subject of concern with carefully worded denials issued by the government.

The letter, from clients of the charity Reprieve, which supported them in coordinating and sending it, refers to the UK government’s fight to keep secret its policy for helping the US target drone strikes. Reprieve has been seeking full disclosure of the UK’s targeting policy, which also governs assistance provided to partners and US bases in the UK, under the Freedom of Information Act, but its attempts have so far been rebuffed.

The signatories say that not only did they lose loved ones but the strikes have left a legacy of fear with “the buzzing noise above … a constant reminder that our lives could be ended in an instant, without warning”.

Ahmed bin Ali Jaber, 31, said his uncle Salem, a teacher, and cousin Waleed, a policeman, were both killed when a missile struck their village in 2012. He said children and adults alike have been psychologically scarred, with his wife crying in fear every time a drone flies overhead.

“I can’t even begin to explain how painful and very horrifying the incident was, it’s a day that the whole village won’t forget,” he said. “We want to live peacefully. I know that Britain is a democracy and I would hope if the British government has any role in aiding the US drone program it would not accept that such a peaceful village still continues to live in fear.”

The bereaved signatories acknowledge that Covid travel restrictions make an in-person meeting impossible so ask that Wallace meet them via Zoom.

Another signatory, Adel al Manthari, who was the only survivor of a strike in 2018 which killed four of his family members and paralyzed him, said: “For three years there has been no accountability for the drone strike that paralyzed me, just silence. Now I understand the British may have been involved. Will they provide the accountability their partner [the US] has not?”

A ministry of war spokesperson said: “The secretary will review this correspondence when it is received and respond through the appropriate channels.”