The Political Uses Of Russophobia


One of the features of the escalating global confrontation was the increase in Russophobia, in the form of accusations leveled at Russia that it’s invading Ukraine, shooting down airliners, committing atrocities in Syria, hacking US elections, sponsoring alt-Right and Euroskeptic movements, and weaponizing giant squid. No conspiracy theory involving Russia seems too outlandish to be rejected by the so-called “respectable” mainstream media. This is true across a broad swath of countries, starting with Ukraine and the Baltics, ending with the United States, with the non-Western world looking at this performance in amazement. What are the origins of this campaign, and what is it hoped to accomplish?

The answer depends on the country in question, because while this campaign may appear to be a manifestation of Western unity, in actuality it reveals deep divisions within the Atlanticist alliance as the motives for Russophobic propaganda vary.

Let’s start with the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Here the motive is prosaic economic self-interest. US and Canada are major hydrocarbon producers whose “liberal” Obama and Trudeau governments have been seeking to isolate Russia in order to eliminate the competition from Russian hydrocarbon exports. US oil and gas companies would furthermore benefit from the construction of pipelines linking Saudi Arabia and Qatar with Europe, but that project first requires the destruction of Syria which Russia successfully opposes. Finally, the Obama Administration has been pursuing regime change in Russia itself in order to make that country “available” to US financial and energy interests. The fever pitch that the anti-Russian propaganda campaign reached in recent weeks is a reflection of Russia’s success at deflecting these threats. However, the US foreign policy would change dramatically in case of revaluation of threats from China, non-government actors like ISIS and a possible global economic crisis that will force reformatting of the global economic system.

France has also embraced Russophobia as official state policy largely because it is seeking to reclaim its own empire in North Africa and the Middle East. Just as Nicholas Sarkozy was a key driver of the overthrow of Libya’s government alongside Hillary Clinton, so does Francois Hollande want to do the same in Syria. The recent dimming of the Eiffel Tower lights, ostensibly a sign of sympathy with the people of Aleppo, is as much a reflection of France’s rapacity toward Syria as it is of its powerlessness to do anything positive to influence the events there.  To the extent that, again, Russia is key in thwarting French imperial ambitions, France has found common cause with other countries which embraced Russophobia at the official level even though its interests don’t really overlap with them.

Germany’s Russophobia, which now includes allegations that Russia may hack German elections and even that Syria and Russia could promote migrant sex crimes in Germany in order to engineer Angela Merkel’s elections defeat, is an ideology in the service of German mercantilism. EU’s crisis and austerity policies force German business to find new markets to replace the depressed markets of Southern Europe, and EU’s eastern flank represents practically the only available outlet for economic expansion.  In order to realize the dream of NEO-Lebensraum reinvented as Eastern Partnership, Germany must find a way to neutralize Russian influence in, and economic ties with, countries like Ukraine and the Baltics, to ensure that German influence fills that void. The idea of regime change in Moscow, which was to be the next domino to fall after the Maidan coup in Kiev, enjoys quiet support among Germany’s current leadership for the same economic reasons.

This expansion is all the more urgent due to the economic collapse of Greece, Italy, and Spain, whose debt spiral has been the engine of Germany’s economic growth over the last decade. While Merkel’s support for the Maidan has been interpreted by many as a sign of her subjugation by Washington, in actuality Berlin has been Washington’s “fellow traveller” pursuing its own set of interests.

Poland’s interest in promoting Russophobia is similar to Germany’s in that its leaders, too, wish to reclaim territories lost after the 17th Century, or at the very least establish Poland’s dominion over the Baltics, Ukraine, and Belarus.  In addition, since ensuring financial injections from the West continue has become the dominant theme in these countries’ politics, the effort to provoke a conflict between Russia and the West represents a clever though likely doomed strategy to force Western powers to continue subsidizing their newly found allies indefinitely. While in the West the “Russian threat” card is played to delegitimize political opposition and to promote neo-imperial expansion, in Central Europe it has the added purpose of persuading the West to commit financial resources. Ukraine’s Maidan, with its anti-Russian rhetoric and policies represents arguably the most desperate such effort. Poland’s, Romania’s, Latvia’s, Estonia’s efforts may be more subtle but their aim is the same.

Even from this brief survey it is obvious that the various Western factions are at odds with one another, and that the only thing that united them was the perception of Russia’s vulnerability. For not only are the various members of the Western alliance pulling in very different directions, their interests are to a large extent incompatible. The destruction of Syria would naturally lead to a US-French conflict. Ukraine’s integration with the EU would lead to a clash of Polish and German interests. The escalation of West-Russia confrontation would benefit some but hurt others.  Naturally, there are strong factions lobbying for continued confrontation with Russia on the European continent outside of Central Europe, mainly within the United Kingdom and Germany. In the case of the UK, the calculation is a relatively simple one. UK still is a major contributor to the EU budget, it does not benefit from Central Europe’s economic development except of at least partly qualified newcomers, however, it wants the EU to continue its confrontation with Russia because it would weaken or at least distract both of them, while remaining isolated from the negative consequences due to its island location and the historical position. Germany’s current government also supports the confrontation and the implied financial commitment to Central Europe because Germany benefits from these subsidies which are often spent on German products and services. It is also no accident that Germany was so adamantly opposed to Brexit–Great Britain is one of the main donors into the EU’s budget, and its withdrawal would shift the burden of financing Central Europe on to Berlin. It is countries like France and Italy which are most opposed to the continuation of the sanctions war with Russia because their leaders would prefer to focus on tackling internal problems, and their distance from Central Europe means they do not benefit from subsidizing the region as much as Germany does.

But in the end it was Russia’s political unity, economic resilience, and military prowess that led to these fissures in the West’s earlier unity appear and forced a painful re-examination of reality upon these countries elites. Typically, the British were the first to betray their allies, and the Brexit demonstrated the UK would rather reap the benefits of Russophobic policies than to pay the costs. The election of Donald Trump and the evident change of the US foreign policy vector is also the reflection of the unwillingness to subsidize German, Polish, Ukrainian, and even French ambitions. France is practically guaranteed to change course after the next elections, which means Angela Merkel, assuming she survives her next election, will be able to stem the political tide. The two big losers appear to be Poland and Ukraine whose political elites would risk civil war–even in Poland–if they attempted to restore good relations with Russia. For that reason, we can expect rogue US intelligence community elements collude with Poland and Ukraine in order to make the improvement of relations with Russia more difficult politically.

Syria: Another Pipeline War

اتمنى لهذا الفيديو ان ينتشر بسرعة شديدة كما انتشر الطاعون في جيش نابليون بونابارت


Five Years ago, Nasser Kandil Reading the Future

ناصر قنديل في مقابلة ممتعة جدا على قناة الدنيا عام 2011 – كانها تبث اليوم



In Gaza

Two parts to an interview done with Sean Stone on Watching the Hawks in October, 2016.

-Putting a Human Face to Suffering in Syria w/ Eva Bartlett, Oct 18, 2016, Watching the Hawks(shared on their Facebook page)

-A Different Perspective on Syria w/ Eva Bartlett, Oct 20, 2016, Watching the Hawks (shared on their Facebook page)

The Oil-Gas War Over Syria, in Maps

The Oil-Gas War Over Syria, in Maps

ERIC ZUESSE | 24.10.2016

The Oil-Gas War Over Syria, in Maps

Turkey’s Anadolu News Agency, though government-run, is providing remarkably clear and reliable diagrammatic descriptions of the current status of the U.S – and allies versus Russia – and – Syria – and IRAN in the current oil-and-gas war in the Middle East, for control over territory in Syria, for construction of oil-and-gas pipelines through Syria supplying fuel into the world’s largest energy-market: Europe. Russia is now the dominant supplier of both oil and gas, but its ally Iran is a Shiite gas-powerhouse that wants to share the market there, and Russia has no objection.

Qatar is a gas-powerhouse and wants to become the main supplier of gas there, and Saudi Arabia is an oil-powerhouse, which wants to become the major supplier of oil, but Saudi oil and Qatari gas would be pipelined through secular-controlled (Assad’s) Syria, and this is why the U.S. and its fundamentalist-Sunni allies, the Sauds, and Qataris, are using Al Qaeda and other jihadists to conquer enough of a strip through Syria so that U.S. companies such as Halliburton will be able safely to place pipelines there, to be marketed in Europe by U.S. firms such as Exxon. Iran also wants to pipeline its gas through Syria, and this is one reason why Iran is defending Syria’s government, against the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-jihadist invasion, which is trying to overthrow and replace Assad.

Here are the most-informative of Anadolu’s war-maps:

The first presents the effort by many countries to eliminate ISIS control over the large Iraqi city of Mosul. A remarkably frank remark made in this map is “An escape corridor into Syria will be left for Daesh [ISIS] so they can vacate Mosul” – an admission that the U.S. – Saudi – Qatari team want the ISIS jihadists who are in Mosul to relocate into Syria to assist the U.S. – Saudi – Qatari effort there to overthrow and replace the Assad government:

The second is about the Egyptian government’s trying to assist the Syrian government’s defense against the Saudi – U.S. – Qatari invasion of Syria, at Aleppo, where Syria’s Al Qaeda branch is trying to retain its current control over part of that large city. The Saud family are punishing the Egyptian government for that:

Here is Russia’s proposed gas-pipeline, which would enable Russia to reduce its dependence upon Ukraine (through which Russia currently pipelines its gas into Europe). Obama conquered and took over Ukraine in February 2014 via his coup that overthrew the democratically elected neutralist Ukrainian President there:

In addition, there is the following map from

That map shows the competing Russia-backed and U.S.-backed gas-pipelines into Europe — the central issue in the invasion and defense of Syria.

On 21 September 2016, Gareth Porter headlined «The War Against the Assad Regime Is Not a ‘Pipeline War’», and he pointed out some errors in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s account that had been published under the headline «Syria: Another Pipeline War». Porter argued:

«It’s easy to understand why that explanation would be accepted by many anti-war activists: it is in line with the widely accepted theory that all the US wars in the Middle East have been ‘oil wars’ — about getting control of the petroleum resources of the region and denying them to America’s enemies.

But the ‘pipeline war’ theory is based on false history and it represents a distraction from the real problem of US policy in the Middle East — the US war state’s determination to hold onto its military posture in the region». Porter ignored the key question there, as to why «the US war state» has a «determination to hold onto its military posture in the region». Opening and protecting potential oil-gas-pipeline routes are important reasons why. Clearly, Kennedy’s documentation that the CIA was trying as early as 1949 to overthrow Syria’s secular government so as to allow to the Sauds a means of cheaply transporting their oil through Syria into Europe, remains unaffected by any of the objections that Porter raised to Kennedy’s article. The recent portion of Kennedy’s timeline is affected, but not his basic argument.

Furthermore, any military strategist knows that «the US war state» is intimately connected to the U.S. oil-and-gas industries, including pipelines («oilfield services») as well as marketing (Exxon etc.). And Porter got entirely wrong what that connection (which he ignored) actually consists of: it consists of U.S. government taxpayer-funded killers for those U.S. international corporations. Here is how Barack Obama put it, when addressing graduating cadets at West Point, America’s premier military-training institution:

Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead – not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

He was saying there that America’s military is in service to U.S.-based international corporations in their competition against those of Russia, Brazil, China, India, and anywhere else in which «rising middle classes compete with us». Those places are what Gareth Porter referred to as «America’s enemies».

Economic competitors are «enemies». Obama thinks that way, and even a progressive journalist such as Porter doesn’t place into a skeptical single – quotation – mark – surround, the phrase ‘America’s enemies’ when that phrase is used in this equational context. On both the right (Obama) and the left (Porter), the equation of a government and of the international corporations that headquarter in its nation — the treatment of the military as being an enforcement-arm for the nation’s international corporations — is simply taken for granted, not questioned, not challenged.

RFK Jr. was correct, notwithstanding some recent timeline-errors. Syria is «Another Pipeline War», and Obama is merely intensifying it. (On 9 November 2015, I offered a different account than RFK Jr. provided of the recent history — the Obama portion — of the longstanding U.S. aggression against Syria; and it links back to Jonathan Marshall’s excellent articles on that, and to other well-sourced articles, in addition to primary sources, none of which contradict RFK Jr.’s basic view, «Syria: Another Pipeline War».).

Another portion of Porter’s commentary is, however, quite accurate: America’s ‘Defense’ (or mass-killing-abroad) industries (such as Lockheed Martin) are not merely servants of the U.S. government, but are also served by the U.S. government: «the US war state’s determination to hold onto its military posture in the region» is protection of the major market — the Middle Eastern market — for U.S. ‘Defense’ products and services. It’s not only America’s firms in the oil, gas, and pipelines, industries, which benefit from America’s military; it is also America’s firms in the mass-killing industries, that do.

To the extent that the public (here including Barack Obama and Gareth Porter) do not condemn the presumption that «the business of America is business», or that a valid function of U.S. – taxpayer – funded military and other foreign-affairs operations is to serve the stockholders of U.S. international corporations, the hell (such as in Syria) will continue. Gareth Porter got lost among the trees because he failed to see (and to point to) that forest.

Masks Are Ripped Away in Syria

Syrian Free Press


By Andrej Fomin, Oriental Review

In recent weeks, the battle for Aleppo has exposed the true heart of contemporary global politics with vivid clarity.  The US Air Force’s duplicitousSept. 17 attack on Syrian army positions near Deir ez-Zor, the hysterical outcry against Russia that erupted from the Pentagon, the US State Department’s undisguised threats against the Russian contingent in Syria, theWestern media’s candid reports about arms shipments to al-Nusra militants, and the phantasmagoric drama in the UN Security Council on Oct. 8 all point to just one thing: there are no international coalitions against ISIL- there is only the Russian army and its allies who are taking a stand against the international terrorism used as a tool by the U.S. and NATO.

The contours of today’s biggest international conflict are clear.  But still not everyone understands its core and causes.

The conventional wisdom – that a decrepit global hegemon was unable to export “democracy” into a stable nation and now finds itself at a dead end – does not actually explain very much.  But why did that stumbling block turn out to be Syria, which is certainly not the most significant country in the world?  Why isn’t it, for example, Egypt that is under attack, where “fighters for democracy” from the Muslim Brotherhood have been unable to consolidate their victory and have even had to cede power to the powerful and far from pro-American government?

Why is Russia the country that is standing up to the aggressor?  After all, Russia was on the verge of collapse not so long ago and is in no way a major competitor to the Western economy.  And why is the United States pushing so fiercely to raise the stakes, driving the planet to the brink of a third world war?

And yes, of course, many Middle East experts can rattle off a whole list of potential answers to all these “whys.”  But upon careful analysis it becomes clear that they are only the footnotes to what is actually the main reason.


Libya 2011

The first and most frequent argument cited is the oil and gas factor.  Allegedly, the surfeit of reserves in Syria has made that country a desirable goal for the West, which – in the wake of Iraq and Libya – could cash in on Syria’s hydrocarbons, now that it has wiped out the local government.  But in fact there are only 2.5 billion barrels of proven reserves of that oil in Syria, which is 0.1% of the global total.


Syria 2015-2016

And that is clearly not enough to explain the outbreak of a terrorist intervention in Syria: if the West were only focused on oil, it would be more logical to orchestrate such an export of democracy into Venezuela, which sits on 17.5% of the world’s reserves.

It is also surmised that the rationale for the aggression could be traced back to Damascus’s 2009 refusal to allow a gas pipeline running from Qatar to Europe to cross its borders.  But that would also be an overstatement.  That disagreement might have been a motivation for the Qataris, but hardly the West.  That gas-pipeline project is itself so risky that it could perhaps have served as a bluff or pretext, but not as a serious reason to launch a multi-year terrorist campaign against Assad.

There has been a popular trend in recent years to examine any conflict for traces of oil and to blame those hydrocarbon deposits for all tribulations, but that is an oversimplification and is similar to the monetarist approach to the economy, in which all the complexities of economic relations are evaluated exclusively in terms of debits and credits.

With regard to global politics however, oil is only meaningful as a tool (although an important one) for safeguarding interests and reaching geopolitical goals: Hitler was desperate to reach the oil fields in Baku, not for their own sake, but to cut off Moscow’s access and thus deal a death blow to the USSR.

It is unacceptable to conflate tools and goals because this creates a distraction from the truth.

Far less significant as an explanation of the war in Syria – which is on the verge of blowing up into a global conflict –  are the arguments citing, for example, the legitimate internal animosities within Syria and within the region, or the spread of Islamism and the collapse of the state in Iraq, a country that is now a breeding ground for the growth of extremism, or the confrontation between Sunnis and Shiites or Saudi Arabia and Iran, or overpopulation in the region, or water shortages, etc.

All of this, in varying degrees of course, contributes to the severity of the conflict, but it does not at all explain why troops from dozens of countries – including two of the most powerful, the US and Russia – are currently active in Syria.


There is a much more convincing explanation of the current strife in Syria, although it is not considered sufficiently scholarly.

The wreckage of that country is of vital urgency to the supranational elites in order to fan the flames of chaos in the Middle East, which will make it possible to spread the forces of destabilization across all of Eurasia and help topple the alternative centers of economic power – especially China and Russia.

Supposedly the Federal Reserve cannot survive an inundation of debt, and the war in Syria is being used as a tool to destabilize any competitors in this economic showdown.

And indeed it was the Chinese economy that in 2014 outstripped America’s GDP, and it would seem that between these two economic behemoths – one falling and one rising – a military and political struggle had to ensue.  Both American as well as Chinese political analysts have had a lot to say about this in recent years.

However, during the Syrian conflict – and this is an incontestable fact – China has kept itself far from the fray.  For five whole years – and even during the current flare-up – Beijing has maintained its usual neutrality, merely lamenting the suffering of the Syrians and issuing condemnations of terrorism.

In economic terms Russia does not pose a genuine threat to the US, but in Syria it is indeed the Russian army that is the Americans’ biggest foe – the Chinese don’t figure into it at all there.

And looking at the situation geographically, the conflict in Syria could spread the contagion of ISIL into the Russian Caucasus (through a direct corridor that passes through Turkey) far more quickly than such a plague could enter, say, China’s more distant Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.  By that logic, it would be smarter to promote ISIL in Afghanistan or Pakistan, a better starting point for funneling the terrorist chaos into China.

Moreover, it is quite safe to assume that if Russia were not such a significant geopolitical player today, Beijing would not have entered into a confrontation with the US over Syria, but would have instead come to an agreement with the West even on the basis of a compromise that was not very advantageous for China, taking the historical long view to bet on the inevitable attenuation of Western civilization.

For Russia however, the conflict with the West has absolutely nothing to do with economics.  It is inane to suggest that the Russian economy, despite all its genuine progress over the past 15 years, poses a threat to the US global economy, in which China still plays an integral part.

Yes, geopolitical associations such as BRICS could potentially topple the currency system established at the Jamaica Conference, as well as the Washington consensus, but again this is not economic competition, but the financial projection of a military and political showdown.


But what is at its core?  Why is Russia once again at the epicenter of a global conflict that is threatening to boil over?  Why has the Russian state – which underwent a painful transformation in the late 20th century from which it has yet to fully recover – been forced to withstand the attack of a hegemon that steers international developments and possesses far more advanced tools of confrontation?

To understand the essence of what is happening, one must ultimately acknowledge that the actions of those in the top echelon of Western civilization – not the clerks laboring at the State Department and Pentagon, but the true managers of the Pax Americana global project, who are viewed as utter pragmatists – are in fact dictated by very specific ideals and ultimate goals.

Their words about American exceptionalism as the ideal free society, the beacon of democracy, and the Earth’s last hope are more than just nice catchphrases and advertising jingles – they represent their sense of themselves as a special force on this planet.  Back in the 18th century, Jonathan Edwards declared that Americans had taken the place of the Jews as God’s chosen people.  And even America’s Founding Fathers saw in their work the culmination of the history of the world.

By the 20th century, Ronald Reagan, who accused the Soviet Union of being an “evil empire,” was clearly claiming the role of the “good empire” for the US.  In this sense, the Bushes, the Clintons, and Obama are not inventing anything new, only using different words to express this very American messianism.

Israel's PM Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference in Washington

A natural expression of this ideology can be seen throughout the foreign policy of the modern US as “an exporter of democracy” and the world’s referee and policeman.  The seizure of resources, oil, and gas – as well as financial rewards – are just bonuses and a tool to help attain these ideals.

The key concept is “freedom,” around which the remainder of the construct of “exclusivity” is built.  This is communicated as human freedom (i.e., as a blessing), but actually the “rulers of the world” understand this as freedom of capital, i.e., a policy of “anything goes” for homo economicus.  According to them, the ideal world should be a market for goods and services, in which a human being is himself both of these.  Money becomes the equivalent of every manifestation of the universe as well as its primary essence.

Everything that is designated as pragmatism is actually derived from this “monetary” understanding of life.


However, the expansion of money – in a spatial and a spiritual dimension – is not restricted to today’s profits but pursues its main goal at any cost, which is to utterly engulf the world and reformat mankind into a financial mechanism (that process itself is known as progress, which is analogous to the development of technology).

Is it worth even explaining that “freedom” and “progress” as understood in this way are utterly at odds with the entire 2,000-year path of Christianity and are lethal for humanity?

As a matter of fact, in recent decades Western civilization has moved toward a total rejection of Christianity under the guise of “tolerance” and toward the promotion of depravity under the guise of “gay rights”, while Russia has become the primary champion of traditional values and faiths.

Is it simply a coincidence that the onset of this major battle between the “freedom of capital” and “freedom of the soul” is coming to a head on Syrian soil where the Christian world took its first steps?  

maaloula__st._takla_convent__syrianfreepress_net_3Christianity was born amidst those rocks of the Middle Eastern Mediterranean region, and hundreds of years later we are seeing attempts to bury it there.

Interestingly, the ISIL ideologues, who were trained in the US prisons to selectively abuse the Kuran verses, enjoy citing hadith 6924, which describes a battle between Good and Evil in the Syrian town of Dabiq.  Are they – like those who hang upon their every word with gaping mouths – aware that they are merely the deceived cannon-fodder of the Devil in the Last Battle?

Are the multitudes who each day chomp away at the vacuous chewing gum known as CNN capable of grasping that history is not propelled by oil or fleeting interests, but by a battle between opposing principles, two forces that are pulling humanity in different directions – one down into the Gehenna and the other up to the Land o’ the Leal?

It is odd but true: over the course of the last few centuries only one power – Russia – has planted herself squarely in the path of those who declare themselves to be a “great blessing”, a “pure race”, or a “beacon of democracy” while seeking to subjugate humanity.  Historians can spend all the time they want trying to convince us of the objectivity of the emergence of Hitler and his eastern campaign, that the US and Great Britain did not notice his Nazi mischief and then carelessly helped the German economy by furnishing it with loans, but it is obvious that Hitler, like today’s ISIL, had been carefully groomed for an offensive against Russia.  And after the Soviet army destroyed Hitler’s army, they were ready to do “the unthinkable” – to attack the USSR.  They never took that plunge.  But in the initial postwar years they used the prospect of their atomic bomb to intimidate Moscow.

It is daft to try to explain away such infamy as merely the consequence of the standoff between the communist and capitalist systems, because as we saw after the collapse of the Soviet Union – communism was no more, but Russia was still the enemy.

“To save the world from the unmitigated spread of evil” – such is the global mission and the fate of the Russian nation and the Russian state as a historical phenomenon.  This fate was not chosen, but Russia is destined to once again save the world from destruction – otherwise she would no longer be Russia. 


This in no way implies the infallibility or exceptionalism of Russians themselves, since the battle is taking place within them as well, but it confers upon that nation a special responsibility for the fate of the whole world.  The fact of this mission explains the irrational, savage hatred of Russia and of Russians that inflames the global “superclass” and that is reflected in the terabytes of militant propaganda they pay for each day.

It is important for all rational citizens of the world to understand that when they watch the news from Syria, the real issue is not about Assad or Syria as such, nor even about the national interests of a nation state.  The issue is about the metaphysical standoff between the two principles of this universe.  It is about the war of the worlds.  In which every citizen will have to make his own existential choice.

click on map to enlarge ~ here for the original link

Andrej Fomin, Oriental Review
Submitted by SyrianPatriots
War Press Info Network at:

Putin who has changed the world within a year بوتين الذي غيّر العالم خلال سنة

Written by Nasser Kandil,

In these forthcoming days there will be the remembrance of fifteen years of the direct US military presence in Afghanistan after the end of the terrorist attack that targeted New York and Washington and got thousands of dead and wounded on the eleventh of September, and the remembrance of one year of the direct Russian military presence in Syria under the same title, combating the terrorism. By taking consideration of the premises and comparing them it seems clear the difference between the size of the consensus and the solidarity which surrounded the US step in Afghanistan, and the size of the division and the doubt which accompanied the Russian step and still.

With the end of the fifteenth year in Afghanistan, Washington admits of the failure despite the multi obstinacy, and the talk about the illusions of the achievements. The title was toward the most secure world that is less vulnerable to the risk of terrorism. The US reports meet on a fact that the world is at its worst state.

The terrorism has expanded, deployed, doubled its presence, and get rooted in comparison with what was on the eve of the US invasion of Afghanistan, where there was not any country that announced the war on America and there was not any government that summoned US support to counter an external danger or a terrorist penetration but a geographical spot which Washington said that it is the place which forms the center of the terrorism in the world. It knows that it is the center which it formed and granted it to the groups of Al-Qaeda organization hoping to defeat the Soviet Union which entered Afghanistan in 1980, but after the US war there is no longer one center for terrorism, because the American occupation of Iraq made of it another center and the US intervention in Syria and leading the war to overthrow the regime made of it a third center.

Russia entered to Syria through public legal legitimate relationship of cooperation with the Syrian government and under a clear title entitled the war on terrorism, which America has formed an international coalition to fight it after the announcement of the emergence of the organization of ISIS and its control over parts of Syria and Iraq, it has included to it tens of the Western and the Gulf countries. The US President has foreshadowed the world that his war on ISIS will last for long years, but despite of that he excluded from the coalition Russia, Iran, and the Syrian country which fights ISIS and its similarities, and where the war is revolving on its lands and in its airspaces after a long US denial of the presence of the terrorism or the danger of the terrorism in Syria.

The Americans know and admit in their writings that the terrorism is as all the generations of the viruses, they developed themselves and their theory between the traditional principles of a UN organization as ISIS that carries the thought and the strategy of Al-Qaeda as it was,  and the new hybrid generation that works to assume the power in the counties of its origin and turns it into a reliance basis in preparation to announce its UN belonging, because it thought that the balances of the powers which rule the international relationships have shown that there is no profit to accelerate to wage a global war before forming the local pivot. By the way it is a discussion that is known by all the movements which adopted the UN theories. The priority of the international to the national and vice versa was the pivot of the splits in the Communist movement, and despite the US recognition that the difference is tactical not strategic between ISIS and Al Nura, and on that basis it decided after its role in launching both of them with the same priority of getting rid of the Syrian country and its president to cooperate with Al Nusra from under the table by the Turkish Saudi Qatari and Israeli allies, and to turn the war on ISIS to a dual containment that it hits it whenever its stretches and provides it with the reasons of power whenever it retreats and becomes weak, as the last raid on the Syrian army in Deir Al Zour.

Moscow realized that leaving the leadership of the war on terrorism which has become an imminent global danger and an issue of a Russian national security to Washington alone will lead to a disaster like the Iraqi and the Afghani way, and leaving the fate of Syria that is fighting alone the bilateral of the global terrorism along with all the financial and the arming support, including what it represents of an advanced position of the concept of the independent state and what it occupies in the political geography of the world as well as its articulated role in the balances of the region mean together that Russia has to fight at the gates of Moscow the US hegemony on one hand, and the terrorism on the other hand, but Moscow realizes the threats of moving towards Syria and it knows what is awaiting for it while it enters to the wasp’s nest.

In Syria it has to expect a bloody war with the Saudi money, the Turkish cunning, the atoning Wahhabism, the US conspiracy and the European gloat. This was the Saudi war of prices which targeted it in the oil market, the dropping of its plane by the Turkish air force, the terrorist threats of its security, and the escalation in the war of Ukraine under a European decision against it, as well as the US sanctions which are awaiting it.

On this day a year ago, the Russian President along with the Russian leadership have taken a brave historic decision as the decision of fighting the Nazism in the Second World War and hunting it till the entry of the Soviet Red Army to Berlin. A decision of the entry of the war on terrorism in Syria is the decision of protecting the international security and peace including what these words have of implications, meanings, and a well calculated risk with historic wisdom and a leading experience that read the meaning of the isolation of the US fleets which came for the war on Syria three years ago, and the meaning of achieving the understanding on the Iranian nuclear program, as the signs of inability and the aging of the crone which rules the world from Washington, so it accepted and did not hesitate.

After a year the facts say that Moscow has tamed Ankara, and that Saudi Arabia has fallen in the dilemma of the wars of prices and now it is approaching of bankruptcy, it invokes Moscow and Tehran to save its situation in today’s oil market, it does not hear after the US law which targets its deposits but the solidarity sound of Moscow.

Washington despite of all the screams it has signed an understanding with Moscow that ends the dispute about harmless terrorism and the harmful one, this understanding despite the feelings of Washington which biased to Al Nusra front equalizes between it and ISIS organization and considers them a legitimate goal of the war on terrorism. It is an understanding that if it remained a dead letter as the UN resolution 425 which dedicated to oblige Israel to withdraw from the Southern of Lebanon then it would be the document which the resisters have carried out by themselves as the Syrian army and its allies which carry out under the unlimited Russian support the content of the understanding which Washington hesitates to comply with its provisions.

After a year of Moscow’s decision to enter the war on terrorism in Syria it has the right to use worthily the phrase which the Americans use unjustly. The world has become safer surely and it will be safer with the qualitative path of the Russian participation which reached to new intervals in the resolving battle in Aleppo which the world is aware that it is the key of changing the destination of the war on terrorism.

Thanks Moscow… Thanks Putin… the world has become safer but more balanced too with the end of the US brutal exclusiveness in managing the human affairs, while the campaigns which target Russia and its role in Syria are just signs of the propriety and effectiveness of what Russia is doing.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

بوتين الذي غيّر العالم خلال سنة

ناصر قنديل
– في أيام متقاربة تمرّ ذكرى خمس عشرة سنة على الحضور العسكري الأميركي المباشر في أفغانستان، في أعقاب هجمة إرهابية استهدفت نيويورك وواشنطن وحصدت آلاف القتلى والمصابين في الحادي عشر من أيلول، ويمرّ عام كامل على الحضور العسكري الروسي المباشر في سورية تحت العنوان ذاته، مكافحة الإرهاب. وبالنظر للمقدّمات ومقارنتها، يبدو واضحاً الفارق بين حجم الإجماع والتضامن اللذين أحاطا بالخطوة الأميركية نحو أفغانستان، وحجم الانقسام والتشكيك اللذين رافقا الخطوة الروسية ولا يزالان.

– مع نهاية العام الخامس عشر في أفغانستان تعترف واشنطن بالفشل، رغم المكابرات المتعدّدة والحديث عن أوهام إنجازات. فالعنوان كان نحو عالم أشدّ أمناً وأقلّ تعرّضاً لمخاطر الإرهاب، والتقارير الأميركية تجمع على حقيقة أنّ العالم في أشدّ لحظاته تعرّضاً للخطر، وأنّ الإرهاب قد توسّع وانتشر وتضاعف حضوره وتجذّر بالقياس لما كان عليه عشية الغزو الأميركي لأفغانستان التي لم تكن دولة أعلنت الحرب على أميركا، ولا حكومة استدعت دعماً أميركياً لمواجهة خطر خارجي أو تغلغل إرهابي، بل بقعة جغرافية قالت واشنطن إنها المكان الذي يشكل بؤرة الإرهاب في العالم، وهي تعلم أنها البؤرة التي قامت هي بإنشائها وتسليمها لجماعات تنظيم القاعدة أملاً بهزيمة الجيش السوفياتي الذي دخل أفغانستان عام 1980، لكن بعد الحرب الأميركية لم يعد ثمة بؤرة واحدة. فالاحتلال الأميركي للعراق جعله بؤرة ثانية، والتدخل الأميركي في سورية وقيادة الحرب لإسقاط نظام الحكم فيها جعلها بؤرة ثالثة.

– دخلت روسيا إلى سورية بعلاقة تعاون علنية ومقوننة وشرعية مع الحكومة السورية، وتحت عنوان واضح هو الحرب على الإرهاب، الذي قامت أميركا بتشكيل تحالف دولي لقتاله بعد الإعلان عن نشوء تنظيم داعش وسيطرته على أجزاء من سورية والعراق، وضمّت إليه عشرات الدول الغربية والخليجية، وبشر الرئيس الأميركي العالم بأنّ حربه على داعش ستستغرق سنوات طوالاً، ورغم ذلك استثنى من التحالف روسيا وإيران والدولة السورية التي تقاتل داعش وأخواتها، وتدور الحرب على أراضيها وفي أجوائها، بعد إنكار أميركي طويل لوجود الإرهاب أو خطر الإرهاب في سورية.

– يعرف الأميركيون ويعترفون في كتاباتهم أنّ الإرهاب ككلّ أجيال الفيروسات طوّر نفسه ونظريته. بين المنطلقات التقليدية لتنظيم أممي على غرار داعش، يحمل فكر واستراتيجية القاعدة كما كانت، وجيل جديد مهجّن يعمل لتولي الحكم في بلاد منشئه وتحويلها قاعدة ارتكاز في المحيط تمهيداً لإعلان أمميته لاعتقاده أنّ موازين القوى التي تحكم العلاقات الدولية أظهرت لا جدوى التسرّع بحرب على نطاق عالمي، قبل بناء المرتكز المحلي. وهو بالمناسبة نقاش عرفته كلّ الحركات التي تتبنّى نظريات أممية، فأولوية الأممي على الوطني والعكس، كانت محور الانشقاقات في الحركة الشيوعية، ورغم الإدراك الأميركي لكون الفارق تكتيكياً وليس استراتيجياً بين داعش والنصرة، على هذا الأساس قرّرت بعد دورها في إطلاق كليهما، بنظرية ذات أولوية هي التخلص من الدولة السورية ورئيسها، أن تتعاون من تحت الطاولة مع النصرة بواسطة الحلفاء التركي والسعودي والقطري و«الإسرائيلي»، وأن تحوّل الحرب على داعش إلى احتواء مزدوج، تضربها كلما تمدّدت وتمدّها بأسباب القوة كلما تراجعت وضعفت، كمثل الغارة الأخيرة على الجيش السوري في دير الزور.

– أدركت موسكو أنّ ترك قيادة الحرب على الإرهاب الذي بات خطراً عالمياً داهماً، ومسألة أمن قومي روسي، لواشنطن وحدها سيؤدّي إلى كارثة على الطريقة العراقية والأفغانية، وأنّ ترك مصير سورية تقاتل وحدها ثنائية الإرهاب العالمي بكلّ ما معه من دعم مالي وتسليحي، بما تمثله من موقع متقدّم لمفهوم الدولة المستقلة، ولما تحتله في الجغرافيا السياسية للعالم، ودورها المفصلي في توازنات المنطقة، يعنيان معاً أنّ على روسيا أن تقاتل على أبواب موسكو، الهيمنة الأميركية من جهة والإرهاب من جهة أخرى. لكن موسكو تدرك مخاطر التحرك نحو سورية وتعرف ما ينتظرها وهي تدخل عش دبابير، ووكر عقارب، ففي سورية عليها أن تتوقّع مواجهة ضروساً مع المال السعودي والمكر التركي والوهابية التكفيرية، والتآمر الأميركي، والشماتة الأوروبية. وهكذا كانت حرب الأسعار السعودية في سوق النفط تستهدفها، وكان إسقاط طائرتها من قبل سلاح الجو التركي، وكانت التهديدات الإرهابية لأمنها، والتصعيد في حرب أوكرانيا بقرار أوروبي ضدها، والعقوبات الأميركية بانتظارها.

– في مثل هذا اليوم قبل عام اتخذ الرئيس الروسي ومعه القيادة الروسية قراراً تاريخياً شجاعاً بحجم القرار بقتال النازية في الحرب العالمية الثانية ومطاردتها حتى دخول الجيش الأحمر السوفياتي إلى برلين، قرار دخول الحرب على الإرهاب في سورية هو قرار حماية الأمن والسلم الدوليين، بما تحمل الكلمة من أبعاد ومعانٍ، ومخاطرة محسوبة ومدروسة بحكمة وخبرة قيادة تاريخية، قرأت معنى انكفاء الأساطيل الأميركية التي جاءت للحرب على سورية قبل ثلاثة أعوام، ومعنى بلوغ خط التفاهم على الملف النووي الإيراني، من علامات عجز وشيخوخة في حال العجوز الشمطاء التي تحكم العالم من واشنطن، فأقدمت ولم تتردد.

– بعد عام تقول الوقائع إن موسكو روّضت أنقرة، وإن السعودية وقعت في حبائل حروب الأسعار وتقارب الإفلاس، وهي تستنجد بموسكو وطهران لتعويم وضعها في سوق النفط اليوم، ولا تسمع بعد القانون الأميركي الذي يستهدف ودائعها إلا صوت موسكو يتضامن. وها هي واشنطن رغم كل الصراخ وقعت تفاهماً مع موسكو ينهي الجدل عن إرهاب حميد وإرهاب خبيث ويساوي رغماً عن عواطف واشنطن المنحازة لجبهة النصرة، بينها وبين تنظيم داعش، ويعتبرهما هدفاً مشروعاً للحرب على الإرهاب، وهو تفاهم لو بقي حبراً على ورق، كما هو حال القرار الدولي 425 بالنسبة لإلزام «إسرائيل» بالانسحاب من جنوب لبنان، شكل المستند الذي نفذه المقاومون بأيديهم، كما ينفذ الجيش السوري وحلفاؤه بدعم روسي غير محدود مضمون التفاهم الذي تتردد واشنطن في الالتزام بأحكامه.

– بعد عام على قرار موسكو بالدخول على خط الحرب على الإرهاب في سورية يحق لها أن تستعمل، لكن بجدارة، العبارة التي يستعملها الأميركيون بغير وجه حق، فالعالم بات أشدّ أمناً بالتأكيد، وسيكون أشد أمناً مع المسار النوعي للمشاركة الروسية التي تبلغ أبعاداً جديدة في المعركة الحاسمة في حلب التي يدرك العالم أنها مفتاح تغيير وجهة الحرب على الإرهاب.

– شكراً موسكو… شكراً بوتين، فالعالم بات أشد أمناً، لكنه أكثر توازناً أيضاً مع نهاية التفرد الأميركي المتوحش في إدارة شؤون البشرية. والحملات التي تستهدف روسيا ودورها في سورية ليست إلا العلامة على صوابية وفاعلية ما تفعله روسيا.

%d bloggers like this: