Macron, Al-Assad, and Bin Salman ماكرون والأسد وبن سلمان

Macron, Al-Assad, and Bin Salman

Written by Nasser Kandil,

When the French President Emanuel Macron talks that the Syrian President is the only available President for Syria away from the position of the parties which support him or oppose him as France, and that his staying is not a matter of discussion, but it is a need to preserve the unity of Syria and to restore the stability in it and preventing its turning into a failed country which will affect badly the entire world, and when this speech resembles the words of the former US Ambassador in Damascus Robert Ford who considered that the bets on overthrowing the Syrian President were a kind of the US-Arab stupidity and that the victory of the President Al-Assad has become closer then this means that the country which was the center of attraction of all the countries of the world and the region and which the war on it proved that it is the strategic center of the world, has resolved its leadership to a young leader who has shown rare courage, wisdom, and patriotism, he proved disdain and indifference towards money and governance, for each one of them there is one way known by those who want it starts from Tel Aviv and ends in Washington, where the Gulf stores of the black gold are opened  and the greetings are offered to the leader of democracy and the human rights.

In parallel to the inevitable steadfastness of the leadership of the President Al-Assad in a worried Arab world, the Palestinian cause is still despite all the strife and the wars forming the only attractive cause that is capable to bring people down to streets. Easily his experience can be compared with the experience of Gamal Abdul Nasser who was a subject of doubts, and questioning before the year 1956.  The star of his leadership emerged after resisting the tripartite occupation and confronting its challenges. Therefore the victory of Syria and its President will not pass without consideration after years of loss and lapse which entitled the Arab Spring. Every observer of the shifts of the mood and the backgrounds of the honest Arab elites in the search for a future and a vision knows the status which the President Al-Assad will have in the Arab conscience in the coming years.

Among the repercussions of the war on Syria was the defeat of the Gulf and Turkey and the regression of Europe, each one of them is trying to cope with the defeat and to decrease ifs effects. While Turkey is trying to position against the dangers that may affect its national security with the change of the US position at its expense, it will find itself tomorrow obliged to be closer from Syria and its president and to seek to cooperate and to pay the costs in an attempt to purge for the bad things which it caused to Syria and to the Turkish –Syrian relations. Europe through its pivotal force which is concerned with the region affairs represented by France seeks to create a project capable to be coped with, represented by Emanuel Macron through confronting the dangers of the US absurdity in the Middle East and through drawing a French-European track led by Russia under the title of reconstruction and the return of the displaced, therefore a conference in Paris will be held for that purpose.

The Americans and the Israelis present their project which aims to confront an Arab coming stage entitled the stage of the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, so the man of Washington in Riyadh Mohammed Bin Nayef has abandoned the authority voluntarily to Mohammed Bin Salman. In the American-Israeli mind there is a recall of the experience of the King Faisal with Gamal Abdul Nasser, with the differences of history, the capacities, and the time of defeats and victories, but neither America nor Israel were the same as today, everything has changed. All the differences before talking about the new time of Iran, the renewed time of Russia, and the time of the resistance and its leader say that Mohammed Bin Salman will lead a political military and financial bankruptcy entitled Saudi Arabia, his recklessness will lead him to take his country to a civil war after two failed wars in the neighborhood one in Yemen and one with Qatar. So the ceiling of what Bin Salman can do is to compete a Gulf young man like him; the Prince of Qatar.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

(Visited 3 times, 1 visits today)

ماكرون والأسد وبن سلمان

يونيو 22, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– عندما يتحدّث الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون عن أنّ الرئيس السوري هو الرئيس الوحيد المتاح لسورية بمعزل عن موقف الأطراف معه وضدّه ومنهم فرنسا، وأنّ بقاءه بات مسلّماً به، بل بات مطلباً للحفاظ على وحدة سورية وإعادة الاستقرار إليها ومنع تحوّلها دولة فاشلة ستتسبّب بالكوارث للعالم كله. وعندما يأتي هذا الكلام مشابهاً في الحصيلة لكلام السفير الأميركي السابق في دمشق روبرت فورد، معتبراً أنّ الرهانات على إسقاط الرئيس السوري كانت ضرباً من الغباء الأميركي والعربي، وأنّ نصر الرئيس الأسد بات قاب قوسين أو أدنى، فهذا يعني أنّ الدولة التي اجتذب الصراع عليها كلّ دول العالم والمنطقة، وقالت الحرب فيها وعليها إنها قلب العالم الاستراتيجي، قد حسمت رايتها لقائد شاب أظهر قدراً نادراً من الشجاعة والحكمة والوطنية، وأثبت ترفّعاً وزهداً بالمال والحكم، ولكلّ منهما طريق يعرفه الراغبون يبدأ بتل أبيب وينتهي بواشنطن، فتنفتح خزائن الذهب الأسود من الخليج، وتنهمر «رقيبات التحايا» لزعيم الديمقراطية وحقوق الإنسان.

– بالتوازي مع الصعود الحتمي لزعامة الرئيس الأسد في عالم عربي قلق، لا تزال القضية الفلسطينية رغم كلّ الفتن والحروب تشكّل القضية الوحيدة الجاذبة والقادرة على إنزال الناس إلى الشارع،

يمكن ببساطة مقارنة تجربته بتجربة جمال عبد الناصر، الذي كان موضع جدل وتشكيك وتساؤلات قبل العام 1956، حيث كان العدوان الثلاثي الذي سطع بمقاومته له ونصره في مواجهة تحدياته نجمُ زعامته. ولن يمرّ انتصار سورية ورئيسها عابراً في سماء العرب بعد سنوات التيه والضياع المسمّاة بالربيع العربي. ويعلم كلّ متابع للتحوّلات في مزاج ومناخات النخب العربية الصادقة في البحث عن مستقبل ورؤية، والتي تتجسّد في اكتشاف المكانة التي يمكن للرئيس الأسد احتلالها في الوجدان العربي للسنوات المقبلة.

– من تداعيات الحرب على سورية وفيها، كانت هزيمة الخليج وتركيا، وتراجع أوروبا، وكلّ منها تحاول التأقلم مع الهزيمة وتخفيف آثارها، وفيما تركيا تتلمّس طريقها للتموضع بوجه مخاطر على أمنها القومي مع انقلاب في الموقف الأميركي على حسابها، لتجد نفسها غداً أمام قدر التقرّب من سورية ورئيسها والسعي للتعاون ودفع الأثمان التي تترتّب على التكفير عن الصفحة السوداء التي تسبّبت بها لسورية وللعلاقات التركية السورية، تسعى أوروبا بقوّتها المحورية المعنية بشؤون المنطقة التي تمثلها فرنسا لإنتاج مشروع قادر على التأقلم يمثله إيمانويل ماكرون، بالتصدّي لمخاطر العبثية الأميركية في الشرق الأوسط، عبر رسم مسار فرنسي أوروبي تتلقفه روسيا تحت عنوان منصة الإعمار وعودة النازحين التي ستتشكل تحت عنوان مؤتمر في باريس لهذا الغرض.

– يخرج الأميركيون و«الإسرائيليون» بمشروعهم الشاب الهادف لمواجهة مرحلة عربية مقبلة اسمها مرحلة الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد، فيتنازل طوعاً رجل واشنطن في الرياض ، وفي الذهن الأميركي «الإسرائيلي» استعادة تجربة الملك فيصل مع جمال عبد الناصر، بينما فوارق التاريخ والمقدرات وزمن الهزائم والانتصارات، حيث لا أميركا هي تلك التي كانت يومها ولا «إسرائيل» هي التي كانت يومها، وكلّ شيء مختلف، وكلّ الاختلافات قبل التحدث عن زمن إيران الجديد وزمن روسيا المتجدّد وزمن المقاومة وسيّدها المتوقد، تقول إنّ محمد بن سلمان سيقود تفليسة سياسية ومالية وعسكرية، اسمها السعودية، وسيقوده تهوّره المسمّى بحيوية الشباب لأخذ بلده نحو الحرب الأهلية بعد حربين فاشلتين تسبّب بهما في الجوار، واحدة في اليمن وثانية مع قطر، وسقف ما سيستطيعه بن سلمان هو منافسة شاب خليجي مثله هو أمير قطر.

(Visited 5٬984 times, 5٬984 visits today)
 
Related Articles

من حلب إلى درعا… قريباً إدلب

من حلب إلى درعا… قريباً إدلب

يونيو 23, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– تستطيع إدارة الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب أن تزعم الفضل لها بتأجيل مفاعيل انتصار الجيش السوري وحلفائه في حلب، ونجاحها بتجميد مفاعيل مسار أستانة لستة شهور وجعله خلالها إطاراً مرتبكاً يخضع للتجربة والاختبار بانتظار ما سيحدث على جبهة الأوهام باسترداد الجماعات المسلحة زمام المبادرة. وهو ما كان ليحدث لولا التشويش الذي أدخلته عنتريات الرئيس الأميركي ورسائله النارية، التي تكشّف مضمونها عن ألعاب تكتيكية لا عن خيار استراتيجي، حيث يصير الجواب الأميركي عن سؤال حول ما بعد انكسار داعش وفرضية تعرّض القوات الكردية لهجوم من الجيش السوري وهل ستدافع عنها القوات الأميركية، بالقول بالتأكيد لن نفعل ذلك.

– كلّ الذين قتلوا وأصيبوا وكلّ الخراب الذي وقع، خلال فترة ما بعد معارك حلب، نتاج لهذه الأوهام التي زرعتها إدارة الرئيس دونالد ترامب، ودفعت حتى الأتراك الذين ذاقوا مرارة هزيمتهم في حلب إلى التوهّم بأنّ زمناً جديداً يبدأ، وأنّ العودة لرهانات الخيار العسكري في سورية ممكنة، حتى انقضت كلّ اختبارات القوة، وثبت أنّ المعادلة التي أنتجت نصر حلب هي المعادلة الاستراتيجية الثابتة، وأنّ التشويش عليها سياسياً وعسكرياً ليس إلا أفعالاً تكتيكية يريدها الأميركي لقطاف من الأغبياء الذين يقعون ضحايا وهمِ قوّته. كما قالت قمم ترامب في الرياض وحصاده بمئات مليارات الدولارات.

– جاءت معارك درعا، وجاء كلام الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون كصفعات موجعة للجماعات المسلحة التي وقعت ضحية الوهم، لإعادتها إلى رشدها الحلبي، والتيقن من أنّ شيئاً لم ولن يتغيّر، وأنّ العناد والمكابرة لن ينتجا سوى رفع الأكلاف للتسليم بنتائج يمكن التسليم بها بخسائر أقلّ. ومعلوم أنّ ميزان الردع بعد سلسلة معارك يصير مكثفاً، فلا حاجة لمرور الحرب بكلّ مراحل المرة الأولى لتظهر نتائج مراحلها الأخيرة في المرة التالية. وتكفي مؤشرات التذكير بالموازين لفرض المسار الذي رسم من قبل على حالات أشدّ قوة ومتانة، في حالات أشدّ ضعفاً وهشاشة، وما كانت تبغيه الخطة الأميركية هو تعطيل موقت لفعل هذه القاعدة لتعيد الجماعات المسلحة ورعاتها الإقليميين المرور بالنكسات ذاتها وبأكلاف مضاعفة، حتى تتحقق من أنّ شيئاً لم يتغيّر، لكن كسب الوقت يكون نزيفاً قاتلاً لها، ومكاسب في الجيب الأميركي، تتحقق في الخليج وليس في سورية.

– درعا تدخل اليوم الزمن الحلبي، وتتدحرج مكونات تسوية تشبه تلك التي انتهت بها حرب حلب، ومن درعا إلى حلب، شمال وجنوب سورية وشمال وجنوب الحرب السورية وبوابات العبور منها وإليها، من هاتين البوابتين عبرت الحرب إلى سورية ومنهما تعبر سورية للخروج من الحرب. وبرفع العلم السوري فوق خط الحدود الأردنية ولاحقاً التركية تسدل الستارة على الفصول الأشدّ بشاعة وخطراً في هذه الحرب. وبعد درعا ستكون إدلب قريباً، وبعدهما لن يطول زمن عودة دير الزور، فتلك هي معادلة حسم أمرها، بين حلفين حلف يزداد تماسكاً وحلف يزداد تفتتاً. حلف يزداد ثقة وحلف يزداد شكوكاً وإحباطاً. حلف يزرع الانتصارات وحلف يحصد الهزائم. دمشق تنفض غبار الحرب عنها وتحتفل بيوم القدس وتراه قريباً، والرياض تتقلّص طموحاتها من انتظار يوم سقوط دمشق لتهتف إنه يومك يا ابن نايف ويومك يا قطر.

(Visited 3٬145 times, 3٬145 visits today)
Related Videos

Related Articles

Understanding Russia: The Continuum of History

June 20, 2017

by Yameen KhanUnderstanding Russia: The Continuum of History

The United States is actively committed to bring Russia into submission via encirclement and a two pronged attack.

NATO’s expansion of bases in vassal states right up to Russia’s borders, coupled with an attempt at encroachment in Syria, should allow The Hegemon to undermine Russia’s underbelly from the Caucasus to Central Asia.

To understand how Russians usually respond to Western power a little time travel, starting 1219 AD, is more than useful.

This was a time when a cataclysmic event left deep scars on the Russian character; an abiding fear of encirclement, whether by nomadic hordes then or by nuclear missile bases today.

Russia then was not a single state but consisted of a dozen principalities frequently at war with each other. Between 1219 and 1240 all these fell to the Genghis Khan hurricane, whose lightning-speed cavalry with his horse-borne archers, employing brilliant tactics unfamiliar to Europeans, caught army after army off guard and forced them into submission.

For more than 200 years Russians suffered under the Golden Horde of the Mongol – named after their great tent with golden poles. They left the Russian economy in ruins, brought commerce and industry to a halt, and reduced Russians to serfdom. Asiatic ways of administration and customs were superimposed on the existing Byzantine system.

Taking full advantage of its military weakness and of its reduced circumstances, Russia’s European neighbors started to help themselves to its territory, starting with German principalities, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden. The Mongols couldn’t care less so long as they received their tribute. They were more concerned with their Asiatic dominions.

Still, European cities did not match the riches of Samarkand and Bukhara, Herat and Baghdad, whose incomparable wealth and splendor outshone wooden-built Russian cities.

Russia’s greatest fear begins here – crushed between their European foes to the West and the Mongols to the East. Russians were to develop a paranoid dread of invasion and encirclement which has tormented their foreign relations ever since. Hardly ever has an experience left such deep and ever-lasting scars on a nation’s psyche as this cataclysm did on Russians. This explains, among other things, their stoical acceptance of harsh rule at home.

And then came Ivan III – the man who freed the Russians from the Golden Horde.

Muscovy then was a small provincial town overshadowed by and subservient to its powerful neighbors. In return for allegiance and subservience locals were gradually entrusted with more power and freedom by the unsuspecting Mongols. Over time the Principality of Muscovy grew in strength and size, eventually to dominate all its neighbors.

In 1476 Ivan refused to pay the customary tribute to the grand Khan Ahmed. In a fit of rage Ivan trampled the portrait of Ahmed and put several of his envoys to death.

The showdown came in autumn 1480 when the Khan marched with his army to teach a vassal a lesson, but was astonished to find a large well-equipped force awaiting him on the far bank of the River Ugra, 150 miles from Moscow. For weeks the two armies glowered at one another, neither side wanting to make the first move.

The stakes were clear. Ivan did not need to cross the river. He would change the course of history if he did not lose. A stalemate could become a turning point in history.

For Ahmed Khan there is no choice. He must cross the river and engage. Win or die like Tariq ibin Ziyad in 711 AD, another age and time, when a brilliant Arab general landed on the ‘rock of Hercules’ subsequently called by Arab Historians ‘Jabal Tariq’, meaning the ‘mountain of Tariq’ and later anglicized as Gibraltar.

Tariq, by one master stratagem, with a much smaller force (12,000 against 90,000 Spaniards) at the Battle of Guadalete defeated Roderic and thus opened the road for the subsequent Arab commanders to march all the way to Tours in France.

With the arrival of winter, the river began to freeze. A ferocious battle appeared inevitable. And then something extraordinary happened. Perhaps a miracle. Without warning both sides turned and fled in panic. Despite their inglorious act, the Russians knew that their long subservience was over.

The Khan had lost his stomach for a fight. The once invincible Mongol might had evaporated. Their centralized authority in the West had now collapsed, leaving three widely separated khanates (Kazan, Astrakhan and Crimea) as their last remnants of the once mighty and the largest contiguous land empire in history.

It was in 1553 when Ivan the Terrible, a successor of Ivan III, thirsting for revenge, stormed the fortress of Kazan on the upper Volga, slaughtered its defenders and thus ended the Mongol rule. Two years later the Khanate of Astrakhan, where the Volga flows into the Caspian met with similar fate.

Starving Napoleon’s army

Fast forward to June 1812, and the fateful day, the 24th , when Napoleon’s Grande Armée crossed the Neman River in an attempt to engage and defeat the Russian army.

Napoleon’s aim was to compel Tsar Alexander I of Russia to stop trading with British merchants through proxies and bring about pressure on the United Kingdom to sue for peace. The overt political aim of the campaign was to liberate Poland from the threat of Russia (as the US claims of Eastern Europe today). Thus the campaign was named the Second Polish War to gain favor with the Poles and provide a political pretense for his actions.

The real aim was domination of Russia.

The Grande Armée was massive; 680,000 soldiers. Through a series of marches Napoleon rushed the army rapidly through Western Russia in an attempt to bring the Russian army to battle, and in August of that year winning a number of minor engagements and a major battle at Smolensk.

Any invading army must consider war in Russia as a war at sea. It is futile to occupy land or city or cities. The aim of an invading force must be to destroy the military machine of Russia. The aim of Russian commanders has always been to survive and use its vast land mass to exhaust its enemy, learn from him and defeat and annihilate him with his own tactics and stratagems, only better executed.

Napoleon engaged the Russian army for a decisive battle at Maloyaroslavets. The Russians would not commit themselves to a pitched battle. His troops exhausted, with few rations, no winter clothing, and his remaining horses in poor condition, Napoleon was forced to retreat.

He hoped to reach supplies at Smolensk and later at Vilnius. In the weeks that followed the Grande Armée starved and suffered from the onset of “General Winter”. Lack of food and fodder for the horses, hypothermia from the bitter cold and persistent attacks upon isolated troops from Russian peasants and Cossacks led to great losses in men, and a general loss of discipline and cohesion in the army.

When Napoleon’s army crossed the Berezina River in November, only 27,000 fit soldiers remained. The Grand Armée had lost some 380,000 men dead and 100,000 captured. A riveting defeat.

All those Afghan overt – and covert – wars

Four centuries after the cataclysm of the Mongol invasion, the Russian Empire had been steadily expanding at the rate of 55 square miles a day – or 20,000 square miles a year. At the dawn of the 19thcentury only 2,000 miles separated the British and the Russian empires in Asia.

Both the Russians and the East India Company (as in the British Indian Empire) sent their officers, businessmen in disguise, as Buddhist priests or Muslim holy men, to survey uncharted Central Asia.

One such chap was Captain Arthur Connolly of the 6th Bengal Light Cavalry in the service of the British East India Company. The East India Company was the British version of America’s Halliburton.

Connolly ended up beheaded as a spy by the orders of Alim Khan, the Emir of Bukhara. It was Connolly who coined the expression “The Great Game”, which Kipling immortalized in his novel “Kim”.

By the end of the 19th century the Tsars’ armies had swallowed one Khanate after another and only a few hundred miles separated the two empires. In some places the distance was only twenty miles.

The British feared that they would lose their Indian possessions – the ‘Jewel in the Crown’ – to the Tsar; and two theories emerged to defend the frontiers of British India.

The ‘forward policy’ and its proponents (hawks, today’s US neocons) argued to stop the Russians beyond India’s frontiers by getting there first, either by invasion, or by creating compliant ‘buffer’ states, or satellites, astride the likely invasion route.

But there were those who did not buy this proposition and did not believe that the Russians would invade India. The opponents of the ‘forward policy’ argued that India’s best defense lay in its unique geographical setting – bordered by impassable mountain ranges, mighty rivers, waterless deserts, and above all warlike tribes.

A Russian force which reached India surmounting all these obstacles would be so weakened by then that it would be no match for the waiting British Army. Therefore, it was more sensible to force an invader to overextend his lines of communications than for the British to risk theirs. And above all this policy was cheaper.

NATO today has a forward policy of deploying troops all over Eastern Europe and creating bases around Russia in an effort to encircle it. The final straw for the Russian Federation has been the occupation of Ukraine, by proxy, by Washington.

Guess who won the policy debate in 19th century Britain? The hawks (the US neocons of today), of course.

In 1838 Lord Auckland decides to replace the current Emir of Afghanistan, Dost Muhammad Khan with Shuja-ul-Mulk.

One could easily replace Dost Muhammad of Afghanistan in 1838 with today’s Gaddafi of Libya or Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Or Putin of Russia. Or anyone who becomes an obstacle to the West’s geopolitical, geoeconomic domination.

And yet the British suffered a massive defeat after a year’s occupation of Afghanistan. The only soldier who eventually reached Jalalabad was William Brydon. The Afghans may have spared him so he would be able to tell the tale of this horrific defeat.

You would think the British would have learned from history. Not at all. They did it again.

Tension between Russia and Britain in Europe ended in June 1878 with the Congress of Berlin. Russia then turned its attention to Central Asia, promptly sending an uninvited diplomatic mission to Kabul.

Sher Ali Khan, the Emir of Afghanistan (the son of Emir Dost Muhammad Khan) tried unsuccessfully to keep them out. Russian envoys arrived in Kabul on July 22, 1878, and on August 14, the British demanded that Sher Ali accept a British mission too.

The Emir not only refused to receive a British mission under Neville Bowles Chamberlain, but threatened to stop it if it were dispatched. Lord Lytton, the viceroy, ordered a diplomatic mission to set out for Kabul in September 1878 but the mission was turned back as it approached the eastern entrance of the Khyber Pass, triggering the Second Anglo–Afghan War.

After several defeats in various battles except one, and thus abandoning the provocative policy of maintaining a British resident in Kabul, the British were forced to withdraw.

One would think the British would have enough sense to cease with the stupid policy of occupying Afghanistan. Not at all. They tried it for the third time.

The Third Afghan War began on May 6, 1919 and ended with an armistice on August 8, 1919. An Afghan victory, again.

The British finally abandoned their forward policy. It had failed – just as the American neocons “policy” is failing.

And yet, roughly 60 years later the Russians would don the madman’s (British) hat and on December 25th, 1979, launched a vertical envelopment and occupied Kabul.

Their main aim was the airbase at Shindand, about 200 miles as the crow flies from the Straits of Hormuz, the choke point of the Persian Gulf, through which at the time 90% of the world’s oil was flowing.

They placed 200 Bear Bombers – the equivalent of the US B-52’s – as if sending a message to President Carter: “Checkmate”. A certain game was over – and a covert war was about to begin.

As our historical trip takes us from The Great Game to the Cold War, by now it’s more than established that the United States took on the mantle of the British Empire and filled in the power vacuum left by the British. If Connolly were to come back during the Cold War he would be right at home – as the Cold War was a continuation of the Great Game.

In between, of course, there was a guy named Hitler.

After Napoleon, it was Hitler who considered the Russians as barbarians and despite a nonaggression pact invaded Russia.

The Second Great European War (GEW II) was in fact fought between Germany and the USSR. Germany deployed 80% of its economic and military resources on its Eastern Front compared to 20% against the rest of the allies on the Western Front, where it was merely a ‘fire brigade operation’ (Hitler’s words).

Paul Carell describes the moment when, at 0315 on June 22nd 1941, the massive ‘Operation Barbarossa’ over a 900-mile front went under way.

“As though a switch had been thrown a gigantic flash of lightening rent the night. Guns of all calibres simultaneously belched fire. The tracks of tracer shells streaked across the sky. As far as the eye could see the front on the Bug was a sea of flames and flashes. A moment later the deep thunder of the guns swept over the tower of Volka Dobrynska like a steamroller. The whine of the mortar batteries mingled eerily with the rumble of the guns. Beyond the Bug a sea of fire and smoke was raging. The narrow sickle of the moon was hidden by a veil of cloud. Peace was dead.”

Bagration revisited

Russians are masters of Sun Tzu: “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

These principles were recently applied in Ukraine and Crimea. For background, one just needs to study the battle of Kursk as well as Operation Bagration.

The Soviet military doctrine of maskirovka was developed in the 1920s, and used by Zhukov in the 1939 Battles of Khalkhin Gol against Japan.

The Field Regulations of the Red Army (1929) stated that:

“Surprise has a stunning effect on the enemy. For this reason all troop operations must be accomplished with the greatest concealment and speed.”

Concealment was to be attained by confusing the enemy with movements, camouflage and use of terrain, speed, use of night and fog, and secrecy.

Operation Bagration – the Soviet destruction of the German Army Group Centre – was, arguably, the single most successful military action of the entire war. This vital Soviet offensive is symptomatic of the lack of public knowledge in the West about the war in the East. Whilst almost everyone has heard of D-Day, few people other than specialist historians know much about Operation Bagration.

Yet the sheer size of Bagration dwarfs that of D-Day.

“Army Group Centre was really the anchor of that whole German front,’ writes Professor Geoffrey Wawro, ‘blocking the shortest path to Berlin; and the Russians annihilated it at the same time as we were landing on D-Day and marching on, liberating Paris and then heading towards Germany. But the scope of the fighting was much bigger in the East.

You had ten times as many Russians fighting in Bagration as you had Anglo/American/Canadian troops landing on the Normandy beaches.

And you had three times as many Germans in action fighting trying to hold up the Russian advance as you had defending the Atlantic Wall.

So, it’s a perfect encapsulation of the problem (of lack of appreciation of the scale of fighting on the Eastern Front). I mean, think about it, when D-Day and Bagration jumped off, the allied armies in Normandy and the Russian armies on the Eastern Front were equidistant from Berlin, and in the German view they were sort of equal threats.

After Operation Bagration, Russia is seen as being the principal threat because they just kicked down the door altogether and reoccupied all the ground that was lost in 1941. They take most of Poland and they move into East Prussia and they’re at the very gates of Berlin while we’re still slogging our way through Normandy and towards Paris.”

Operation Bagration was a colossal victory for the Red Army. By the 3rd of July Soviet forces had recaptured Minsk, capital of Belorussia, a city which had been in German hands for three years. And by the end of July the Red Army had pushed into what had been, before the war, Polish territory, and had taken Lwow, the major cultural center of eastern Poland.

Before Operation Barbarossa, the German High Command masked the creation of the massive force arrayed to invade the USSR and heightened their diplomatic efforts to convince Joseph Stalin that they were about to launch a major attack on Britain.

Maskirovka (deception) was put into practice on a large scale in the Battle of Kursk, especially on the Steppe Front commanded by Ivan Konev.

The result was that the Germans attacked Russian forces four times stronger than they were expecting.

The German general Friedrich von Mellenthin wrote, “The horrible counter-attacks, in which huge masses of manpower and equipment took part, were an unpleasant surprise for us… The most clever camouflage of the Russians should be emphasized again. We did not .. detect even one minefield or anti-tank area until .. the first tank was blown up by a mine or the first Russian anti-tank guns opened fire”.

Broadly, military deception may take both strategic and tactical forms. Deception across a strategic battlefield was uncommon until the modern age (particularly in the world wars of the 20th century), but tactical deception (on individual battlefields) dates back to early history.

In a practical sense military deception employs visual misdirection, misinformation (for example, via double agents) and psychology to make the enemy believe something that is untrue. The use of military camouflage, especially on a large scale, is a form of deception.

The Russian loanword maskirovka (literally: masking) is used to describe the Soviet Union and Russia’s military doctrine of surprise through deception, in which camouflage plays a significant role.

There are numerous examples of deception activities employed throughout the history of warfare, such as: feigned retreat leading the enemy, through a false sense of security, into a pre-positioned ambush; fictional units creating entirely fictional forces or exaggerating the size of an army; smoke screen – a tactical deception involving smoke, fog, or other forms of cover to hide battlefield movements; Trojan Horse – gaining admittance to a fortified area under false pretenses, to later admit a larger attacking force; strategic envelopment – where a small force distracts the enemy while a much larger force moves to attack from the rear (that was a favored tactic of Napoleon’s).

And that brings us to Syria, and its importance to Russia.

The deep state in Washington wants to keep the entire spectrum from the Levant to the Indian sub-continent destabilized – shaping it as the platform to send sparks of terrorism North to Russia and East to China. At the same time the US military will keep a physical presence (if China, India and Russia will allow it) in Afghanistan, from where it can survey the Eurasian land mass. As a master geopolitical chess player, Putin is very much aware of all this.

Syria is right at the underbelly of Russia and would be strategically important if it were in the hands of remote-controlled thugs like Ukraine is today. It has the potential to destabilize Russia from the Caucasus to Central Asia – generating as many Salafi-jihadi terrorists as possible. The region from the Caucasus to Central Asia holds about 80 million Muslims. Russia has enough reasons to stop US advances in Syria and Ukraine. Not to mention that in Iraqi Kurdistan the Pentagon is aiming to build a mega base, a springboard to create mischief in Central Asia for both Russia and China, in the form, for instance, of an Uyghur uprising in Western China, like it has done in Ukraine for Russia.

Once again; it may be helpful to look back to the continuum of history. It tells us these current efforts to encircle and destabilize Russia are destined to fail. (edited by Pepe Escobar)

Selected bibliography:

Carell, Paul: Hitler’s War on Russia (George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., London, 1964).
Fraser-Tytler, W.K.: Afghanistan: A Study of Political Developments in Central Asia (Oxford University Press, London, 1950).
Hopkirk, Peter: Foreign Devils on the Silk Road: The Search for Lost Cities and Treasures of Chinese Central Asia (First Published by John Murry (Publisher), 1980; First issued as an Oxford University Press, paperback 1980, Oxford).
Tzu, Sun: The Art of War (Edited with an introduction by Dallas Galvin; Translated from Chinese by Lionel Giles, First Published in 1910, Produced by Fine Creative Media, Inc. New Yor
Gibbon, Edward: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Volume III (Random House Inc. Manufactured in the United States by H. Wolf).
Weatherford, Jack: Genghis Khan and the making of the Modern World (Three Rivers Press, New York).
Wawro, Geoffrey: WW2.com (Professor of Military History at the University of North Texas).

The chemistry between Putin and Macron…. and Syria كيمياء بوتين ماكرون… وسورية

 

The chemistry between Putin and Macron…. and Syria

يونيو 15, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

كيمياء بوتين ماكرون… وسورية

The Russian circuits closer to the President Vladimir Putin talk about a chemistry that he discovered through his relation with an international political leader, then it is shown that this leader has a position on the chess map which is run by the professional player Putin, and that this role starts from reading the important influence of his country on the main file in the Russian agenda, a role that is drawn by the same ability to bear the dispute and the crises, along with the ability to tolerate and to grant opportunities. The basis depends on a quiet reading of the interests of the country and the well-established status of the leader, and on the paths which Russia will impose on the file which it wants a partnership in it, a reading of how the concerned leader adapts to the variables, and the ability to take his country by the force of his influence towards the choices which he finds them interact with his interests and aspirations towards the historic leadership between leaving the imprint which he looks for it on one hand, and between the interests of his country and their effective forces in it on the other hand.

This has happened with the Turkish President Recep Erdogan and the French President Emanuel Macron, in case of Erdogan, the beginning was not through the convergence of the Russian and the Turkish polices on the pivotal issue of the foreign policy of the two countries, namely the war on Syria, however the chemical relationship started between Putin and Erdogan, in other words, it means a Russian aspiration to attract Turkey to play a role, while Turkey was leading the war axis on Syria against the bank led by Russia, but when the collision occurred by a Turkish decision, Putin seemed firm and resolving, but he soon showed tolerance and presented the inducements to pave the way for the new role.

By virtue of the geography of the Middle East, Putin’s vision seems to be inclined to establish two strategic partnerships in managing the solution in Syria, one with a Turkish –Iranian bilateral from Astana, it manages the security file in its political and military dimensions to prevent the division of Syria, and to  arrange the integration of the armed groups which are sponsored by Turkey into a apolitical solution that ends with a unified government under the leadership of the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, in preparation for a new constitution and parliamentary and presidential elections according to the UN resolution 2254. The second partnership is still in the beginnings, it may be under crises and disputes as the first one, but it opens up to tolerance and paving the role for a new role, it revolves around the files of reconstruction and the return of the displaced,  it is a French-Chinese bilateral. The funding imposed by the file of reconstruction and the displaced along with its economic and security importance to Europe and France in particular is not possible for the Gulf which is bankrupt and divided to offer, and it cannot be thought of without China. France which complains from the absence of the European vision and the fragmentation of its forces and interests, and from the US political weakness is anticipating to reserve a role and a seat, since it sees the Gulf and what it suffers, and it sees the opposition and its divisions, so it is not obliged to enter in the direct political search under conditions that alienate it from its allies, but on the contrary they will follow it if there is a path that is similar to Astana that is open on the planned negotiation paths that remain Russian and American in essence.

Macron studies the call for an international regional Syrian conference about the reconstruction and the displaced, hosted by Paris and in which the Syrian government and figures from the private sector whether loyalists or from the opposition, the experts, the United Nations and its bodies, the donor countries from Europe, the Gulf, Japan, the funds, and the concerned international banks, along with China participate. This role requires to open the French embassy in Damascus, and to benefit from the revenues of that in having a Syrian cooperation in the file of terrorists from French ancestries which exerts pressure on Paris as a dire necessity. There will not be a problem if France adopts a diplomatic speech that commensurate with an acceptable role by all the concerned parties in the Syrian crisis to reserve a role for itself.

It is the beginning of the chemistry between Putin and Macron that produces an interaction in Syria!

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

(Visited 2 times, 2 visits today)

كيمياء بوتين ماكرون… وسورية

يونيو 15, 2017

ناصر قنديل

كيمياء بوتين ماكرون… وسورية

– عندما تتحدّث الدوائر الروسية القريبة من الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين عن كيمياء اكتشفها في علاقته بزعيم سياسي دولي، لا يلبث أن يظهر أنّ لهذا الزعيم موقعاً على خارطة الشطرنج التي يديرها اللاعب المحترف بوتين، وأنّ هذا الدور يبدأ من قراءة تأثير هامّ لهذه الدولة في ملف رئيسي على جدول أعمال روسيا، وأنه دور يرسم بنفس طويل وقدرة على تحمّل الخصومة والأزمات، ولكن معها قدرة على التسامح ومنح الفرص، وأنّ الأساس مبني على قراءة هادئة لمصالح الدولة ومكانة الزعيم الراسخة فيها، وعلى المسارات التي ستفرضها روسيا للملف الذي تريد شراكة فيه، وقراءة لتكيّف الزعيم المعني مع المتغيّرات وقدرته على أخذ بلده بقوة تأثيره نحو الخيارات التي يراها تقاطعاً بين مصالحه وطموحاته نحو الزعامة التاريخية وترك البصمة التي يبحث عنها من جهة، وبين مصالح بلده والقوى المؤثرة فيها، من جهة أخرى.

– حدث هذا مع الرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان ويحدث مع الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون. وفي حالة أردوغان لم تكن البداية بتلاقي السياسات الروسية والتركية تجاه القضية المحورية في السياسة الخارجية للبلدين، وهي الحرب في سورية، بل بدأت العلاقة الكيميائية بين بوتين وأردوغان، وهي هنا تعني تطلعاً روسياً لجذب تركيا للعب دور، فيما كانت تركيا تقود محور الحرب على سورية بوجه الضفة التي تقف عليها روسيا وتتصدّرها. وعندما وقع التصادم بقرار تركي، بدا بوتين حازماً وحاسماً، لكنه لم يلبث أن أظهر التسامح وفتح الباب لطيّ الصفحة، وتقديم المغريات لفتح الباب أمام الدور الجديد.

– بحكم الجغرافيا الشرق أوسطية تبدو رؤية بوتين متّجهة نحو إنشاء شراكتين استراتيجيتين في إدارة الحلّ في سورية، واحدة بثنائية تركية إيرانية تنطلق من أستانة، تدير الملف الأمني بأبعاده السياسية والعسكرية، منعاً لتقسيم سورية وتمهيداً لدمج الجماعات المسلّحة التي ترعاها تركيا في حلّ سياسي ينتهي بحكومة موحدة في ظلّ الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد تمهيداً لدستور جديد وانتخابات نيابية ورئاسية، وفقاً للقرار الأممي 2254. أما الثانية التي لا تزال في البدايات، وتحتمل كالأولى مرور أزمات وخلافات، لكنها مفتوحة الأبواب لاحقاً على التسامح وطيّ الصفحة وفتح الباب للدور الجديد، فتدور حول ملفات إعادة الإعمار وعودة النازحين، وهي ثنائية فرنسية صينية، فالتمويل الذي يفرضه ملف الإعمار واللاجئين، بأهميته الاقتصادية والأمنية لأوروبا، وفرنسا في قلبها، لا يملك الخليج المفلس والمنقسم قدرة تقديمه، ولا يمكن التفكير به من دون التطلّع نحو الصين، وفرنسا التي تتذمّر من غياب الرؤية الأوروبية وتشتت قواها واهتماماتها، ومن الضعف السياسي الأميركي تتطلع لحجز دور ومقعد، وترى الخليج وما يعانيه والمعارضة وانقساماتها، وليست مضطرة للدخول في حقل ألغام البحث السياسي المباشر بشروط حلّ قد يبعدها اليوم عن حلفائها، لكنه سيجعلهم يلحقونها إنْ أنشات طاولة تشبه طاولة أستانة مفتوحة الأفق على مسارات التفاوض المقرّرة التي تبقى في جوهرها روسية أميركية.

– ماكرون يدرس الدعوة لمؤتمر دولي إقليمي سوري حول الإعمار واللاجئين، تستضيفه باريس وتشارك فيه الحكومة السورية وشخصيات من القطاع الخاص معارضين وموالين، وخبراء، والأمم المتحدة وهيئاتها، والدول المانحة من أوروبا والخليج واليابان والصناديق والبنوك العالمية المعنية، لكن مع الصين، وما يستدعيه هذا الدور يبدأ بفتح السفارة الفرنسية في دمشق، والإفادة من عائدات ذلك في الحصول على تعاون سوري في ملف الإرهابيين من أصول فرنسية الذي يضغط على باريس كحاجة ملحّة، ولا يفترض أن تكون هناك مشكلة إن اعتمدت فرنسا خطاباً دبلوماسياً يتناسب مع دور مقبول من كلّ الأطراف المعنية بالأزمة السورية لتحفظ لنفسها هذا الدور.

– بداية كيمياء بين بوتين وماكرون تنتج تفاعلاً في سورية!

(Visited 3٬402 times, 3٬402 visits today)

EU offers UK a lifeline to stay a member

EU tells UK its door still ‘open’ – EUobserver

France and Germany have said the UK could still stay in the EU, as Britain confirmed that Brexit talks would start on Monday (19 June).

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, made the comment after meeting British prime minister Theresa May in Paris on Tuesday.

“Of course, the [EU] door remains open, always open, until the Brexit negotiations come to an end”, he said.

The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, told the Bloomberg news agency in Berlin the same day that “if they [the British government] wanted to change their decision, of course, they would find open doors”.

Macron and Schaeuble said they “respect” Britain’s decision to leave.

The French leader said: “I would like the negotiation and then the discussions on the future relationship with the United Kingdom to be launched as soon as possible.”

But he added: “Let us be clear … once negotiations have started we should be well aware that it will be more and more difficult to move backwards.”

Schaeuble added that Germany did not want to punish the UK for leaving. “We will minimise the potential damage and maximise the mutual benefit [of Brexit]”, he said

The EU’s Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, also said on Tuesday that “any further delay [on Brexit negotiations] is a source of instability”.

France and Germany’s “open door” comes after British elections in which May and her hard Brexit manifesto did badly.

She plans to form a coalition with Northern Irish unionists, the DUP, to stay in power, but the political turmoil had put in doubt plans to start Brexit talks next week.

The British prime minister sought to dispel that doubt on Tuesday.

“I confirmed to president Macron that the timetable remains on course and will begin next week”, she said in Paris.

She added that “the productive talks that we’re holding” with the DUP were designed to “give the stability to the UK government that I think is necessary at this time”.

May’s Brexit manifesto said Britain would quit the single market and impose curbs on EU freedom of movement.

But she said on Tuesday “we want to maintain a close relationship and a close partnership with the EU and individual member states into the future”.

Macron and May also discussed counter-terrorism cooperation, the economy, migration, defence, and climate change, Macron said.

Danish trolling

The British election result and the recent election of Macron, a pro-EU leader, have given Europe a new sense of self-confidence on Brexit.

The Danish finance minister, Kristian Jensen, showed that spirit at an event in Copenhagen on Tuesday.

“There are two kinds of European nations. There are small nations and there are countries [the UK] that have not yet realised they are small nations”, he said at a seminar entitled Road to Brexit, according to Politiken, a Danish newspaper.

Jensen mocked May’s slogan “Brexit is Brexit”, saying it “doesn’t mean anything. It’s like: ‘Breakfast means breakfast’.”

“I believe Brexit is, sorry to say, a disaster. Not for Europe but for the UK”, he said.

His comment on “small nations” drew a rebuke from the British ambassador to Denmark, Dominic Schroeder, who said he saw no sign “of a diminished or diminishing power” in the UK

Nostalgia and British Politics

June 09, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Theresa Je Suis Juif vs. Jeremy Turn the other Cheek 

Theresa Je Suis Juif vs. Jeremy Turn the other Cheek

By Gilad Atzmon

Three days before the British election, The Independent’s headline title read: “Majority of British voters agree with Corbyn’s claim UK foreign policy increases the risk of terrorism”

So, seventy-five per cent of Brits realise that it is those immoral interventionist wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya that have contributed to the terror that now haunts their country.

But ‘interventionist wars’ is just a politically correct term for Israeli-driven global conflicts promoted by the worldwide Zionist lobby: AIPAC in the USA, CRIF in France and the LFI/CFI in Britain. So the next question is unavoidable. How many of these Brits, who obviously know the truth about Britain’s ‘interventionist wars’, also grasp who it is who triggers these genocidal conflicts?

Today’s British election results provides us with a clear answer.

Theresa May has been made a fool by the British voter while Jeremy Corbyn, who was subject to constant smearing by the same lobby that pushed us into Iraq, Libya, Syria and even Iran, came out as the big winner.

The conclusion is inevitable: the more the Jewish and Zionist  institutions (BOD, JC, Jewish Labour Movement, LFI etc.)  rubbished Corbyn, the more the Brits loved him. The more the Daily Telegraph pointed at Corbyn’s ties with so-called ‘Holocaust deniers’ the more the Brits saw him as a genuine human being and an entirely suitable Prime Ministerial candidate.

This should not surprise us. Exactly the same dynamic led to the election of Donald Trump in the USA last November. The more the Jewish institutions and media castigated Trump as an ‘anti-Semite,’ the more Americans saw him as a their liberator.

The truth of the matter is that Trump is far from being an antisemite. On the contrary, he is, as some Jewish journalists pointed out, probably the ‘first Jewish president.’ The same applies to Corbyn. He is certainly no ‘racist’ nor an ‘antisemite.’ No, his crime is all-too-obvious: He thinks  Jews are ordinary, people like all other people. He refuses to buy into the ‘chosen people’ mantra.

I have been anticipating Corbyn’s imminent success for more than two weeks now, but how did I know? Simple, the Jewish Chronicle and the Guardian of Judea changed their tone. They began to accept the possibility that Corbyn may well take up residence in 10 Downing Street for a while.  Pretty much, out of the blue, somehow, they decided to make friends.

Corbyn performed very well in this election. But he could have won it just by pointing at the lobby and the people behind the institutional smear campaign against him. He could have done what Trump did and performed what the Jewish press refer to as ‘dog whistling.’ He could have chastisedthe Israeli Sayanim within his party – after all, the evidence was fully documented.  He could  have taken a stand and stood for his party comrades who were victims of the Jewish Labour purge. But he didn’t. Corbyn isn’t Trump.  Being an overwhelmingly nice person, he turned the other cheek – something I myself find frustrating, probably due to my own Jerusalemite origin.

In my new book Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto I point out that for working people, utopia is but nostalgia. It was Trump’s promise to ‘make America great again’ that secured his election.  Similarly, the surge in popularity of Jeremy Corbyn, an old-style Lefty who speaks about a unity that goes beyond sectarianism and identity politics is due to the nostalgic impact of his message, that yes, once upon a time, we were united by the Left.

Is it really a coincidence that, in Britain, it is Labour that is gaining power by marketing nostalgia while Theresa ‘conservative’ May is punished for her attempt to frog-march Britain ‘forward’ into the brutal and merciless hands of murky City mammonites and New World Order merchants?

The Syrian curse اللعنة السورية

The Syrian curse

يونيو 9, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

It seems that the Gulf crisis which has the title of punishing Qatar towards overthrowing its Prince or subduing him an outcome of the visit of the US President Donald Trump to the region, but surely it is not an outcome of the campaign of fighting the terrorism and stopping its funding, in which Qatar along with its Gulf partners led by Saudi Arabia are equal according to the Congress’s reports about the sources of terrorism and the speech of the Vice President John Biden in front Harvard University, so it can be said that the losses of the war on Syria are distributed by the strongest in the war alliance on the weaker and the weakest.

It is impossible to read Trump’s visit and what happened in isolation from Trump’s words about considering the punishment of Qatar an outcome of the visit on one hand, and what he got of Saudi money on the other hand. Washington behold Saudi Arabia the losses of the Gulf through Trump’s contracts and commitments. Saudi Arabia was authorized to distribute the losses among the Gulf countries in money, influence, and politics. But at the same time Trump’s visit cannot be read out the context of the arrival of Donald to the presidency, relying on a speech based on the failure in the war on Syria, even it can be said that Trump has defeated Hillary Clinton strongly by the defeat of her party in the war on Syria and his claiming that he has the ability to get his country out of this war and to reduce the losses not to win in it.

Trump is as the new French President Emanuel Macron who belongs to the same camp from which his former President François Hollande came politically, but he became a president to prevent the arrival of competitors who were planning to take France out the European Union to a civil confrontation due to the impact and the repercussions of the war on Syria, So Macron was the anticipated president to reduce the losses not to win profits, knowing that the permanent issue is the war on Syria which the administration of Hollande and the administration of Nicolas Sarkozy were active partners in it.

It is not hidden to say that the curse of Syria follows everyone who was involved in the war on it, what has happened with the former Prince of Qatar and his Prime Minister was not far from the outcome of this curse, as well as what has happened with Bander Bin Sultan and what affects the Turkish President Recep Erdogan whether regarding his aggravated relation with Washington or his fear from the birth of Kurdish entity on the borders of his country which only Syria and the Syrians can stop it. It is enough to have a quick look at the names which were insolent against Syria, its President, and its army while they were foreshadowing the immanent fall of Damascus and talking about the matter of few days, to notice that the scene included UN envoys, presidents, Foreign Ministers, heads of governments, kings, princes, and sheikhs. Today we wonder about their fate after they went out from the general scene humiliated not only from the war.

It is a real curse that chases all those who were involved in the war on Syria. In the concept of the history-industry and its laws these are the consequences of the defeat in a war which its launchers have made their involvement in it in fate and presence in a way that leads to repercussions that are difficult to overcome. It is clear that none of those involved will be safe whatever they give offerings  to avoid the destiny, as the Saudi are making today with the Qataris. It is clear as well that those who are threatened of fall by the force of the Syrians’ blood and their sufferings which chase everyone involved will not find a lifeline but to apologize from Syria, to atone for what they did, and to pay the bills which can satisfy Syria if there is still an opportunity to appease it.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

اللعنة السورية

يونيو 7, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– تبدو الأزمة الخليجية التي تتخذ عنوان معاقبة قطر وصولاً لإسقاط أميرها أو تطويعه، نتاجاً من نتاجات زيارة الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب للمنطقة، ولكنها ليست بالتأكيد ثمار حملة لمكافحة الإرهاب ووقف تمويله، الذي تتساوى فيه قطر مع شركائها في الخليج، وتتصدره السعودية، وفقاً لتقارير الكونغرس حول مصادر الإرهاب ولخطاب نائب الرئيس السابق جو بايدن أمام جامعة هارفرد، بحيث يمكن القول إن ترصيد خسائر الحرب على سورية يتم توزيعها من الأقوياء في حلف الحرب على الأضعف فالأضعف.

– تستحيل قراءة زيارة ترامب وما جرى فيها بمعزل عن كلام ترامب نفسه حول اعتبار معاقبة قطر من ثمار الزيارة من جهة، وما حصده من مال سعودي من جهة ثانية، فواشنطن حمّلت السعودية رصيد الخليج من الخسائر بمال حمله ترامب عقوداً والتزامات، وفوّضت السعودية بتوزيع نصاب الخسائر بين دول الخليج مالاً ونفوذاً وسياسة، لكن لا يمكن أيضاً قراءة زيارة ترامب خارج سياق وصول ترامب نفسه للرئاسة مستقوياً بخطاب مؤسس على الفشل في حرب سورية، حتى يمكن القول إن ترامب هزم هيلاري كلينتون بقوة هزيمة حزبها في الحرب على سورية، وإدعائه القدرة على إخراج بلاده من هذه الحرب وتخفيف الخسائر وليس الفوز بها.

– مثل ترامب حال الرئيس الفرنسي الجديد إيمانويل ماكرون الذي ينتمي للمعسكر ذاته الذي جاء منه سياسياً الرئيس الأسبق فرانسوا هولاند، لكنه وصل إلى الرئاسة منعاً لوصول منافسين كانوا يزمعون أخذ فرنسا خارج الاتحاد الأوروبي وإلى مواجهة أهلية، بتأثير وتداعيات الحرب على سورية، فكان ماكرون رئيس الوعد بتخفيف الخسائر وليس تحقيق الأرباح، والحاضر الدائم هي الحرب على سورية، التي كانت إدارة هولاند وقبله إدارة نيكولاي ساركوزي شريكاً نشطاً فيها.

– ليس من الغيبيات القول بلعنة سورية تلاحق كل الذين تورطوا في الحرب عليها، فما جرى مع أمير قطر السابق ورئيس وزرائه ليس بعيداً عن نتاج هذه اللعنة، ولا ما أصاب بندر بن سلطان، ولا ما يصيب الرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان، سواء بتأزم علاقته بواشنطن أو بذعره من ولادة كيان كردي على حدوده لن يحول دونه إلا سورية والسوريون، وتكفي نظرة سريعة على الأسماء التي تتالت وتنافست على التطاول على سورية ورئيسها وجيشها وهي تبشّر بقرب سقوط دمشق، وتتحدث عن ايام معدودة، ليضم المشهد مبعوثين أمميين وقادة دول ووزراء خارجية ورؤساء حكومات وملوكاً وأمراء وشيوخاً، ونتساءل عن مصيرهم اليوم لنشهد خروجهم بصورة مهينة من المشهد العام، وليس من الحرب فقط.

– هي لعنة حقيقية تلاحق كل الذين تورطوا في الحرب على سورية، وبمفهوم صناعة التاريخ وقوانينه هي تداعيات الهزيمة في حرب جعل أصحابها تورّطهم فيها مصيرياً ووجودياً، بصورة ترتب على الفشل تداعيات يصعب احتواؤها، ومن الواضح أن أحداً من المتورّطين لن ينجو منها مهما افتعل القرابين لتفادي بئس المصير، كما يفعل السعوديون بالقطريين اليوم، بل الواضح أن المهدّدين بالسقوط بقوة دماء السوريين وعذاباتهم التي تلاحق كل متورط، لن يجدوا حبل نجاة إلا الاعتذار من سورية والتكفير عما ارتكبت أيديهم، وتسديد الفواتير التي ترضي سورية إن كان لا يزال لاسترضائها فرصة.

بالخريطة والتفاصيل:الجيش السوري إلى الحدود العراقية .. نهاية داعش

Image result for ‫لعنة الاسد‬‎
(Visited 4٬949 times, 99 visits today)

انها لعنة العراق فكيف عي لعة سوريا يا واشنطن

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: