The disintegration of NATO and the post-World War system تفكك الناتو ونظام ما بعد الحرب العالمية

 The disintegration of NATO and the post-World War system

أكتوبر 17, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,تفكك الناتو ونظام ما بعد الحرب العالمية

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, Washington decided to expand the NATO to the borders of Russia, but it collided with a solid Russian position that prevented the inclusion of countries which form a backyard to Russia as Ukraine, so it retreated. The retreat has led to redrawing new red lines in the international game. But the war for which Washington has employed tens of the allied countries from inside the NATO and outside it against Syria was an opportunity to turn the international equations in favor of Washington, to besiege Moscow and Beijing, and to alienate them from the Mediterranean Sea, by reaching to their borders from the Islamic Republics in the Central Asia after the Ottoman influence that formed the heart of the US attack starting from Syria has stabilized. The Americans have granted to the ruling organization in Ankara awards and incentives that have been represented by the handover of Ankara the power in Cairo and Tunisia, and by preferring Doha to Riyadh in the Gulf.

The loss of the war in Syria was not only a failure of the project of the US unilateralism in managing the world through the failure in having control on the region which separates the Mediterranean Sea from the borders of China and Russia,  and it was not only an economic failure of the plans of hegemony on the sources of energy and the passages of its pipelines, but the most dangerous failure was the fall of the project of the new Ottoman  which has presented for the first time an answer to the identity in order to cover the US hegemony on the East, that is equal to what was presented by the European Union for the issue of the identity in order to cover the US hegemony on the West. So it was not mere a practical coincidence the decomposition which affected the two vital aspects of the new common identities under the US cover in the West and East. So the fall of the new Ottoman has coincided with the start of the disintegration of the European Union. This has occurred in the center not in the parties, so Turkey the center of the new Ottoman started the repositioning at the same time of the exit of Britain from the European Union as an announcement of the end of the era of the US rise.

The transformations witnessed by the region of the main conflict in Asia in the eastern of the Mediterranean do not allow the cold change to affect Turkey as Britain. The change is happening at skate and it is creating accelerating challenges. The issue of the Kurdish secession in each of Iraq and Syria is one of the consequences resulted from tampering in the central countries in the region, as what Turkey did in favor of the project of the new Ottoman, but the failure of that project and the keeping of its repercussions is the best thing produced for the Americans, so they invested on that, thus the Kurds become more important than Turkey, so the main Turkish concern has become to combat the danger of the emergence of the Kurdish entity on its borders  that threatens its unity. Washington found itself face-to-face with Ankara its first ally, its base, and its important pillar in the wars of domination over the region.

What is going on on the US-Turkish front for the past two years represents an irrevocable diagram of transformations that are greater than the ability of Washington and Ankara to avoid. The opposed positioning is an objective expression of geography and its ruling actors in politics. Thus the NATO becomes something from the past that is unable to react to the present’s challenges. Kurdistan which did not turn into an independent country seems closer to the leader of the NATO from the important original founder member namely Turkey, Turkey the member in NATO finds its closest ally with two countries, one is classified by NATO as a source of the main danger namely Russia and the other is classified by NATO as the main regional enemy namely Iran.

The war of visas between Washington and Ankara is the first one between the leader of the NATO and one of its pillars since the founding of the alliance which seems that it has become from the expired memories and has become a burden of its owners. There are new alliances with new considerations. Therefore the remaining of the post- World War II system is ending with the absence of NATO, which was no longer considered when Ankara two years ago has provoked Moscow and asked the support, but the alliance was dead and waited for its burial.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

تفكك الناتو ونظام ما بعد الحرب العالمية

أكتوبر 10, 2017

ناصر قنديل

تفكك الناتو ونظام ما بعد الحرب العالمية

– بعد تفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي وحلف وارسو، رغبت واشنطن بتوسيع حلف الناتو إلى حدود روسيا، لكنها اصطدمت بموقف روسي صلب، حال دون ضمّ دول تشكل حديقة خلفية لروسيا كحال أوكرانيا، فتراجعت، وشكّل التراجع إعادة رسم للخطوط الحمراء في اللعبة الدولية، وجاءت الحرب التي جنّدت لها واشنطن على سورية عشرات الدول الحليفة داخل الناتو وخارجه، فرصة لقلب المعادلات الدولية لحساب واشنطن، ومحاصرة موسكو وبكين، وإبعادهما عن البحر المتوسط، وبلوغ حدودهما مع الجمهوريات الإسلامية في آسيا الوسطى، بعد استتاب النفوذ العثماني الذي شكّل قلب الهجوم الأميركي، انطلاقاً من سورية. وقد منح الأميركيون للتنظيم الحاكم في أنقرة جوائز وحوافز تمثلت بتسليم أنقرة مقاليد الحكم في القاهرة وتونس، وتمكين الدوحة من التقدّم على مكانة الرياض في الخليج.

– لم تكن خسارة الحرب في سورية فشلاً لمشروع الأحادية الأميركية في إدارة العالم فقط بالفشل في السيطرة على المنطقة التي تفصل البحر المتوسط عن حدود الصين وروسيا، ولا فشلاً اقتصادياً فقط لخطط الهيمنة على منابع الطاقة وممرات أنابيبها، بل الفشل الأخطر كان في سقوط مشروع العثمانية الجديدة، الذي قدّم للمرة الأولى جواباً في الهوية لتغطية الهيمنة الأميركية على الشرق، يعادل ما مثله الاتحاد الأوروبي في الجواب على قضية الهوية لتغطية الهيمنة الأميركية على الغرب، ولم تكن مجرد مصادفة عملية التحلّل التي أصابت المجالين الحيويين للهويّات الجديدة الجامعة تحت المظلة الأميركية، في الغرب والشرق، فتزامن سقوط العثمانية الجديدة وبدء تفكك الاتحاد الأوروبي، وجرى ذلك في القلب وليس في الأطراف، لتبدأ تركيا قلب العثمانية الجديدة بالاستدارة بتوقيت خروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد الأوروبي إيذاناً بنهاية عهد الصعود الأميركي.

– التحوّلات التي تشهدها منطقة الصراع الرئيسية في آسيا شرق المتوسط، لا تتيح تحوّلاً بارداً لتركيا كحال بريطانيا. فالتغيّر يجري على صفيح ساخن ويخلق تحديات متسارعة، وما بروز مسألة الانفصال الكردي على سطح الأحداث في كلّ من العراق وسورية إلا من التداعيات الناتجة عن العبث بالدول المركزية في المنطقة الذي مارسته تركيا لحساب مشروع العثمانية الجديدة. وبفشل المشروع بقيت تداعياته هي أفضل ما أنتجه للأميركيين، فاستثمروا عليها، ليصير الأكراد أهمّ من تركيا قلب المشروع الأصلي، لكن ليصير الهمّ التركي الأول التصدّي لخطر نشوء كيان كردي على حدودها، يهدّد وحدتها، وتجد واشنطن نفسها وجهاً لوجه في تصادم مع أنقرة، حليفها الأول وقاعدتها وركيزتها الوازنة، في حروب السيطرة والهيمنة على المنطقة.

– ما يجري على الجبهة الأميركية التركية منذ سنتين، يمثل خطاً بيانياً لا رجعة فيه، لتحوّلات أكبر من قدرة واشنطن وأنقرة على تلافيها. فالتموضع المتعاكس لهما هو تعبير موضوعي عن الجغرافيا ومفاعيلها الحاكمة في السياسة، وحيث يصير حلف الناتو شيئاً من الماضي الثقيل العاجز عن الإجابة على تحديات الحاضر، فها هي كردستان التي لم تتحوّل دولة مستقلة تبدو أقرب لزعيم الناتو من عضو أصيل مؤسّس وازن هو تركيا، وها هي تركيا العضو في الناتو تجد حليفها الأقرب مع دولتين، واحدة يصنّفها الناتو كمصدر خطر أول هي روسيا، وثانية يصنفها الناتو كعدو إقليمي أول، هي إيران.

– حرب التأشيرات بين واشنطن وأنقرة هي الأولى من نوعها بين زعيم الناتو وأحد أركانه، منذ تأسيس الحلف الذي يبدو أنه من ذكريات انتهت صلاحيتها، وصارت عبئاً على أصحابها، فيما تتبلور تحالفات جديدة بحسابات جديدة، ويغيب آخر بقايا نظام ما بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية، مع غياب الناتو، الذي غاب عن السمع عندما تمادت أنقرة قبل عامين في استفزاز موسكو وطلبت المؤازرة، ليظهر أنّ الحلف قد مات وينتظر مراسم دفنه.

Related Videos

Related Posts

 

Advertisements

Can Russia’s New Role in the Middle East Help Ease Tensions between Tehran and Riyadh

14-10-2017 | 08:30

American logic, recently summed up in a Bloomberg article, blames the Russian military intervention in Syria for decimating the US foreign policy agenda in the Middle East.

Putin Salman

The article, ‘Putin Is Filling the Middle East Power Vacuum’, argues that America’s allies in the region became “disillusioned” when the US military failed to deploy and oust Syria’s President Bashar Al Assad.

“Russia’s clout in the region has grown ‘because Obama allowed it to’,” the article reads.

So the problem is not so much Washington’s foreign policy but the fact that it wasn’t aggressive enough.

According to this logic, a total of 65 fighter jets – the number used by the Russian air force in Syria and one third of its total capacity – was enough to defeat the whole of NATO.

To put such numbers into perspective, one needs to look no further than NATO’s attack on Libya in 2011, when the military alliance used over 200 aircraft – not counting American fighter planes, since Washington refuses to release official figures concerning its participation.

Meanwhile, today’s infamously impotent US-led coalition against Daesh – again, excluding US aircraft – is using at least 105 planes.

As such, contrary to the Bloomberg assertions, the Kremlin’s recent foreign policy successes in the Middle East are not merely the product of bombing raids in Syria. Simply put, Moscow didn’t just outmaneuver the Americans in its ability to properly allocate military recourses, but also in its skillful diplomatic engagements.

Different approaches

The vast potential for Russian diplomacy in the Middle East is best exemplified by the unraveling Iranian nuclear agreement.

As the US opens up new battlefronts with Tehran and its European allies, Moscow is angling for the role of a potential mediator in future talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

While Washington’s elites worked from the shadows, supporting terrorist groups and Kurdish separatists in Iraq and Syria, the Russians expanded their regional role by openly collaborating with legitimate state organs.

These include traditional Russian allies like the government in Damascus, as well as regional powers like Iran. But the Russians also opened up channels with traditional American allies, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

“What the Russians like to do in all regions of the world, and in the Middle East in particular, is establish contacts. They like to talk to everybody,” said the editor-in-chief at theduran.com, Alexander Mercouris.

“They aim to achieve their own national interests to the highest possible degree and they always work – to the extent that they can – to preserve regional stability, which they also see in their interests. So, by keeping dialogue going, by talking to everybody, they feel that they can facilitate these various processes,” he adds.

The Astana trio

Today’s relationship between the Russians and the Turks is a far cry from just a few years ago, when the two were on the brink of war. In fact, Ankara’s relations with Moscow are drastically better than those it has with its decades-long NATO ally, the US.

Not only are Russia and Turkey relying on one another in Syria, but the Russians are also selling the most advanced weapons systems to Ankara. And the Turks are not exactly shy about letting the world know how they plan to use their newly acquired arsenal.

After finalizing the purchase of the Russian-made S-400 surface-to-air missile system in September, Turkey’s state-run news agency Anadolu tweeted an infographic displaying which US planes it could shoot down.

The graphic explains that the system can eliminate such US aircraft as the B-52 and B-1 bombers; the F-15, F-16, and F-22 fighters; as well as surveillance aircraft and Tomahawk missiles.

The Russians reportedly withheld a key system, which allows the rockets to automatically distinguish between friendly and enemy aircraft, ensuring that its own design isn’t used against its fighter jets in the future and that the only planes in the crosshairs of the S-400 are American ones.

Further testifying to just how bad things have gotten between Ankara and Washington is the latest diplomatic spat. Not only has Turkey arrested two of its nationals working in US foreign missions, but the Americans have also suspended visa services in the country.

The collateral consequence of Turkey’s rift with the US and its rapprochement with Russia is a better relationship between Ankara and Tehran.

That partnership was sealed when the Iraqi Kurds – with unofficial American backing and open support from “Israel” – decided to hold an independence referendum.

But it was Russia’s expanding ties with both Iran and Turkey that played a crucial role in establishing trust and a mutually beneficial relationship between Tehran and Ankara.

From working together on the Syrian peace process in Astana – unthinkable just over a year ago – to suppressing Kurdish separatism across the volatile region, the Iranian-Turkish partnership has become the envy of its adversaries.

Both countries recently held joint drills with Iraqi forces, paving the way for direct military cooperation – also unthinkable just last year.

In late August, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that “joint action… is always on the agenda.”

“This issue has been discussed between the two military chiefs, and I discussed more broadly how this should be carried out,” he added.

The house of Al Saud moves to Moscow

This month’s visit by Saudi Arabia’s monarch to Moscow marks the start of what could potentially become the geopolitical shift of the century.

Aside from the expected stories about economic cooperation, King Salman’s trip to the Kremlin also delivered a clear message – and most importantly to Washington.

Opting to join Ankara in becoming another US ally to buy the Russian S-400, the Saudis also secured a license for manufacturing assault rifles from the Kalashnikov family.

However, unlike the Turks, who were motivated to turn to the Russian military industry by their growing list of disagreements with the US and NATO, as well as financial issues, Riyadh doesn’t share any of those problems.

Saudi Arabia’s motives are purely strategic – a search for military autonomy from the increasingly unstable Washington clique.

Speaking at a news briefing after a meeting with his Russian counterpart, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir claimed that Riyadh and Moscow believe in the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs.

Despite the fact that this claim is a blatant lie given Riyadh’s support for Wahhabi terrorism that destroyed a number of countries, its obvious allusion to Washington suggests that the Saudis are distancing themselves from the shrinking US geopolitical sphere.

Thus, the leadership in Riyadh may be looking to follow in Erdogan’s footsteps in more ways than one.

Shortly after Salman departed from Moscow, Russia felt comfortable enough to offer its services as a mediator between Tehran and Riyadh.

Needless to say, bringing the Iranians and the Saudis together would be a monumental undertaking, plagued by existing suspicions and the clearly defined ideological differences dating back decades.

It is not logical to assume that Iran and Saudi Arabia can suddenly become partners or that the Russians will enjoy the same degree of success that they had when acting as a bridge between Tehran and Ankara. But at the very least, Moscow’s mediation may insure that the two do not live in a constant state of tension.

“[Russia] is trying to harmonize and approximate the differences between many players,” said Nabil Mikhail, a professor at the George Washington University. “Increasingly Russia is being trusted more than America, and it can play the role of some sort of an arbitrator, working to narrow the differences amid very thorny issues in the region.”

The same way that Ankara’s improving relations with Tehran and Moscow helped to pacify Syria, Riyadh’s decision to come to the negotiating table would pave the way for an end to the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen as well as Saudi Arabia’s rift with Qatar.

These diplomatic maneuvers represent the biggest threat to American-fueled chaos in the region and a far greater concern in Washington than the 65 Russian jets bombing terrorists in Syria.

Source: Al-Ahed News

Related Articles

US Quietly Bolsters Forces in Poland Breaching Russia-NATO Deal

Source

US Quietly Bolsters Forces in Poland Breaching Russia-NATO Deal

The US took advantage of the ballyhoo raised over the “Russian threat” allegedly posed by joint Russian-Belarusian Zapad-2017 military exercise held in September to increase its Army presence in Poland. The alliance again tried to reaffirm its bogus Russia narrative but the Zapad training event was transparent with observers invited and the forces withdrawn to home bases after it was over.According to Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov, the US 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, was meant to have rotated out of Europe with its weapons and equipment left to be manned by troops of the US 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division. Instead, the 2nd Armored Brigade had been quietly deployed to Poland (Boleslawiec, Drawsko Pomorskie, Torun, Skwierzyna, Zagan) with its own armored vehicles, while weaponry and equipment of the 3rd Brigade had remained and could be manned within 2 hours by bringing in troops from the US Ramstein Base in Germany. An armored brigade combat team comprises about 4,200 troops and includes approximately 250 tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Paladin self-propelled howitzers, plus 1,750 wheeled vehicles.

The move was taken against certain background. NATO has already deployed four multinational battalions across Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. In a separate move, the US military sent the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team along with a corresponding aviation brigade, to Gdansk on a year-round basis in September. It was the first time two armored brigades with full complement of soldiers and equipment were deployed in Europe under the pretext of supporting the exercise dubbed Operation Atlantic Resolve.

The argument that the rotating forces are deployed on temporary basis holds no water. Rotation of units does not make the presence less permanent. There is always a force of a given size in place.

In accordance with the European Reassurance Initiative, the US Army is reopening or creating five equipment-storage sites in the Netherlands, Poland, Belgium and two locations in Germany. The Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) will be sufficient for another armored brigade to fall in on. The rotating brigade will bring its own equipment. The move will add hundreds of the Army’s most advanced weapons systems to beef up the US European Command’s combat capability. It will also free up an entire brigade’s worth of weapons currently being used by US forces training on the continent to enable more American troops to be rushed in on short notice.

NATO is pushing ahead with its military «Schengen zone» in Europe to do away with travel restrictions on the movement of NATO forces and equipment across Europe. There will be no need to ask for permissions while crossing national borders. The sovereignty of member states will be reduced to facilitate cross-continent operations.

The Scandinavian Peninsula is being militarized. Last summer, NATO forces were allowed for the first time ever to train on the territory of Finland (the coastal area at Syndale) during BALTOPS NATO drills. In September, Sweden hosted Aurora-2017 – its largest joint military exercise with NATO in 20 years. It was held across the entire country but focusing on the Mälardalen Valley, the areas around cities of Stockholm and Gothenberg and on the strategic island of Gotland.

330 US Marines are deployed to Norway’s Værnes military base near Trondheim to bolster the readiness of new pre-positioned tanks and weaponry stored throughout the year in underground caves. Værnes lies about 1,000 kilometres (600 miles) from the Russian-Norwegian frontier. The unit can be easily reinforced. The only purpose for the deployment is preparation for an attack against Russia. After all, the Marines Corps is the first strike force. And it’s not Russian Marines being deployed near US national borders, but US Marines deployed in the proximity of Russia. They are using Cold War-era Norwegian caves to store new tanks, artillery and other military equipment to ramp up their presence. Norway plans to have over 50 US-produced F-35 stealth warplanes in 2019. It will give it the capability to strike deep into the Russian territory.

Logistics infrastructure for offensive operations is being beefed up. US European Command Chief Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti is planning for an expanded military presence in Europe to eventually include a full US Army division. It’s not NATO members only. Ukraine hosts US military to be permanently stationed on its soil. Sweden and Finland, non-NATO states, allow NATO forces to exercise on their national territories.

NATO has increased its naval and air patrols in the Black sea. A multinational brigade is deployed in Romania. The unit is intended to facilitate the deployment of reinforcements. The US military base in Bulgarian Novo Selo hosts American and NATO troops. The facility can hold as many as 5,000 servicemen during exercises. US heavy tanks are expected to be stationed there.

Georgia and Ukraine are fully involved in the plans. Romania hosts a ballistic missile defense (BMD) site with the plans underway to have another operational Aegis Ashore BMD system deployed in Poland next year. Aegis Ashore uses the Mk-41 launcher capable of firing Tomahawk long-range precision-guided missiles against land assets in violation of the INF Treaty.

The quiet deployment of the additional US brigade, as well as other development described above, constitutes a fragrant breach of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. By signing the document NATO pledged not to seek “additional permanent stationing of substantial ground combat forces» in the nations closer to Russia «in the current and foreseeable security environment». Signed 20 years ago, the agreement appears all but dead amid the alliance’s unprecedented push to beef up its military presence near Russia’s borders.

Russia notified in advance about Zapad-2017 exercise and made a good will gesture inviting together with Belarus observers from NATO states, though it did not have to. According to the Vienna Document, the move is unnecessary if the number of troops participating in the exercise does not exceed 13,000. The Russian forces went back. Unlike Russia, the US used NATO exercises as a pretext to substantially expand its military foothold in Eastern Europe. This deployment is a part of large-scale effort to boost NATO permanent military presence near the Russia’s borders in the largest build-up since the Cold War. The policy is highly provocative and destabilizing. These war preparations greatly reduce European security and the chances for revival of constructive dialogue between Russia and the alliance. There is only one explanation for the fact – the bloc is preparing for an aggression and Russia has to take steps to defend itself. Tensions are running high and an arms race is provoked but it was not Moscow who started it.

How to Become NATO Secretary-General-Aspirants must be willing to swear allegiance to Washington’s imperial agenda, its wars of aggression

How to Become NATO Secretary-General

by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)

Aspirants must be willing to swear allegiance to Washington’s imperial agenda, its wars of aggression, its rape and destruction of one country after another – on the phony pretexts of democracy building and humanitarian intervention.

They must abandon their morals, ethics, and integrity, willingly ignore international laws, norms and standards, as well as stay silent about horrific crimes of war, against humanity and genocide – committed by US-led NATO member states, blaming victimized countries for alliance crimes.

They must bash Russia about everything, claim America stands for democratic rights it abhors. Lying must come easy for them, truth-telling on vital geopolitical issues a disqualifier.

Jens Stoltenberg, like his predecessors, passed the test, a willing imperial stooge, doing America’s bidding, dutifully following orders, his speeches covering what Washington wants him to say – on Monday in Bucharest, Romania.

“NATO is an alliance that keeps its promises,” he roared, none positive, all destructive, he failed to explain.

“We are adapting to the new security challenges we face.” Threats Stoltenberg cited don’t exist nor so-called “challenges.”

“Our deployments are a direct response to Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine. NATO’s actions are defensive, proportionate and entirely in line with our international commitments.”

“We are concerned by Russia’s military build-up close to our borders. And its lack of transparency when it comes to military exercises such as ZAPAD 2017.”

Fact: Stoltenberg is a liar like other Western officials, notably when it comes to Russia and blaming victimized countries for NATO’s high crimes.

Fact: The whole world knows no Russian “aggressive actions” occurred in Ukraine, none ongoing or planned.

Stoltenberg: “We continue to call on Russia to abide by its international commitments. We do not want to isolate Russia. NATO does not want a new Cold War.”

“Our actions are designed to prevent, not provoke conflict. And we are committed to transparency and predictability, which are in everybody’s interest.”

Fact: NATO is a killing machine, waging war on humanity.

Fact: Russia supports world peace and stability, mutual cooperation among all nations, and strict observance of international laws.

Fact: NATO’s agenda is polar opposite, addicted to war, waging them endlessly in multiple theaters.

Stoltenberg: “NATO has played a role in the fight against terrorism for many years.”

Fact: US-dominated NATO is humanity’s greatest threat, supporting terrorism, not combating it, risking eventual nuclear confrontation.

Stoltenberg: “The situation in Afghanistan is challenging. We all understand the cost of staying in Afghanistan. The human cost and the financial cost.”

“But the cost of walking away would be much higher. If NATO leaves too soon, we risk Afghanistan returning to a state of chaos. A safe haven for international terrorism.”

“The last time that happened then it led to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.”

Fact: Stoltenberg must think listeners to his address are morons, ignorant of what’s going on.

Fact: Afghanistan is a colossal mess, violent and chaotic, US-led NATO to blame for waging naked aggression on the country.

Fact: The terrorist threat is headquartered in Washington and other NATO capitals – 9/11 the mother of all false flags, state-sponsored by Washington.

Fact: As long as US-led NATO remains, Afghans will never be free.

Fact: Waging endless war and occupying the country has nothing to do with combating terrorism, everything to do with imperial aims discussed at length in earlier articles.

Stoltenberg: “The Alliance is now a full member of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.”

Fact: The alliance supports ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Stoltenberg: “ISIS is losing ground. And they are on the run.”

Fact: No thanks to NATO trying to prevent it, providing its fighters with weapons, munitions and other material support. Russia deserves full credit for smashing this scourge in Syria.

Stolenberg: “(W)e are working hard throughout the alliance to make our societies more resilient to attack.”

Fact: The only security threat nations face comes from US-dominated NATO. As long as the alliance exists, world peace is unattainable. Washington won’t permit it.

NATO’s so-called “collective defense” is solely for offensive, naked aggression against targeted countries.

It’s how imperialism works, smashing countries for power and profit, no matter the human toll – Stoltenberg a front man for Washington’s destructive agenda

تحوّلات الميدان السوري ورقصة أردوغان على حبال موسكو وطهران

سبتمبر 16, 2017 أولى

محمد صادق الحسيني

لم يتحوّل بعد حملاً وديعاً وهو الذي يُخفي الكثير من أوراقه في ظهر الغيب الأميركي..!

لكنه يبقى صاحب رقصة الهيلاهوب الشهيرة منذ انقلاب المشهدين الإقليمي والدولي على مشروعه الحلم

بإعادة إنتاج عثمانية جديدة..!

وحتى يكتب الله له أمراً كان مفعولاً فإنّ خطوط سياسته الخارجية العريضة هي التالية:

أولاً: كما كان هدف السياسة الخارجية التركية، عند بداية مرحلة الفوضى الصهيوأميركية في المنطقة العربية، يتمثل في مشروعهم القاضي إلى تحويل تركيا دولة اقليمية ذات تأثير استراتيجي في السياسات الدولية، فإنّ الهدف لا يزال هو نفسه ولم يطرأ عليه أيّ تغيير جوهري وما تغيّر هو الوسائل والأدوات، التي يعتقد الساسة الأتراك وعلى رأسهم الثعلب المراوغ أردوغان أنها تحقق لهم أهدافهم بشكل أفضل.

أيّ انّ جوهر السياسة التركية لا يزال على حاله.

ثانياً: أما السبب الرئيس في ما نشهده من تحوّلات اضطرارية في السياسة الخارجية التركية، إنما يعود الى قناعة أردوغان بوصول مشروع سيده الأميركي، في المنطقة العربية بشكل عام وفي سورية بشكل خاص، ليس فقط الى طريق مسدود وإنما الى الانهيار الشامل نتيجة لإنجازات محور المقاومة البطولية في مواجهته.

ثالثاً: توصل أردوغان وحزبه الى قناعة مفادها انّ الاستمرار في سياسة المواجهة المفتوحة مع محور المقاومة المنتصر تكتيكياً واستراتيجياً لن تقود الى أية نتيجة ولا تحمل أيّ فرص لتكريس دور تركيا كدولة محورية في خدمة مصالح الدول الاستعمارية وحلفها العدواني المسمّى بالناتو، خاصة بعد توقيع الاتفاق النووي الإيراني والانتصارات الواسعة التي حققتها قوات الحلف على مدار العامين الماضيين.

رابعاً: ومن بين الأسباب التي أدّت الى ما نشهده في المتغيّرات المتلاحقة في سياسة تركيا الخارجية هي الهزائم المتلاحقة والسريعة التي يشهدها داعش في الميدان العراقي والسوري بشكل لافت، وشروع الدوائر الصهيوأميركية في تنفيذ مشروعها الجديد لاستنزاف محور المقاومة ومعه روسيا، وذلك من خلال نقل المعركة مع الظهير القوي للحلف، أيّ إلى حدود الجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية، وذلك من خلال إقامة كيان معادٍ لحلف المقاومة وصديق للعدو الصهيوني في كردستان العراق وشبه دولة في شمال سورية ما سيشكل عملياً تهديداً وجودياً للدولة التركية.

خامساً: كما أنّ من بين الأسباب، التي قادت الساسة الأتراك إلى إحداث المتغيّرات التي نلاحظها في سياسة تركيا الخارجية، الخلافات التي تشهد تصاعداً مستمراً بين الاتحاد الأوروبي وتركيا واستحالة حصول أيّ تقدّم في موضوع انضمام تركيا الى الاتحاد الأوروبي وكذلك الموقف الأميركي الداعم لأكراد الشمال السوري حتى وإنْ اعلن خلاف ذلك.

أيّ خشية تركيا من تحوّل شمال العراق وسورية الى قاعدة تدريب وإمداد وتزويد لقوات حزب العمال الكردستاني التي تقاتل الجيش التركي منذ عقود وتعتبرها أنقرة التحدي الأكبر.

سادساً: وفي ظلّ العوامل المشار اليها أعلاه، وفي ظلّ التعاظم المستمرّ للدور الإيراني في المنطقة والعالم، ذلك الدور، الذي يعتبره أردوغان ثاني أكبر منافس لدور تركيا بعد الدور الروسي، وغير ذلك من العوامل فقد اتجهت السياسات التركية إلى البحث عن سبل لفك العزلة التي بدأت تعاني منها، خاصة في السنتين الحاليّة والماضية. إذ قام الرئيس التركي بإعادة ربط ما قطعه من علاقات مع روسيا وأرسل رئيس وزرائه الى بغداد وأبدى مرونة كبيرة في التعامل مع موضوع الوجود العسكري التركي في شمال العراق، كما بدأ التنسيق مع كلّ من روسيا وإيران في الموضوع السوري باتجاه الموافقه على السيناريوات الروسية الإيرانية المتعلقة بالحلّ في سورية، رغم كونها متطابقة مع توجهات الدولة السورية ورئيسها الذي بقي صامداً بوجه كلّ مشاريع الحرب العالمية المتوحشة ضدّ محور المقاومة منذ العام 2011.

سابعاً: وضمن محاولات الرئيس التركي الرامية الى إيجاد دور سياسي إضافي لتركيا في التعامل مع أزمات المنطقة أقدم على خطوة لتعزيز الانطباع لدى الجهات المعنية، الروسية والإيرانية والأميركية والأوروبية، بأنّ تركيا تتخذ خطوات ذات بعد استراتيجي ستقودها إلى الانفكاك من عبوديتها لحلف الناتو من خلال التوجه شرقاً سياسياً وعسكرياً.

من هنا كانت خطوة قيامها بتوقيع اتفاقية شراء عدد من بطاريات الصواريخ المضادة للطائرات من طراز أس 400، كما حاولت الحصول على امتياز لإنتاج هذا السلاح في تركيا غير أنّ الحكومة الروسية رفضت هذا الاقتراح لأسباب عديدة.

ثامناً: في هذه الأثناء فإنّ متابعين جدّيين يعتقدون بأنّ الظروف الموضوعية والذاتية لأردوغان ولتركيا كدولة لا تساعد على حدوث تغييرات جذرية في الاستراتيجية التركية. وذلك لأنّ الوضعين السياسي والاقتصادي للدولة التركية لا يسمحان لأردوغان بفكّ ارتباطه بالغرب والتوجه شرقاً بشكل قاطع وفاضح. وهذا ما يعرفه الرئيس التركي جيداً.

وعليه فإننا نرى في صفقة أس 400 ليس أكثر من مناورة نجح أردوغان من خلالها في الحصول على سلاح روسي متطوّر لن يستعمل قطعاً في إسقاط الطائرات الأميركية او «الإسرائيلية»، وإنما في إسقاط الطائرات الإيرانية او منعها من إحداث تفوّق نوعي عليه في حال حدوث أيّ نزاع مسلح مع جارته اللدودة في المستقبل. آخذين بعين الاعتبار بأنّ تركيا ترى في إيران منافساً خطراً في المنطقة العربية على الرغم من حالة الاستقطاب والعداء التي تفتعلها الأنظمة العربية العميلة ضدّ إيران.

وما يؤكد هذه المعلومات هو قرار أردوغان بعدم دمج منظومات أس 400 في أنظمة الدفاع الجوي التابعة لحلف الناتو في تركيا. أيّ الاحتفاظ بحق استخدام هذه الأنظمة للدولة التركية فقط. ما يعني أنّ هذه الخطوة ليست إلا جزءاً من الاستعدادات الأردوغانية لأيّ مواجهة مع إيران.

تاسعاً: لذلك فإننا نقول إنّ التوجهات الجديدة في سياسات أردوغان تجاه الازمة السورية، والتي من بينها توافقه مع الجانب الروسي والإيراني على إيجاد صيغة مناسبة لحلّ مشكلة إدلب، وإخراج القوات التركية من الشمال السوري، عند نقطة ما في مسار معالجة الأزمة السورية، وتسليم مناطق الشمال كافة للجيش السوري، ليست سوى إجراءات اضطر للموافقة عليها لإبعاد خطر ارتدادات هزيمة داعش على الداخل التركي. وبالتالي هي ليست نتيجة تغيّر استراتيجي في الأهداف التركية.

سيستمرّ أردوغان في المناورة حتى يتأكد من مدى عمق التغيّر في السياسة الخارجية الاميركية، وفيما إذا كانت هجرة المغامر الأميركي الى بحر الصين ماضية قدماً، وانّ الاهتمام الاميركي بـ «الشرق الأوسط «سيتراجع بالفعل مما يعزز الدور الروسي في هذا الجزء من العالم ام لا؟

فإذا ما تأكدت حقيقة الرحيل الأميركي شرقاً، فإنّ سياسات أردوغان قد تشهد إعادة تقييم استراتيجي بهدف وضع الأسس لتعميق شراكة تركيا مع دول الحلف المعادي للاستعمار من خلال منظمة شنغهاي للتعاون، ومن خلال تعميق التنسيق العسكري مع روسيا في محطات عدة.

وعندها سنرى ما إذا كان سيد البيت الأبيض سيتحمّل أردوغان أو سيقرّر التخلص منه واستبداله بمن هو أقدر على صيانة الأمانة – الناتو.

بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله…

مقالات مشابهة

Is a New ‘Kosovo’ Brewing in Myanmar?

Is a New ‘Kosovo’ Brewing in Myanmar?

JAMES GEORGE JATRAS | 08.09.2017 | OPINION

Is a New ‘Kosovo’ Brewing in Myanmar?

Whenever western governments and mainstream media start shedding crocodile tears over a minority community of «peaceful Muslims»© being persecuted by some nasty non-Muslim government somewhere, with demands that the «international community» do something about it, it should be treated with a big, fat dollop of skepticism.

At issue at the moment are the Rohingya, approximately one million of whom constitute a large minority in Rakhine (formerly Arakan) state in Myanmar (formerly Burma). According to reports in the prestige media and from (government-funded) human rights groups, Myanmar’s government is oppressing the Rohingya, many of whom have fled next door into predominantly Muslim Bangladesh.

We are told that the Rohingya, «often described as ‘the world’s most persecuted minority’» at the hands of Rakhine Buddhists incited by fanatical monks backed up by the national government, are facing genocide and ethnic cleansing. The international community must do something! Where’s Samantha «the Genocide Chick» Power when we need her?

If all this sounds familiar, it is. Almost word-for-word the foregoing could describe the western official and media narrative of the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija in the late 1990s. Just replace «Rohingya Muslims» with «Albanian Muslims», «Rakhine» with «Serb», «Theravada Buddhist» with «Orthodox Christian».

Of course the Kosovo official narrative was, and remains, almost a total perversion of the truth. In the late 1990s, western intelligence services and their friends in the Islamic world, notably Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, as well as al-Qaeda-linked Islamic «charities», pumped weapons into Kosovo to support armed terrorist groups known as the «Kosovo Liberation Army» (KLA). Headed by kingpins in the Albanian mafia, the KLA attacked Serbian officials and civilians, as well as murdered insufficiently militant Albanians, in a bid to invite a government crackdown which would serve as a pretext for intervention by the international community, meaning the U.S. and NATO, to stop a fictional Serbian genocide of Albanians. As I noted in an August 1998 U.S. Senate report months before supposed massacre that «justified» the NATO attack on Serbia, military action had already been decided upon and awaited only a suitable «trigger»:

«As of this writing, planning for a U.S.-led NATO intervention in Kosovo is now largely in place, while the Clinton Administration’s apparent willingness to intervene has ebbed and flowed on an almost weekly basis. The only missing element appears to be an event – with suitably vivid media coverage – that would make intervention politically salable, even imperative, in the same way that a dithering Administration finally decided on intervention in Bosnia in 1995 after a series of ‘Serb mortar attacks’ took the lives of dozens of civilians – attacks, which, upon closer examination, may in fact have been the work of the Muslim regime in Sarajevo, the main beneficiary of the intervention. [For details, primarily reports from European media, see RPC’s ‘Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base,’ 1/16/97] That the Administration is waiting for a similar ‘trigger’ in Kosovo is increasingly obvious: ‘A senior U.S. Defense Department official who briefed reporters on July 15 noted that «we’re not anywhere near making a decision for any kind of armed intervention in Kosovo right now». He listed only one thing that might trigger a policy change: «I think if some levels of atrocities were reached that would be intolerable, that would probably be a trigger»’ [Washington Post, 8/4/98]. The recent conflicting reports regarding a purported mass grave containing (depending on the report) hundreds of murdered Albanian civilians or dozens of KLA fighters killed in battle should be seen in this light». [from ‘Bosnia II: The Clinton Administration Sets Course for NATO Intervention in Kosovo,’ August 1998]

To note the similarities between official and media about the Rohingya in 2017 and «Kosovars» in 1998-99 is not to say that armed outside intervention against Myanmar is imminent or even in the cards. Nor does it disprove the claim that the Rohingya, or some of them, may indeed be suffering persecution. It is only to suggest that when the usual manipulators in the media and the self-appointed international community get on their genocide high horse, caution is in order. It needs to be asked, what is the other side of the story?

For example, as analyzed by Moon of Alabama:

«Media attention is directed to some minor ethnic violence in Myanmar, the former Burma. The story in the ‘western’ press is of Muslim Rohingya unfairly vilified, chased out and killed by Buddhist mobs and the army in the state of Rakhine near the border to Bangladesh. The ‘liberal’ human interventionists like Human Rights Watch are united with Islamists like Turkey’s President Erdogan in loudly lamenting the plight of the Rohingya.

«That curious alliance also occurred during the wars on Libya and Syria. [JGJ: And in Kosovo.] It is by now a warning sign. Could there be more behind this than some local conflict in Myanmar? Is someone stoking a fire?

«Indeed.

«While the ethnic conflict in Rakhine state is very old, it has over the last years morphed into a Jihadist guerilla war financed and led from Saudi Arabia. The area is of geo-strategic interest:

‘Rakhine plays an important part in [the Chinese One Belt One Road Initiative] OBOR, as it is an exit to Indian Ocean and the location of planned billion-dollar Chinese projects—a planned economic zone on Ramree Island, and the Kyaukphyu deep-sea port, which has oil and natural gas pipelines linked with Yunnan Province’s Kunming.’

«Pipelines from the western coast of Myanmar eastwards to China allow hydrocarbon imports from the Persian Gulf to China while avoiding the bottleneck of the Strait of Malacca and disputed parts of the South China Sea.

«It is in ‘Western interest’ to hinder China’s projects in Myanmar. Inciting Jihad in Rakhine could help to achieve that. … A clearly Islamist insurgency was build up in the area. It acts under the name Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and is led by Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, a Jihadist from Pakistan. (ARSA earlier operated under the name Harakah al-Yakin, or Faith Movement.) Ataullah was born into the large Rohingya community of Karachi, Pakistan. … Reuters noted in late 2016 that the Jihadist group is trained, led and financed through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia:

‘A group of Rohingya Muslims that attacked Myanmar border guards in October is headed by people with links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said on Thursday, citing members of the group. … «Though not confirmed, there are indications [Ataullah] went to Pakistan and possibly elsewhere, and that he received practical training in modern guerrilla warfare», the group said. It noted that Ata Ullah was one of 20 Rohingya from Saudi Arabia leading the group’s operations in Rakhine State. Separately, a committee of 20 senior Rohingya emigres oversees the group, which has headquarters in Mecca, the ICG said.’

«The ARSA Jihadists claim to only attack government forces but civilian Arakanese Buddhists have also been ambushed and massacred. Buddhist hamlets were also burned down».

Finally, it needs to be noted that showing sympathy for Muslim victims, real or fake, has several attractions for western governments and media:

  • It pleases western elites’ friends in Riyadh, Ankara, Islamabad, etc., to see effete post-Christians take the Muslim side in a way none of them would ever stick up for Christians. How nice to see how weak, corrupt, and cowardly the unbelievers are! (How many protests did we hear from our Saudi, Turkish, Pakistani, and other supposed friends about the suffering of Christians in Syria and Iraq at the hands of al-Qaeda and Daesh? For that matter, how much did we hear about it from western governments? When have western governments and media ever demanded that the so-called international community «do something» to save a non-Muslim population – anywhere?)
  • It allows western elites to scrub away the suspicion that somewhere, somehow any hint of concern about Islamic terrorism or Muslim mass migration into Europe is evidence of «racism» and «Islamophobia». Championing persecuted Muslims like the Rohingya and Kosovo Albanians shows the west harbors no such biases.
  • Perhaps most importantly, standing up for allegedly persecuted Muslim minorities allows western governments and media to deflect any blame for the hundreds of thousands – in all likelihood millions – of Muslims killed in the process of «democracy promotion» in majority Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and other places, or the many more who would be killed in the process of «bringing freedom» to Iran. Sure, many non-Muslims have also been killed in these noble humanitarian efforts, but their deaths are not politically actionable – no government or terrorist movement will threaten retribution.

Afghans Fear US Army, NATO Operations More Than the Taliban

Source

On Wednesday, 12 civilians were killed and 16 wounded in American airstrikes in Afghanistan’s eastern province Logar. Afghan politicians commented to Sputnik Afghanistan on the issue, noting that civilians fear US army and NATO operations more that the Taliban.

On Wednesday, 12 civilians were killed and 16 wounded in an American airstrike in Dasht-e-Bari, an area of the city Pul-e-Alam, the capital of Logar province, according to Afghan broadcaster 1TV.

US media also reported on the incident, saying that 11 civilians were killed, including eight women.

The Afghan and American forces apparently came under fire from the Taliban while an American helicopter attempted to make a “precautionary landing because of a maintenance issue,” The New York Times quotes Capt. Bill Salvin, a spokesman for the United States military in Afghanistan, as saying.The allied forces have called for air support and another aircraft bombed the house from where militants allegedly fired at the helicopter.

“Three families were living in the house which was bombed; 11 people, including eight women, were killed,” the newspaper quotes Hawas Khan Kochai, a resident of the Dasht e Bari area, as saying by phone.

“We recovered all the bodies with an excavator after several hours, but two children are still missing,” he added.

The incident comes days after 13 civilians were killed in an air raid in the western province of Herat.

Haji Ullah Gol Mujahid, a military expert and member of the Afghan parliament from Kabul province, commented to Sputnik Afghanistan on the incident, saying that Afghan civilians fear the US army more than the Taliban.

“After the defeat of the Taliban, Afghan people did not want the war to continue, but it was still going on because of the US operations in the country: they have been breaking into houses, bombing settlements and even striking weddings and have been blaming it on the Taliban,” he told Sputnik.

The politician further recalled that 150 civilians have been killed in Nangarhar province, while similar incidents happened in Helmand province.

“Nobody wants the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan. The Afghans have not seen anything good from the Americans and they don’t want them staying on their land any longer,” he concluded.

Obaid Kabir, one of the leaders of the Afghanistan Solidarity Party, told Sputnik that his home country is now “in the mill, stuck between three millstones.””This is all being done by American occupiers, their allies, the puppet government in Kabul, the Taliban and Daesh,” he told Sputnik.

The Taliban, he said, is the brainchild of the US and Pakistani intelligence, thus it will only continue to strengthen.  The movement, he said, has now found other patrons. However Afghan residents see no difference between the US and the Taliban: all of them eat out of the same dish, and ordinary Afghans are left to suffer.

A recent report of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) recorded a 43 percent increase in civilian casualties from aerial operations during the first six months of 2017 compared to the same period in 2016, documenting 232 civilian casualties (95 deaths and 137 injured), with substantial increases in deaths among women and children

%d bloggers like this: