There is particular danger at the moment that powerful political alignments in the United States are pushing strongly to exacerbate the developing crisis with Russia. The New York Times, which broke the story that the Kremlin had been paying the Afghan Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers, has been particularly assiduous in promoting the tale of perfidious Moscow. Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by delusional nonsense from former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks “Why does Trump put Russia first?” before calling for a “swift and significant U.S. response.” Rice, who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice President, certainly knows about swift and significant as she was one of the architects of the destruction of Libya and the escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations directed against a non-threatening Syria.
The Times is also titillating with the tale of a low level drug smuggling Pashto businessman who seemed to have a lot of cash in dollars lying around, ignoring the fact that Afghanistan is awash with dollars and has been for years. Many of the dollars come from drug deals, as Afghanistan is now the world’s number one producer of opium and its byproducts.
The cash must be Russian sourced, per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. The Times also cites anonymous sources which allege that there were money transfers from an account managed by the Kremlin’s GRU military intelligence to an account opened by the Taliban. Note the “alleged” and consider for a minute that it would be stupid for any intelligence agency to make bank-to-bank transfers, which could be identified and tracked by the clever lads at the U.S. Treasury and NSA. Also try to recall how not so long ago we heard fabricated tales about threatening WMDs to justify war. Perhaps the story would be more convincing if a chain of custody could be established that included checks drawn on the Moscow-Narodny Bank and there just might be a crafty neocon hidden somewhere in the U.S. intelligence community who is right now faking up that sort of evidence.
Other reliably Democratic Party leaning news outlets, to include CNN, MSNBC and The Washington Post all jumped on the bounty story, adding details from their presumably inexhaustible supply of anonymous sources. As Scott Horton observedthe media was reporting a “fact” that there was a rumor.
Inevitably the Democratic Party leadership abandoned its Ghanaian kente cloth scarves, got up off their knees, and hopped immediately on to their favorite horse, which is to claim loudly and in unison that when in doubt Russia did it. Joe Biden in particular is “disgusted” by a “betrayal” of American troops due to Trump’s insistence on maintaining “an embarrassing campaign of deferring and debasing himself before Putin.”
The Dems were joined in their outrage by some Republican lawmakers who were equally incensed but are advocating delaying punishing Russia until all the facts are known. Meanwhile, the “circumstantial details” are being invented to make the original tale more credible, including crediting the Afghan operation to a secret Russian GRU Army intelligence unit that allegedly was also behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury England in 2018.
Reportedly the Pentagon is looking into the circumstances around the deaths of three American soldiers by roadside bomb on April 8, 2019 to determine a possible connection to the NYT report. There are also concerns relating to several deaths in training where Afghan Army recruits turned on their instructors. As the Taliban would hardly need an incentive to kill Americans and as only seventeen U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2019 as a result of hostile action, the year that the intelligence allegedly relates to, one might well describe any joint Taliban-Russian initiative as a bit of a failure since nearly all of those deaths have been attributed to kinetic activity initiated by U.S. forces.
The actual game that is in play is, of course, all about Donald Trump and the November election. It is being claimed that the president was briefed on the intelligence but did nothing. Trump denied being verbally briefed due to the fact that the information had not been verified. For once America’s Chief Executive spoke the truth, confirmed by the “intelligence community,” but that did not stop the media from implying that the disconnect had been caused by Trump himself. He reportedly does not read the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), where such a speculative piece might indeed appear on a back page, and is uninterested in intelligence assessments that contradict what he chooses to believe. The Democrats are suggesting that Trump is too stupid and even too disinterested to be president of the United States so they are seeking to replace him with a corrupt 78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.
The Democratic Party cannot let Russia go because they see it as their key to future success and also as an explanation for their dramatic failure in 2016 which in no way holds them responsible for their ineptness. One does not expect the House Intelligence Committee, currently headed by the wily Adam Schiff, to actually know anything about intelligence and how it is collected and analyzed, but the politicization of the product is certainly something that Schiff and his colleagues know full well how to manipulate. One only has to recall the Russiagate Mueller Commission investigation and Schiff’s later role in cooking the witnesses that were produced in the subsequent Trump impeachment hearings.
Schiff predictably opened up on Trump in the wake of the NYT report, saying “I find it inexplicable in light of these very public allegations that the president hasn’t come before the country and assured the American people that he will get to the bottom of whether Russia is putting bounties on American troops and that he will do everything in his power to make sure that we protect American troops.”
Schiff and company should know, but clearly do not, that at the ground floor level there is a lot of lying, cheating and stealing around intelligence collection. Most foreign agents do it for the money and quickly learn that embroidering the information that is being provided to their case officer might ultimately produce more cash. Every day the U.S. intelligence community produces thousands of intelligence reports from those presumed “sources with access,” which then have to be assessed by analysts. Much of the information reported is either completely false or cleverly fabricated to mix actual verified intelligence with speculation and out and out lies to make the package more attractive. The tale of the Russian payment of bribes to the Taliban for killing Americans is precisely the kind of information that stinks to high heaven because it doesn’t even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and the New York Times. For what it’s worth, a number of former genuine intelligence officers including Paul Pillar, John Kiriakou, Scott Ritter, and Ray McGovern have looked at the evidence so far presented and have walked away unimpressed. The National Security Agency (NSA) has also declined to confirm the story, meaning that there is no electronic trail to validate it.
Finally, there is more than a bit of the old hypocrisy at work in the damnation of the Russians even if they have actually been involved in an improbable operation with the Taliban. One recalls that in the 1970s and 1980s the United States supported the mujahideen rebels fighting against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The assistance consisted of weapons, training, political support and intelligence used to locate, target and kill Soviet soldiers. Stinger missiles were provided to bring down helicopters carrying the Russian troops. The support was pretty much provided openly and was even boasted about, unlike what is currently being alleged about the Russian assistance. The Soviets were fighting to maintain a secular regime that was closely allied to Moscow while the mujahideen later morphed into al-Qaeda and the Islamist militant Taliban subsequently took over the country, meaning that the U.S. effort was delusional from the start.
So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a “defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated incompetence of Donald Trump. The end result could be to secure the election of a pliable Establishment flunky Joe Biden as president of the United States. How that will turn out is unpredictable, but America’s experience of its presidents since 9/11 has not been very encouraging.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Ever since the Russian election interference in 2016, the New York Times has been blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin for the new Cold War with the United States. On July 2, it ran a front-page article that headlined the United States “stands on the sidelines” while the Kremlin conducts a “wave of aggression.” On July 1, the Times ran an oped article by former national security adviser Susan Rice, reportedly on the short list as a possible Biden vice presidential candidate, describing a White House run by “liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.” In view of the blame being assigned to Putin, perhaps it’s time to remind readers of the Times of the U.S. record of intervention in foreign elections.
The New York Times has always taken the view that U.S. election interventions have “generally been aimed at helping non-authoritarian candidates” whereas Russia has “more often intervened to disrupt democracy or promote authoritarian rule.” Too bad the Times could not interview Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh, Chile’s Salvador Allende, or the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba, who were targeted by the Central Intelligence Agency and replaced by brutal regimes that ruled for decades. Allende and Lumumba, moreover, didn’t survive the violence that the CIA orchestrated. The revelations of assassination plots in Cuba, the Congo, the Dominican Republic, and Vietnam finally led to a ban on CIA political assassinations in the mid-1970s.
The grand master of election interference and regime change is, of course, the CIA, which was created in 1947 and immediately began to interfere in elections in Europe. France and Italy were the primary targets as “bags of money” were “delivered to selected politicians, to defray their expenses,” according to F. Mark Wyatt, a former CIA operative. The road got much darker in the 1950s, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953 and the installation of a brutal military regime in Guatemala in 1954.
The CIA released a small batch of records on the 1954 military coup in Guatemala, but it has not declassified materials on the CIA-assisted Guatemalan security forces responsible for the deaths of an estimated 200,000 Guatemalans since the coup. The CIA trained and supported notorious security forces throughout Central America, particularly in Honduras, where the Battalion 316 operated brutal detention centers throughout the country. The United States and the CIA were responsible for installing abusive authoritarians in Nicaragua and El Salvador as well.
American national interests were rarely at stake in any of these interventions. Henry A. Kissinger, President Richard M. Nixon’s national security adviser, put it best when he facetiously described Chile as a “dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica.” Kissinger simply could not see “why the United States should stand by and let Chile go communist merely due to the stupidity of its own people.” The CIA’s installation of the Shah of Iran in 1953 was the original sin that continues to plague U.S.-Iranian relations.
A Carnegie Mellon scholar, Dov H. Levin, examined the historical record and determined that there were more than 80 overt and covert election influence operations by the United States from 1947 to 2000 as opposed to 36 Soviet and Russian operations in the same period. The United States relied on various clandestine means, including breaking into political offices to steal codes. In 1996, the Clinton administration intervened overtly and covertly in the Russian election to make sure that Boris Yeltsin was not defeated by an old-fashioned communist bureaucrat. The United States engineered a $10 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund to Russia and assigned American political consultants to Yeltsin’s campaign.
The Russian intervention in the U.S. election in 2016 was merely a technological version of the kind of political influence operations that the KGB and the CIA conducted throughout the Cold War. The digital interventions were far less costly and risky than the clandestine operations of the CIA and the National Security Agency over many decades. We may lack a full understanding of the extent of U.S. intervention over the yearsm but we know a great deal about the Russian effort to use social media to attack Hillary Clinton, to boost Donald Trump, and to sow discord in the United States. We still lack information on the nature of the cooperation that existed between the Trump campaign and the Russian influence operation. I’m sure that my former CIA colleagues would find nothing unusual in these Russian actions.
Too many opinion leaders in the United States still believe that several presidential administrations have failed to take advantage of the so-called U.S. victory in the Cold War. Self-proclaimed liberals such as Susan Rice even share a point of view with neoconservatives such as John Bolton. They appear to believe that the “shame of the West” is the failure to capitalize on the winning of the Cold War by not making sure that former Soviet republics such as Georgia and Ukraine be admitted to NATO and that recent events in Crimea and Hong Kong justify a new Cold War. They have exaggerated the extent of Putin’s risk-taking and ignored Washington’s contribution to the sorry state of Russian-American relations.
Unfortunately, a presidential campaign in the United States doesn’t allow for the time or space to conduct a rational dialogue on the importance of restoring stable and predictable relations between the United States and Russia.
The joint statement issued after the video conference meeting between the Russian President Mr. Putin, the Iranian President Mr. Rouhani, and the head of the Turkish regime the madman Erodgan today 01 July 2020 stated:
“The Presidents: Rejected all attempts to create new realities on the ground under the pretext of combating terrorism, including illegitimate self-rule initiatives, and expressed their determination to stand against separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as threatening the national security of neighboring countries.”
Does Erdogan understand that ‘rejecting all attempts to create new realities on the ground’ includes the Turkification of the lands under the Turkish illegal occupation northwest and northeast of Syria?
Did Erdogan read the statement? Does he understand the meaning of ‘standing against separatist agendas aimed to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria’, that it includes illegal incursion into Syria’s territories by his military and his terrorists?
The joint statement adds:
“Expressed their opposition to the illegal seizure and transfer of oil revenues that should belong to the Syrian Arab Republic.”
That this also includes the oil seized and stolen by the Turkish-backed FSA (and all the terrorist organizations under its banner including ISIS and Nusra Front and others)?
“Reaffirmed the determination to continue cooperation in order to ultimately eliminate DAESH/ISIL, Al-Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaeda or DAESH/ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, while ensuring the protection of the civilians and civilian infrastructure in accordance with the international humanitarian law.”
All of these entities named in this paragraph are sponsored directly by the Turkish regime, they receive all their logistic support and all the protection they need from Turkey and the al-Qaeda terrorists were even embedded with the Turkish Army TSK in their attacks against the Syrian Arab Army on Syrian soil…!
“Reviewed in detail the situation in the Idlib de-escalation area and underscored the necessity to maintain calm on the ground by fully implementing all agreements on Idlib.
Expressed grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Syria and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Rejected all unilateral sanctions which are in contravention of international law, international humanitarian law, and the UN Charter, particularly in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emphasized, in this regard, the critical need to ensure rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access throughout Syria in order to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people, and, called upon the international community, particularly the UN and its humanitarian agencies, to increase their assistance to all Syrians without discrimination, politicization, and preconditions.”
A safe and unhindered humanitarian access means not controlled or targeted by al-Qaeda, Nusra Front, Grey Wolves, Muslim Brotherhood fanatics, Turkestan Islamist Party, and all other FSA groups sponsored by Turkey. The UN and its humanitarian agencies do not include as well the Nusra Front’s ‘first responders’ aka the White Helmets.
“Reaffirmed their conviction that there could be no military solution to the Syrian conflict and that it could only be resolved through the Syrian-led and Syrian-owned, UN-facilitated political process in line with the UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Emphasized in this regard the important role of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, created as a result of the decisive contribution of the Astana guarantors and the implementation of the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. Welcomed the agreement to hold the third meeting of the Constitutional Committee in August 2020 and reaffirmed the readiness to support its work through continuous interaction with its members and the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir O. Pedersen, as facilitator, in order to ensure its sustainable and effective work.”
The statement clearly says: ‘Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political process,’ which means without Turkish interference to influence or insert members of the Turkish regime and on its payroll.
“Highlighted the need to facilitate safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) to their original places of residence in Syria, ensuring their right to return and right to be supported.”
“Reaffirmed the necessity to respect universally recognized international legal decisions, including those provisions of the relevant UN resolutions rejecting the occupation of Syrian Golan, first and foremost UN Security Council Resolution 497 and thus condemned the decision of the US Administration on the occupied Syrian Golan, which constitutes a grave violation of international law and threatens regional peace and security. They consider Israeli military attacks in Syria as destabilizing and violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of this country and intensifying the tension in the region.”
Condemning the US decision on the occupied Syrian Golan means bringing up the topic with both the Israelis and Donald Trump’s regime of war and terror, not to be part of the ‘Greater Israel Project‘ as tasked by George W. Bush and continue to do so many years later until this very day.
And considering Israeli military attacks in Syria as violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity also means not to allow the Israelis safe passage to bomb Syrian facilities in Aleppo from the north!
I’m speechless, the Turkish Madman Erdogan is known to be opportunistic, a backstabber, and a hypocrite, but his ability of acting and appearing like a decent human being is really astonishing, well, unless there are two different Erdogans with totally opposite manners?!
الاقتراع الروسي لصالح التعديلات الدستورية الأخيرة في دولتهم تختزن إصراراً شعبياً كبيراً على عودة بلادهم إلى التعددية القطبية!
هذا هو المضمون الفعلي لتأييدها من 78% من المواطنين الروس مقابل اعتراض 21% على تعديلات دستورية تُحدث تطويراً في القيم والمؤسسات، وشارك فيها 65% من مجمل شعوب روسيا، هذا رقم كبير في عالم الديمقراطيات الغربية لا تجب مقارنته أبداً بالاستفتاءات العربية التي تعطي رئيس البلاد 99% فقط! وتصل المخابرات ليلها بالنهار بحثاً عن 0.1% تغيّب عن الانتخابات شديدة الشكلية.أما السؤال القابل للمعالجة، فيتعلق بكيفية الربط بين هذه التعديلات ومكانة روسيا العالمية، علماً أنها لا تتطرق إلى هذا الأمر بشكل علني.أولاً تجب الإشارة إلى أن هذه التعديلات لها جانب كبير يتعلق بتعميم القيم الوطنية والولاء للمؤسسات وحقوق المواطن وأدواره في الدفاع عن بلاده سياسياً واجتماعياً واقتصادياً وصولاً إلى الدفاع الوطني.لكن جانبها «الكوني» يرتدي لبوس تعديلات دستورية تسمح للرئيس الروسي البقاء في ولايتين رئاسيتين متتاليتين ابتداء من تاريخ إقرار هذه التعديلات.وهذا يؤدي إلى «تصفير» العداد الرئاسي السابق وإعادة فتحه بموجب هذه التعديلات الجديدة على ولايتين رئاسيتين مدتهما اثنتي عشرة سنة.
وبما أن ولاية الرئيس الروسي الحالي فلاديمير بوتين تنتهي في 2024 أي بعد عشرين سنة من تنقله بين مجلس رئاسة الوزراء في بلاده، ورئاسة الجمهورية، فيكون بوتين مرشحاً لحكم روسيا 32 سنة متواصلة تشبه حكم القياصرة شكلاً والسوفياتية لناحية المضمون الاستراتيجي الذي يريد انتزاع دور عالمي يماثل الشكل السوفياتي إنما بمضمون معاصر يقترب من العالم الغربي.
من الواضح إذاً أن هذه التعديلات تخدم مباشرة التمديد لبوتين بآليات انتخابيّة ميزتها أنها قابلة للتجديد والتمديد.
فلماذا يريد الشعب الروسي بتنوعاته القومية والعرقية فتح الطريق أمام مَن يعتقدون أنه «بطل روسيا»؟
يقول التحليل التاريخي إن انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي في 1989 عكس التراجع الروسي المخيف بدءاً من الثمانينيات لانخراط الاتحاد السوفياتي في حروب تسلح وفضاء ودعم لمدى جيوبوليتيكي واسع.. منفرداً.. مما أدى إلى سقوط هذه الظاهرة الجيوبولتيكية الهامة التي أدت دوراً محترماً في عرقلة الهيمنة الأميركية على العالم منذ الخمسينيات وحتى أواخر الثمانينيات من القرن العشرين إنما بشكل نسبيّ طبعاً.
لكن روسيا وريثة السوفيات، استسلمت بين 1990 تاريخ إعادة تأسيسها وحتى مطلع القرن العشرين للهيمنة الأميركية وصولاً إلى حدود التبعية الكاملة لها، وهي المرحلة التي تسلم الرئاسة فيها بوريس يلتسن الذي قضى عهوده الرئاسية معاقراً للفودكا إلى حدود السكر والاغتراب عن هموم بلاده، حتى أصبحت روسيا في عداد الدولة المعدومة التأثير ومتراجعة اقتصادياً على مستوى الداخل ولا يهمها تلك التغيرات الجيوسياسية التي اتخذها الأميركيون لتطويقها في أوروبا شرقية كانت متحالفة معها، وإبعادها نهائياً عن الشرق الأوسط وجنوب شرق آسيا ورفع مستوى تناقضاتها مع أوروبا.
هذا ما تسلّمه بوتين في 2004 في رئاسة الوزراء ورئاسة البلاد، إلا أنه لم يقبل بهذه الوضعية الروسية المتقهقرة، فبنى خطة بدأت بتمهيد وضعية سياسية موالية لفكرة استنهاض روسي بمدى جيوبولتيكي، وهذا دعاه للتوطيد السياسي وإعادة دعم الممكن من الاقتصاد المنهار خارجياً. اعتبر يلتسن أن تحصين الحدود الروسية مع أوكرانيا «المتأمركة» وأوسينيا وبعض المناطق الأخرى بانياً شبكة أمان في جواره الإقليمي، لكنه سرعان ما أعاد الحيوية إلى علاقات بلاده بالصين على أساس اقتصادي بين البلدين وجيوبولتيكي خارجي للتعامل مع الحذر مع الهيمنة الأميركية.
للمزيد من التأمين الاقتصادي اخترق بوتين الحظر الأميركي على دور روسي في أوروبا، فأسس لمرور أكبر ثلاثة خطوط لأنابيب الغاز الروسي: واحد إلى ألمانيا مباشرةً عبر بحر البلطيق وآخر إلى أوكرانيا فأوروبا وثالث عبر البحر الأسود إلى تركيا فأوروبا أيضاً، مؤكداً بذلك على الدور المركزي الجيوسياسي للغاز الروسي في العالم، وهذا اختراق كبير للجيوبولتيك الأميركي الذي كان يعمل على تطويق روسيا اقتصادياً واستراتيجياً لمنعها حتى من مجرد التفكير والحلم بالقطبية العالمية.
لم يكتف بوتين بهذه الإنجازات بعد تأكده من عجزها عن استرداد الدور العالمي لبلاده.
هنا نراه أعاد تجديد دور قاعدة حميميم الروسية المنصوبة على الساحل السوري منذ زمن السوفيات.
لذلك كان الغبار يعتريها وتكاد تجسد ذكريات سابقة عن جيوبولتيك سوفياتي منهار.هنا نجح بوتين باتفاقات تمهيديّة مع إيران وحزب الله من تحويل حميميم إلى دور روسي عسكري وسياسي كبير بالتعاون العميق مع الدولة السورية.لقد بدت الحركة العسكرية الروسية في سورية واسعة النطاق وحاربت إلى جانب الجيش السوري وحلفائه على كامل الأرض السورية حتى أنّها نفذت مئة وعشرين ألف غارة جوية في مختلف المناطق من دون احتساب القصف المدفعي والصاروخي والعمليات البرية.لقد ظهرت مرامي بوتين من خلال إمساكه بآليّة أستانة وسوتشي مع الأتراك والإيرانيين وبمهادنته السعودية لأسباب تتعلق بضرورات التنسيق في أسواق النفط. فاتحاً علاقات مع العراق والجزائر ومصر محاولاً البحث عن عناصر للعودة إلى اليمن من بوابة العثور على اتفاق بين أجنحته المتقاتلة، مقدماً للبنان عروضاً في الاقتصاد والتسلّح وحاملاً معه إلى ليبيا ذكريات سوفياتية كانت على علاقات جيدة مع القذافي.
يتضح بذلك أن بوتين الممهّد لأدواره المتواصلة في رئاسة روسيا حتى العالم 2036 يتمتع بتأييد شعبي قوي، يؤهله لأداء دور قيصر أو حاكم سوفياتي بصلاحيات إمبراطورية، يريد العودة إلى الشرق الأوسط لأهداف تتعلق بحرصه على العودة إلى النظام القطبي المتعدد، بما يؤهله لتنظيم علاقات اقتصادية مع العرب والمسلمين وتوريد أسلحة لبلدان الشرق الأوسط والمساهمة في التنافس على الغاز في البحر الأبيض المتوسط، بذلك يجد الأميركيون أنفسهم مضطرين لتسهيل ولادة نظام قطبي جديد، يجسد فيه بوتين الروسي دور النجومية لأهمية بلاده من جهة وإمكاناته الشخصية المنسقة مع أدائه في المرحلة السوفياتية دور ضابط مخابرات ناجح.
A quote from Andrey Martyanov: “A really telling response projected at the facade of US Embassy in Moscow on the eve of July 1 voting for amendments to what amounts effectively new Russia’s Constitution. The text of the projection says, in addressing the US: 1993–it was yours (constitution), 2020–it is now our (constitution). I cannot emphasize enough the profundity of this seemingly simple projection and its message. ” http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/06/projection.html
Russia is holding a national voting on amendments to its Constitution. Last Thursday kicked off one week in which Russians are asked to cast their votes on changes to the document. The formal date is July 1, but the polling stations were opened as early as June 25 in order to avoid too high turnout due to the so-called pandemic.
Vladimir Putin announced a set of amendments to the Constitution in his annual address to the Federal Assembly on January 15. The same day he ordered to form a working group to draft these amendments. The group was composed of 75 politicians, legislators, scholars and public figures and it submitted the proposals that formed the basis of the new Constitution. On March 11, the State Duma adopted the draft amendments to the Constitution in the third reading. On the same day, they were approved by the Federation Council.
The referendum was originally scheduled for April 22. The date coincided with Vladimir Lenin’s 150th birthday. It was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The draft amendments to the Constitution were submitted to a referendum in accordance with article 2 of the Law on Amendments to the Constitution adopted on March 16, 2020. Voters are given a yes-or-no vote on the full text of the new Constitution.
After Putin proposed constitutional changes, the amendments sparked significant debate both inside the country and beyond its borders. The proposed amendments to the Constitution affect various spheres.
The amendments, which can be described as ideological, received the great public response. According to a sociological study, the most important among them for Russians was the amendment to “on the protection of historical truth”:
“The Russian Federation honors the memory of the Fatherland defenders and protects the historical truth. Belittling the significance of the feat of the people in the defense of the Fatherland is not allowed.”
This amendment is extremely relevant in Russian society. This is due to various external factors. First of all, Russia’s neighboring states such as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland issue resolutions condemning Russia’s position in the Second World War. This is accompanied by the demolition of the monuments to Soviet heroes in large cities, what causes great indignation among Russians and arouses great controversy at the international level.
Moreover, this amendment is gaining popularity due to the ongoing unrest in the West. In the USA protesters demolish monuments to prominent historical figures who formed the American identity – Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jefferson, and so on. The Russian government tries to prevent this in its own country, believing that the Empire collapses when it loses its ideology. Today, the strengthening of Russia as independent conservative ideological center may contribute to the further strengthening of the Russian position on the international arena.
Russian servicewomen march during the Victory Day parade. They were among 14,000 troops from 13 countries who took part in the event. Soldiers taking part had been tested and placed in quarantine ahead of the parade.
If this amendment is primarily of concern to the countries of Eastern Europe and has received little coverage in the Western media, the following amendment to the Russian Constitution has aroused great interest in Western Europe and the United States.
The proposals to amend the Article 72 of the Constitution gained wide resonance in the West. The article says (the changes are in bold):
“In the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and subjects of the Russian Federation are:
… the protection of family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood; the protection of the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman; the creation of conditions for worthy education of children in the family, as well as for adult children responsibilities to care for their parents…”
Despite the fact that today same-sex marriages are not recognized in Russia, if the amendment is approved by a vote, the marriage between members of the LGBT community will be excluded at the level of the Constitution. Currently, there are no special laws prohibiting same-sex relationships or gender reassignment surgeries in Russia. At the same time, since 2013, there is a Federal law prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality among minors, which criminalizes public manifestations of non-traditional sexual orientations.
Conservative views on homosexuality are widespread in Russia, and recent polls show that most Russians are opposed to accepting homosexuality in their society. In particular, intolerance of homosexuality is present in regions with persisting traditional way of life, such as Chechnya or Dagestan.
Covering the proposal to introduce this amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, The New York Times wrote in March:
“President Vladimir V. Putin has proposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in what political analysts suggest is an effort to raise turnout for a constitutional referendum that could keep him in power but has so far stirred little enthusiasm among Russians.”
The Guardian in the article «Putin submits plans for constitutional ban on same-sex marriage» claimed that “[t]he move, announced by Putin in January, was initially seen as a way for him to hold on to power after 2024, when as things stand he will no longer be able to serve as president because of term limits.”
Moreover, a flag of the LGBT community was displayed on the buildings of the US Embassy in Moscow to protest the proposed amendments on the first day of the national voting. The US move was followed by embassies of Canada and the UK. This is a concerted political action in direct contravention of Russian law on responsibility for propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors.
The amendment to the Constitution excluding the possibility of same-sex marriage does not correspond to the newly imposed neo-liberal values labeled as the Wester-rooted. At the same time, believing its own values to be the only correct and universal, the collective West imposes them in various regions of the world, including in Russia. The promotion of liberal values is certainly necessary for the West to strengthen its world domination, but this often leads to negative consequences.
The reaction of the West to the amendment to article 72 primarily emphasizes that the introduction of changes to the legislation regarding LGBT communities serves as a distraction for the population, which will allow Vladimir Putin to remain in power after the end of his presidential mandate in 2024. Also, the Western community itself is much more concerned about the amendments to reset Putin’s terms than about the well-being of homosexuals in Russia.
By its ideological changes, Russia confirms the unacceptability of Western ideology for its society, while also making important changes to the country’s administrative apparatus itself, which will allow it to be strengthened.
Given that the West in general has a negative attitude to the figure of Vladimir Putin, primarily because of his success in governing the country and in strengthening Russia, the amendment to reset the terms of his rule is particularly frowned upon. Paragraph 3 of Article 82 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states:
“The same person may not hold the office of President of the Russian Federation for more than two consecutive terms.”
In this wording, it is proposed to remove the word “consecutive”, and to extend the effect of this amendment only to the current President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. This allows resetting the terms of Vladimir Putin’s presidency, and gives him the opportunity to run for the presidency in 2024.
Political analyst Nathaniel Reynolds wrote in a paper for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
“Putin’s use of more than 200 amendments was a “stunning trick” to mask the real purpose of the constitutional vote — allowing him to remain in office. It was a shocking exercise in political deception, even to the many regime insiders left in the dark.” Reynolds also noted: “A younger Putin recognized the dangers of such a precedent. He told a journalist in 2005 that if leaders change the constitution for their own purposes, there will be nothing left of the state.”
Moreover, Western media reproach that the attention of the population is not particularly focused on this key amendment. The Russian authorities are conducting a large advertising campaign of other amendments, primarily socially conservative ones such as protection of historical truth or a ban on dual citizenship for government employees. These principles, designed to unite Russians, are at the heart of the system of conservative Patriotic values of the head of the Russian state.
During his presidency, Vladimir Putin brought Russia to the international arena and significantly strengthened its position as a regional power center. Further strengthening of the country is unacceptable for the West that provokes strong criticism of this amendment. However, the abolition of the presidential term limit only increases the level of democracy in the country because people have a chance to vote for an actual president as many times as they want. The President can only be chosen through democratic elections, and allowing Putin to run in 2024 does not guarantee his victory. Moreover, most likely, the amendment to reset the time frame allows to stabilize the situation in the country for the next few years. If it is not accepted now, then a tough power struggle in Russia will begin today which will significantly destabilize the country.
On June 18, the Venice Commission criticized some amendments to the Russian Constitution initiated by Vladimir Putin.
The European Commission for Democracy through Law – better known as the Venice Commission as it meets in Venice – is the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters. It involves all countries that are members of the Council of Europe, including Russia, and some countries outside this organization. Its role is to analyze the laws and draft legal advices to its member states.
European experts expressed concern that the new Constitution proposes to include the possibility of dismissal by the Federation Council of judges of the constitutional court on the proposal of the President.
‘’The proposed innovations make the constitutional court more vulnerable to political pressure, since the powers of judges can be terminated on the proposal of the President,’’ experts say.
European experts also recommended the proposed amendment to Article 79 to be changed or completely deleted. It proposes to affirm the right not to execute “decisions of interstate bodies adopted on the basis of provisions of international treaties of the Russian Federation in their interpretation contradicting the Constitution of the Russian Federation”.
This amendment provides for the possibility of not complying with the decisions of international courts, including the European court of human rights. Experts of the Venice Commission in their conclusion point out that by joining the Council of Europe and ratifying the Convention on human rights, Russia is obliged to comply with the decisions of the European court of human rights, and with article 46 of the Convention, which indicates that the execution of court decisions is mandatory.
On June 25, the representative of the European Commission Peter Stano made a statement that the amendment on the priority of the Russian Constitution over international law violated the international obligations of the Russian Federation.
In response to criticism from Europe, the Chairman of the Committee on International Affairs of Russian State Duma, Leonid Slutskiy, emphasized that this practice is widely used by countries, including members of Europe, and the amendment does not cancel Russia’s international obligations.
“We have consistently explained and continue to explain to our European partners: the amendments to Article 79 do not nullify the international obligations of the Russian Federation, Russia has fulfilled them and will continue to do so. It is an issue of establishing the primacy of the Constitution, which fully complies with foreign experience. For example, there is much stricter primacy of national legislation over international legislation in European states like the UK and Germany, not speaking about the United States,”
Russia in its foreign policy has always defended the rule of international law in the world system. This international law should be based on consensus, and first of all should be represented by international institutions such as the UN. Today, Russia recognizes that international law is not more presented by an international agreement but by American legislation that applies anywhere in the world. The adoption of the amendment on the supremacy of the Russian Constitution over international law strengthens the country’s position and underlines its frustration with the current destruction of the entire world system.
According to social research, the most important for Russians is the amendment on the protection of the country’s sovereignty at the constitutional level. This amendment suggested to Article 67 is one of the most criticized abroad:
“The Russian Federation ensures the protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Actions (with the exception of delimitation, demarcation, redemarkation of the state border of the Russian Federation with neighboring States) aimed at alienating part of the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as calls for such actions, are not allowed.”
This amendment to the Constitution regarding the territorial integrity of the country caused a large condemnation by the United States.
Krista Wiegand, American expert on territorial disputes of the Center for Global Security Studies in Tennessee, claimed that “Russia does not want to play by international rules” and this is dangerous for Japan and Ukraine.
This statement is completely unjustified.
According to the Soviet-Japanese Declaration of 1956, ending the state of war between the countries, the USSR agreed to transfer the Habomai and Shikotan Islands to Japan on the condition that the actual transfer would be made after the conclusion of a Peace Treaty. Moscow’s position is that the southern Kuril Islands became part of the USSR, which Russia became the legal successor to, are an integral part of the territory of the Russian Federation legally based on the results of World War II and enshrined in the UN Charter, and Russian sovereignty over them, which has the appropriate international legal confirmation, is not subject to doubt. Today, it is not Russia that threatens Japan, but the opposite, as Japan claims “its northern territories” to be under Russian occupation.
A similar situation has developed on the Eastern borders of Russia. Since the accession of the Crimea to Russia is a fait accompli, Ukraine has no choice but to declare annexation and try to claim de facto Russian territories.
The amendment suggested to article 67 does not threaten any other state. First of all this amendment prevents separatism inside Russia.
The Guard of Honor of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army take part in the military parade marking the 75th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War on Red Square in Moscow, Russia, June 24, 2020.
The creation of the threatening image of Russia is beneficial for the Democratic American establishment. At the same time, countries with territorial disputes with the Russian Federation reacted with more restraint.
Japanese government Secretary General Yoshihide Suga noted that changes to the Constitution are an internal matter for Russia. Political expert Ikuro Nakamura noted that the Japanese government believes that the changes to the Constitution are aimed at increasing Patriotic consciousness in Russian society.
Former advisor to the Greek prime minister for co-operation with the Russian Federation and Eastern Europe, Dimitrios Velanis, said:
“Russia has many times throughout its history experienced an attack or an attempt by other powers to occupy its territory. It was in almost all wars. From all these wars Russia emerged victorious and lost none of its territories. This year marks the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory.”
Furthermore, the French Foreign Ministry proclaimed through its representative that “the constitutional change is a sovereign decision of the Russian Federation, which must fully comply with international obligations”.
It would be difficult to imagine the opposite reaction of the West to the proposed amendments to the Russian Constitution. They strengthen the country both insight and in the international arena, which causes fear in Western countries.
In response to criticism of the package of amendments to the Constitution, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev said:
“The West’s reaction to public discussions of amendments to the Russian Constitution is taking the form of an aggressive campaign bordering on interference in the country’s domestic affairs. The reaction of what can be described as ‘Collective West’ is taking the form of a hostile and aggressive campaign against Russia, which is bordering on interference in our domestic affairs.”
At the same time, Russian experts say that they expected a larger company from the West, and today’s criticism was much weaker than it could have been. Indeed, the US has demonstrated that it could lead strong anti-Russian companies, for example, by accusing it of interfering in the election of President Trump. The UK also conducted a strong informational campaign, which was called the “Skripal Case”. Today, Russia is faced with a choice, and its society is really experiencing great differences regarding the future development of the country. This moment is most favorable for external intervention and, if the West had the opportunity, it would be able to significantly influence the development of Russia in a way that would be beneficial to it. However, today the influence from outside is insignificant, which is primarily due to the weakness in the Western countries themselves. The crisis after the coronavirus epidemic, followed by large-scale protests in all countries do not leave the power for weakened world leaders. In addition, on a more global scale, while still maintaining the role of world hegemon, the US has never been so weak in relation to developing new centers, and it seems that it can no longer control the situation in various world regions, including Russia.
Collective West hostile campaign against Russia
The amendments to the Russian Constitution demonstrate that the current Russian leadership has tried to pass the period of reconstruction after the crisis of the 1990s and the period of the rise of the 2000s. The Constitution adopted in Russia in 1993 was essentially an ideal document that would allow Russia to reconcile with the market system world. It was mostly designed to satisfy interests of Western puppeteers of the new post-Soviet Russian ‘democratic’ elites. Russia was as an independent state and an international actor was weak in 1991. 30 years later, a stronger Russia is embarking on its own path of development, different from the Western one. And the gap between the Western way and the Russian one seems to be widening. Therefore, a chance exists that in the bright multicolored future there will be place not only for the neo-liberal minorities-ruled West and the radically-conservative Islamic East, but also for a balanced center in Eurasia.
Remember the days of your childhood—especially if you are German. If you even dream of being naughty or disobeying your elders and betters, Krampus will put you in his basket and take you to some swampy Germanic hell. Nothing will be heard from you ever again.
Krampus is a leftover from ancient pre-Christian times when he (and he is a he) consorted with witches and indulged in unspeakable acts with them. The idea of a horned demigod taking away and destroying that which is most precious survived all attempts at Christianising and remains to this day a well-known and dreaded member of the pantheon of early childhood monsters. The pedagogic value of Krampus is that he is so horrible looking and mean that the very mention of his name (frightening in itself) is enough to pacify the most recalcitrant toddler. He is a demon born at the dawn of time in a dark and cold Alpine redoubt with a single purpose—to frighten and torture naughty children. Many of us non-Germans knew of Krampus as children and although we had our own non-Germanic demons to defend against, somewhere far at the back of our minds, the Supreme Fear in the form of Krampus was just a few steps away.
How does the story of a scary childhood character relate to the present day? Am I being flippant in comparing a mythical demonic creature to a highly successful trader and philanthropist? Well, no. George Soros’s history of dirty deeds spanning decades and continents has been so destructive that he has created his own demonic myth within his lifetime. A mysterious character who refuses to shuffle his mortal coil and is kept in a semi-mummified semi-stasis by some miracle of “medical science” or another, Gyorgyi Schwartz of Budapest and a billionaire has become Krampus of our time. He is a demon of extreme power, cunning and devilry (he was called something not very dissimilar by Mahathir Mohammed). He is the eternal wanderer ever ready to profit from others’ misery who has been funding his destructive vision ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. He has become the synonym for a disruptive, meddling anti-national, neoliberal, “cosmopolitan” conspiracy. The point of these, allegedly, has been to weaken any indigenous patriotic forces in order to a) protect a particular group of people from possible persecution by diluting any nationalist urges and b) allow those same people to set the tone of the political discourse and capture the levers of power.
At the time, people marvelled at how someone can emerge from such obscurity to become a global player overnight—but like always, such success was ascribed to Soros’s genius and hard work.[1] Our modern-day Krampus has been compared to Jakob Schiff, the famous/notorious Jewish-American financier and philanthropist (word that is rapidly losing its positive connotation), whose anti-Russian animus found a fruitful outlet in financing all enemies of imperial Russia—from Japan to various ethnic nationalists and finally—and most importantly—the Bolsheviks. Another Schiff, the senator Adam, is the current torch bearer of Russophobia in US Congress. The analogy is mostly apt. While the target of Schiff’s wrath was mainly the Russian Empire, Soros has targeted both the dying Soviet Union and its capitalist successor.[2] He named his nebulous pseudo-philosophy “Open Society” (probably plagiarising another Russophobe—Karl Popper) as a counter to the still weak attempts by Russia to escape the death sentence handed down to it by the triumphant West. This was a time when prominent Soixante-huitards such as Joschka Fischer, Bernard Henry-Levy, Andre Glucksmann, Bernard Kushner, Alain Finkelkraut and other future war criminals ruled the European roost. These third-rate activists and intellectuals excelled in one thing only—hatred of Russia and Orthodox Christianity.
Soros wormed his way into the newly “liberated” countries via a network of well-funded “foundations”, “institutes”, “universities” and “human rights organisations”. In other words, Soros used a strategy known to all predators that aim to overrun a country. By pretending to care about the plight of refugees, minorities, LGBT population and generally—human rights—Soros undermined the self-governance of newly independent countries leaving them vulnerable to depredations by the US and EU intelligence-organised disruption operations. That Soros’s demonic project had nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with harming Russian interests is confirmed by the fact that he has targeted both socialist Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and a capitalist Russia, funded anti-Russian forces all over the world (in Chechenia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, EU, Africa, Middle East and USA) and fought a continuous ideological and cultural war against what he perceived as the menace of the rebirth of the Russian Empire.
He honed his destructive apparatus with the help of corrupt local politicians and quasi intellectuals. Offering grants, studentships and targeted subsidies to the members of national “elites” ready to betray their nations’ interests in exchange for participation in one of Soros’s fake “young leader seminars” or “human rights conferences”.
Here is a personal anecdote which demonstrates my long-term interest in Soros’s. In the mid-1990s, my wife wanted to do a PhD on the post-Soviet theatre in Eastern Europe and as part of a multi-country schedule, we visited an eastern European capital in 1996 and arranged an interview with the well-known “alternative” theatre practitioner and the then-director of the Soros-funded anti-government hub camouflaged as a cultural centre. The interview went well until my wife asked a question that I had inserted earlier—it was about Soros’s funding and support for the Centre’s anti-government activity. This is when things became interesting. The interviewee became irritated and suspicious and defended Soros’s meddling in Yugoslavia’s internal affairs by claiming unconvincingly he wasn’t involved in setting the editorial policy etc. Needless to say, the interview was terminated on the spot.
A detailed account of George Soros’s destructive crusade must await another time. What needs to be said is that Soros and his humanitarian hydra were behind a number of so-called colour revolutions—ritualised coups d’etat that resulted in bringing to power swaths of anti-Russian politicians and surrounding Russia with a ring of NATO satrapies (most of whom had been Nazi satrapies during WWII). One interesting detail is that Soros removed mainly moderate or left-leaning politicians and replaced them with anti-Russian nationalists. After many years of unconstrained criminality, rapine and harmful meddling, president Vladimir Putin decided to put a stop to Soros’s harmful activity at the moment when Russia was again existentially threatened by the West in 2015. “It was found that the activity of the Open Society Foundations and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation represents a threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation and the security of the state,” a translated version of the press statement read. All Soros’s activities were banned in Russia and from that day on, Russia redoubled its efforts to become economically and politically independent of its enemies. The kicking out of Soros from Russia was seen in the West as another manifestation of Putin’s antisemitism when it was nothing of the sort.
President Putin correctly assessed the threat of Soros’s machinations and in one fell swoop rid his country of possibly the greatest threat to its security. After this epic defeat, Soros fought a rear-guard action by focussing on the emerging nationalist and populist governments such as that of Victor Orban in Hungary. Here also, Soros experienced a defeat—Orban proclaimed Soros a threat to national security and after an epic battle, closed down the so-called Central European University presided over by Michael Ignatieff, the notorious Russophobe. The two campuses in Budapest and Vienna were supposed to embody the discredited idea of Mittel Europa (Central Europe), that jewel in the Austro-Hungarian crown and motive power for any anti-Russian Drang. By closing down the Eastern lobe of the CEU, Orban has in a sense destroyed the Russophobic symbolism of Soros’s crowning achievement.[3]
As the power of the neocon/neolib forces in Europe weakened, Soros’s political projects lost more and more ground until they became largely irrelevant. Soros was so deeply compromised and so completely exposed as a predatory fraud and agent of dark powers that he ceased to be an important player in international affairs (despite his money and influence). Even the ever-vigilant “Nazi hunters” of ADL have found it difficult to defend him. His brand became toxic with the ascent of populist and alt-right politics in Europe and US. It could even be said that his own strategy (securing “cosmopolitan” interests by fighting nationalism) backfired—the alt-right rebellion was largely the reaction to the excesses of the Sorossian surge of the 1990s. So, what was the mummified billionaire to do now that the steppes of Russia were out of reach? He could have done “a Berezovsky” (I like where this is going) by writing a contrite letter to president Putin begging his forgiveness. Or he could have tried to repent for his evil deeds by pursuing real philanthropy. He chose neither but doubled down on political meddling under the guise of a (tainted) pseudo-humanist brand.
Thus, Soros’s name has (justifiably) become synonymous with evil liberal cosmopolitanism. This is definitively a positive development because it ensures that Soros (or his currently groomed descendants) can never cause as much damage as he did to Russia, Eastern Europe or Middle East. The other side of the medal is that any mention of a left-wing, progressive, social or racial justice cause, however valid, has been scarred by the mark of Sorro. And this I believe is Soros’s true legacy—providing the Empire with a permanent and unassailable excuse to discredit any genuine critique of and rebellion against the inhuman and inhumane neolib/neocon system.
2. Back in the USSA
After a brief phoney skirmish with the European alt-right, Soros shifted his attention to the United States where a new president was elected on a conservative, isolationist and anti-neocon agenda. Many people irrespective of persuasion, greeted Donald Trump’s election victory with relief if not elation. (it would be more correct to say that most right-thinking people hailed the defeat of the warmongering hag Hilary Clinton). The hope was that the United States would abandon its empire which has been destroying it and focus on recovering and rebuilding peacefully in co-operation with other great powers. Many well-meaning people from across the world sent their good wishes—after all, many of us carried a small piece of America in our heads and hearts.
Unfortunately, it transpired very soon that most of what Trump had promised his gullible voting base would never be carried out. Like ruthless Lucy van Pelt who fools Charlie Brown every time, the Deep State pulled the ball from a large basketful (or was it bucketful?) of deplorables and moved on with its plan to keep the dying Empire alive as long as possible (there is an analogy here with Soros, Rockefeller, Kissinger and Lord Rothschild who seem very reluctant to depart this world, haunting instead the corridors of power in the guise of liver-spotted spectral mummies and reminding the world that money can’t buy love but can certainly buy young bone marrow and stem cells). Instead of “draining the swamp”, Trump surrounded himself with right-wing neocons and Roman Catholic zealots and promptly set out to renege on all of his election promises.
Here, I shall only focus on Trump’s actions as they concern Russia and China. In an attempt to stem the accelerating exsanguination of the American empire, Trump declared a total war on Russia and China that has thus far involved: propaganda and psychological warfare, sanctions, threats, assassinations, mass arrests of Russian and Chinese citizens, sabotage, theft of diplomatic property, bombing Russia’s allies, commandeering of commercial assets and wealth, tariffs, support for coloured revolutions, McCarthyite witch hunts, an offensive against the Russian Orthodox Church and its allies, abrogation of all important international treaties regulating the deployment and monitoring of nuclear weapons, moving nuclear-capable missile bases close to Russian border, using India, Japan, Vietnam et al. as tools against China, weaponizing fascist fiefdoms in Eastern Europe and giving the Ukrainian zhidobandera (Judaeo-banderite) regime hundreds of millions of pounds of military aid, provoking China and Russia with large-scale military exercises and all kinds of military brinkmanship, trade war, weaponizing Hindu nationalism against China, approving extra funding for anti-Russian activities, expanding NATO, boosting Israel’s right-wing regime, strangling Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba and almost provoking a war with Iran. Oh, fresh off the press—moving 10000 soldiers and dozens of aircraft from Germany to Poland. Did I miss anything?
To summarise, Trump has done everything in his power to bring the world shockingly close to an all-out conflict. None of his moves so far have been peace oriented except as cheap political stunts or admissions of defeat. It is not even about Trump. America has entered its terminal decay stage and any president worth their salt would do anything to slow down this process. Once it becomes clear that this cannot be achieved by peaceful means (e.g. investment in vast infrastructure projects a la New Deal), all that is left is war. And yet a large portion of the deluded blogosphere looks up to Trump as some kind of a saint whose idealism is constantly being thwarted by evil Democrats. The latter bunch of misfits are labelled “communists”, Marxists” etc. confirming beyond any reasonable doubt that the crude and uneducated American right is as stupid and as pernicious as its post-Trotskyite, warmongering “left”. Note that the so-called Democrats do not oppose any of the above crimes/transgressions and are even more strident in their Russophobia—if that were at all possible.
An often-heard argument used in the defence of Trump is that at least he hasn’t started a hot war with Russia (something they say, Hilary would have done without a doubt). But this argument falls flat straight away. Please re-read the above: Do you really think that Hilary would have been able to do more harm than Trump? If so, what—given Russia’s exceptional nuclear and non-nuclear arsenal that could turn America into a giant glass ashtray without so much as breaking a sweat? Second, one of the most destructive presidents in the US history (both for his country and the world), was a gaudy entertainer and a populist who brought the world to the brink of nuclear war without ever starting one (Grenada excepted). For the most part, the opposition to Trump is manufactured for internal political consumption and does not reflect his actions. In a way, this fake opposition strengthens Trump’s hand because in front of Lavrov he can defend his aggressive moves as forced by his enemies and use these to silence the Russophobic opposition inside the country.
The quiet despair I felt for years started to dissipate as soon as racial protests erupted inside the US not because I hate America (on the contrary) but because I have been so disgusted with its international conduct since 1945, that I couldn’t supress my Schadenfreude. Knowing the benighted history of this country quite well (a huge amount of genocide, slavery and oppression has been packed into an extraordinarily short time period), I started to hope that the doddering behemoth would focus its Sauron-like gaze inward and give the world a chance to take a breather. Great, I thought. Perhaps, after years of false accusations, the Russians or the Chinese have acted—carefully organised a nationwide rebellion by leveraging one of the most emotional issues in the USA, namely, race. Finally, a well-calculated act of revenge for the dozens of destructive “revolutions” on Russian borders. Although it did achieve some popularity among Black Americans and especially their leaders, the mighty Soviet Union failed to capitalise on this despite America’s dismal record on race. Perhaps, in a fit of creativity, the Russians turned Soros’s tactics on his bosses putting into motion a masterful plot worthy of KGB’s top hits. Alas, I soon awakened from my reverie only to realise that Russia has neither the will, nor means to engineer such a vast conspiracy and save itself from a nuclear confrontation. The Chinese perhaps? No way.
In my view, the Russians are too conciliatory and lack the vast soft power apparatus necessary for the coordination and execution of such an ambitious project. Never mind, the most important point is that anybody who cares about world peace and Russia should cheer the protests as a severe setback for the global hegemon—a clear sign of its decline and an opportunity to profit from its weakness. One immediate benefit of the protests was a body blow (blubber blow) that felled warmongering troll Mike Pompeo. The moment protests started, any American foreign policy based on enforcing human rights and democracy became unsustainable—forever. The myth of a democratic paradise in which a common man/woman benefits from hard work and pioneer spirit fell apart in a couple of hours. The Chinese were laughing at Phat Po while hundreds of hitherto timid Twitterati gleefully pointed out the rank hypocrisy of America’s position and beheld with a mixture of fascination and horror the absence of the junior emperor’s clothes.
A more disturbing consequence of my awakening has been the realisation that most of the political commentators in the West who had previously maintained a pro-Russian front started defending Trump and his version of American supremacy. Many moons ago, I remember watching the remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers starring Donald Sutherland. At the very end of the movie, the heroine turns to the ever-dependable Donald, hoping for a salvation, when he turns on her and emits an unforgettable blood-curdling scream—the symbol of ultimate betrayal and final triumph of an alien evil. I felt like the woman in the film who realised in a second that she was completely alone in the universe facing a fate worse than death. OK, I’m exaggerating a bit but you know what I mean. Russia has receded into the background and saving Trump is all that matters.
All of a sudden, people forgot that as late as the end of 1960s, African Americans were barred from country clubs and other “respectable establishments” and started finding reasons to exonerate the murderous cop. But never mind that. Overnight, these tribunes of anti-imperial struggle morphed into the staunchest defenders of Emperor Trump and “traditional family values” espoused by a lecherous pervert linked to Jeffrey Epstein. When asked how they can maintain such an anatomically impossible yoga position, most of the time the answer is: because… Soros. I still haven’t come to terms with this and have tried to explain it to myself ever since. Here are some tentative explanations.
3. Answers and questions
a) People have been so traumatised by Soros’s malfeasance (or is it maleficence) that they see him everywhere now—as a universal symbol of evil—a Krampus. As a consequence of a careful ploy by the Deep State, no criticism or protest is now allowed outside very clearly drawn boundaries—especially from the left. As soon as someone tries to protest various injustices, they are automatically labelled as agents of Soros intent on harming the HOMELAND. It is immaterial to the accusers that under most recent presidents America has become a cesspit of electronic surveillance and a home to a gargantuan military-intelligence-industrial-media complex which is swallowing everything in its path. America’s crumbling infrastructure, lack of common values and ghettoised cities are a testimony to its forthcoming demise. Here, Soros has become Krampus of the right, a monster evoked every time someone points out that America is mortally ill. In this, Soros has joined another Krampus of the RC and neocon right—Joseph Stalin. Although exact opposites in terms of ideology, both have been used in the West to suppress socially-conscious voices.
b) Many of the so-called “alternative” websites were never pro-Russian to start with (Saker has discussed this many times). Rather, they are US Deep State sleeper agents who were allowed, in exchange for their loyalty, to monetise their writings and expose dissidents by posing as critics of the US regime. Now that their true master is in danger, they feel obliged (or are gently reminded) to repay their debt. Although I dismissed this option initially, it has gained in credibility the more I sampled their wares. A less paranoid version of this explanation is fear—fear of the ubiquitous and Kafkaesque machine which can crush an individual without their knowledge leading to auto-censorship. Or the fear of the “barbarians”—those lower-caste humans who threaten further to disrupt our vicarious participation in the sense of exceptionality and achievement of our “race”. I am guilty of both.
c) The commentators are correct and I am deluded. Soros is so rich and powerful that he can confront and defeat the all-powerful system that created him. This is probably the worst nonsense of them all. Soros might be rich but he is a mere gnat in comparison with his supposed enemy. Second (and even more pertinent), why would the old CIA-spawned Hellboy bite the arm that feeds him? Because Soros, a billionaire several times over and notorious Russophobe hawk, is some kind of a communist and social justice warrior? If this is true, the implication is that all 17 powerful intelligence agencies that could swat Soros like a fly at a single wink of Trump’s rheumy eye are betraying “the constitution” and siding with the unruly anarchists. Balderdash.
The world is again separating into two broad and irreconcilable camps—imperialist and anti-imperialist. While the boundary is not completely clear, many conservatives will join fascists and racists in the defence of civilisation (Europäische Kultur), (Western) Christianity (Gott mit Uns), homeland (Vaterland), white race (arische Rasse), family values (Kinder, Küche, Kirche), unchallenged Western supremacy (Das tausend jährige Reich) and law and order (Ordnung muss sein). I am not interested in how these “ideals” are implemented as long as they are not used as an excuse to attack and enslave other countries—as they always are. A minority of conservatives will understand the danger of a revived fascism and side with Russia and its allies. The fascists will be joined in their struggle by right-wing Zionists and neocons who hate Russia more than they love peace and democracy. While agitating for human rights, they will be happy to see the destruction of Russia and China. As in WWII, most Central European Ruritanias will gladly join the imperialist side. Some large countries such as India might just remain neutral but the nationalist zeal of its current government (Aryanism and swastikas anyone?) is likely to push it into the imperialist camp. This would not be the first time. The great Indian politician and tribune Subhas Chandra Bose openly collaborated with Japan during WWII.[4]
I shall be joining the other side—the side that sides with the oppressed, dirty, helpless and weak. The anti-imperialist camp espouses a multi-polar world free from imperial diktat from the West (or elsewhere). It advocates peaceful coexistence and abolition of huge multinational corporations that have replaced states as agents of international politics.[5] This block is progressive in the sense in which the Trotskyite dogma isn’t. There is a lot of room for cultural differences and idiosyncrasies. The idea is that these differences enrich the world and allow individual nations to find their own way towards prosperity, without the constant sabotage by the US Empire and its pawns. Absence of interference into other nations’ affairs ensures a peaceful and sustainable growth. Crucially, there is no such thing as an exceptional or chosen nation or race. We are all equal in terms of God’s mercy and the world must be purged from the exceptionalist evil forever. If anybody is still confused about what’s going on, I’ll end with a few questions (some of which I’m trying to answer myself):
– If Trump is so good for Russia (an idiotic claim by the Democrats), why did Russia urgently rachet up its nuclear doctrine a few weeks ago?
– Do you really think that for this many decades Soros has acted independently of the US Deep state? Are you so naïve as to believe that a semi-anonymous trader with a dodgy past would be allowed to destroy British Pound and meddle in international politics, or god forbid, unseat Trump, without the blessing of the grey cardinals of Langley? Do you think that one of the ugliest swamp creatures known to man would risk upsetting his masters by launching crippling riots possibly leading to a civil war for no good reason? No, defeating Trump is definitely not a good enough reason. If Soros is indeed behind the turmoil (and this hasn’t been proved), he is either doing the humanity a favour for once—by crippling the Empire or (highly likely) is acting on behalf of the repressive apparatus set on discrediting and banning any and all protest.
– What does one need to do in order to defeat the CIA, FBI, NSA and the myriad of spying and political police agencies that underpin the Empire? Do you really think that you can get past the most monstrous, intrusive and comprehensive system of surveillance and oppression in history by being transparent and honest? If your aim is to drain the swamp, do you really believe that you can achieve this by laying all your cards on the table and asking the (metaphorically) black Jesuitical cabal to vacate its throne at the top of the world? If you understand that this is impossible, why expect the BLM movement and all the others to be transparent?
– Do you really believe that BLM and other similar movements (e.g. Occupy) have not been penetrated BEFORE THE PROTESTS and co-opted for FBIs purposes? If yes, you are completely naïve (not to use something nastier).
Wake up, Trump is not your friend and he is no friend of Russia. Soros is evil but he is just one of the many flavours of evil. Do not let your mental inertia render you blind to what is really going on.
If you prefer the global dictatorship of hyper-corporate capital protected by US weapons under the guise of “law and order” to peace and justice, why are you on this pro-Russian site?
Russia, whatever its political system, has and will always stand with the oppressed and in opposition to global bullies and criminals. YOU CANNOT SERVE GOD AND MAMMON BOTH. Choose wisely—I have.
I had the displeasure of reading Soros’s scribblings a long time ago. I can assure the reader that he is no genius. ↑
A friend tells me that Orban used to receive large sums of money from Soros. I did not check this but it wouldn’t surprise me that the two were partners in the 1990s. ↑
I am not criticising Bose who was a great leader in many respects but just pointing out that India has its own perspective which might not always agree with the Eurocentric or Anglocentric view of history. ↑
It is amusing to watch fake nationalists and patriots get in a tizz when asked how they can support Amazon, Google and other corporate behemoths and how this takeover of a country by corporatist fascism can be compatible with “freem” and democracy. ↑
On June 25, the vote on amendments to the Russian constitution started in all the 14 administrative regions of Russia’s Far Eastern federal district, according to state media citing regional election commissions and administrative bodies. The official vote is scheduled for July 1, but authorities opened polling stations a week early to stop overcrowding amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The proposed amendments will allow to strengthen the system of governance and limit a president’s rule to two six-year terms in total, rather than two consecutive terms, (allowing Vladimir Putin to potentially participate in the next presidential election). Besides this, they will introduce economic changes needed to provide Russian citizens with an additional social and economic security, an affirmation of Russia’s “faith in God”, and entrench the definition of the marriage as a unity of a man and a women. These conservative (both social and economic) moves go contrary to the neo-liberal agenda promoted by the so-called ‘united West’.
On the same day, the US embassy in Russia, central Moscow, raised a LGBT flag alongside with a US flag on its building. This move likely directly ordered by US Ambassador to Russia John J. Sullivan and was designed to demonstrate the US official position towards the current constitutional vote in Russia.
It is an open secret that the majority of the Russian population is against the official promotion of LGBT and neo-liberal values that became mainstream in the West. Even in the biggest cities like Moscow or Saint Petersburg, the number of people supporting so-called ‘neo-liberal’ values does not exceed about 5%. There is a Russian federal law “for the Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values” that bans LGBT propaganda among people under 18yo. In these conditions, the move of the US embassy could be described as an intentional provocation.
At the same time, the voting on amendments to the Russian constitution also caused mixed feelings among residents of Moscow, Saint Petersburg and some other large cities that just recently experienced often strange and contradictory actions of local authorities in the conditions of the COVID-19 crisis. This included the increased administrative pressure, including various fees, and the drastic electronic surveillance measures employed by Moscow authorities. A one more point of contradictions is that the proposed amendments will allow Vladimir Putin to participate in the next presidential election potentially allowing him to lead Russia until 2036. These factors are behind reports that a part of Moscow residents has opted to not participate in the voting. There is also a segment of uncommitted voters. Nonetheless, both these groups support traditional values and the definition of the marriage proposed in the amendments.
Over the past weeks, Russian citizens have been able to follow the situation in the United States, where LGBT activists were supporting left wing and black rioters. The June 25 action initiated by the US Ambassador will motivate a part of uncommitted voters to support the conservative changes to the constitution.
In this situation, the US embassy decision is a foolery or an agitation trick in support of the “YES” vote. Mr. Putin should thank US diplomats or even give a state decoration to Mr. Sullivan.
Russia stages Victory Day military parade in Moscow’s Red Square to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the former Soviet Union’s victory in World War II, the , featuring 15,000 soldiers, more than 200 units of military equipment as well as 75 planes and helicopters.
It is difficult to find anything good to say about Donald Trump, but the reality is that he has not started any new wars, though he has come dangerously close in the cases of Venezuela and Iran and there would be considerable incentive in the next four months to begin something to bolster his “strong president” credentials and to serve as a distraction from coronavirus and black lives matter.
Be that as it may, Trump will have to run hard to catch up to the record set by his three predecessors Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Bush was an out-and-out neoconservative, or at least someone who was easily led, including in his administration Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Reuel Gerecht, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Eliot Abrams, Dan Senor and Scooter Libby. He also had the misfortune of having to endure Vice President Dick Cheney, who thought he was actually the man in charge. All were hawks who believed that the United States had the right to do whatever it considered necessary to enhance its own security, to include invading other countries, which led to Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. still has forces stationed nearly twenty years later.
Clinton and Obama were so-called liberal interventionists who sought to export something called democracy to other countries in an attempt to make them more like Peoria. Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan as a diversion when the press somehow caught wind of his arrangement with Monica Lewinsky and Obama, aided by Mrs. Clinton, chose to destroy Libya. Obama was also the first president to set up a regular Tuesday morning session to review a list of American citizens who would benefit from being killed by drone.
So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. The America the exceptional mindset is best exemplified currently by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who personifies the belief that the United States is empowered by God to play only by its own rules when dealing with other nations. That would include following the advice that has been attributed to leading neocon Michael Ledeen, “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”
One of the first families within the neocon/liberal interventionist firmament is the Kagans, Robert and Frederick. Frederick is a Senior Fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly heads the bizarrely named Institute for the Study of War. Victoria Nuland, wife of Robert, is currently the Senior Counselor at the Albright Stonebridge Group and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. That means that Victoria aligns primarily as a liberal interventionist, as does her husband, who is also at Brookings. She is regarded as a protégé of Hillary Clinton and currently works with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who once declared that killing 500,000 Iraqi children using sanctions was “worth it.” Nuland also has significant neocon connections through her having been a member of the staff assembled by Dick Cheney.
Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-2014. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych’s government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.
Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create in Ukraine. For Nuland, the replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
And make no mistake about Nuland’s broader intention at that time to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony she cited how the administration was “providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia.” Her use of the word “frontline” is suggestive.
Victoria Nuland was playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S., was and is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the Taliban’s Afghanistan. Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Victoria Nuland has just written a long article for July/August issue of Foreign Affairsmagazine on the proper way for the United States manage what she sees as the Russian “threat.” It is entitled “How a Confident America Should Deal With Russia.” Foreign Affairs, it should be observed, is an establishment house organ produced by the Council on Foreign Relations which provides a comfortable perch for both neocons and liberal interventionists.
Nuland’s view is that the United States lost confidence in its own “ability to change the game” against Vladimir Putin, who has been able to play “a weak hand well because the United States and its allies have let him, allowing Russia to violate arms control treaties, international law, the sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States and Europe… Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War and continued to yield results for many years after. That strategy required consistent U.S. leadership at the presidential level, unity with democratic allies and partners, and a shared resolve to deter and roll back dangerous behavior by the Kremlin. It also included incentives for Moscow to cooperate and, at times, direct appeals to the Russian people about the benefits of a better relationship. Yet that approach has fallen into disuse, even as Russia’s threat to the liberal world has grown.”
What Nuland writes would make perfect sense if one were to share her perception of Russia as a rogue state threatening the “liberal world.” She sees Russian rearmament under Putin as a threat even though it was dwarfed by the spending of NATO and the U.S. She shares her fear that Putin might seek “…reestablishing a Russian sphere of influence in eastern Europe and from vetoing the security arrangements of his neighbors. Here, a chasm soon opened between liberal democracies and the still very Soviet man leading Russia, especially on the subject of NATO enlargement. No matter how hard Washington and its allies tried to persuade Moscow that NATO was a purely defensive alliance that posed no threat to Russia, it continued to serve Putin’s agenda to see Europe in zero-sum terms.”
Nuland’s view of NATO enlargement is so wide of the mark that it borders on being a fantasy. Of course, Russia would consider a military alliance on its doorstep to be a threat, particularly as a U.S. Administration had provided assurances that expansion would not take place. She goes on to suggest utter nonsense, that Putin’s great fear over the NATO expansion derives from his having “…always understood that a belt of increasingly democratic, prosperous states around Russia would pose a direct challenge to his leadership model and risk re-infecting his own people with democratic aspirations.”
Nuland goes on and on in a similar vein, but her central theme is that Russia must be confronted to deter Vladimir Putin, a man that she clearly hates and depicts as if he were a comic book version of evil. Some of her analysis is ridiculous, as “Russian troops regularly test the few U.S. forces left in Syria to try to gain access to the country’s oil fields and smuggling routes. If these U.S. troops left, nothing would prevent Moscow and Tehran from financing their operations with Syrian oil or smuggled drugs and weapons.”
Like most zealots, Nuland is notably lacking in any sense of self-criticism. She conspired to overthrow a legitimately elected democratic government in Ukraine because it was considered too friendly to Russia. She accuses the Kremlin of having “seized” Crimea, but fails to see the heavy footprint of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a regional enabler of Israeli and Saudi war crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as expansionistic, has only one overseas military base while the United States has more than a thousand.
Nuland clearly chooses not to notice the White House’s threats against countries that do not toe the American line, most recently Iran and Venezuela, but increasingly also China on top of perennial enemy Russia. None of those nations threaten the United States and all the kinetic activity and warnings are forthcoming from a gentleman named Mike Pompeo, speaking from Washington, not from “undemocratic” leaders in the Kremlin, Tehran, Caracas or Beijing.
Victoria Nuland recommends that “The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to lead the democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia—one that builds on their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable, including among his own citizens.” Interestingly, that might be regarded as seeking to interfere in the workings of a foreign government, reminiscent of the phony case made against Russia in 2016. And it is precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine.
Nuland has a lot more to say in her article and those who are interested in the current state of interventionism in Washington should not ignore her. Confronting Russia as some kind of ideological enemy is a never-ending process that leaves both sides poorer and less free. It is appropriate for Moscow to have an interest in what goes on right on top of its border while the United States five thousand miles away and possessing both a vastly larger economy and armed forces can, one would think, relax a bit and unload the burden of being the world’s self-appointed policeman.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
شكلّت اللجنة الشعبية للدفاع عن سورية في فلسطين المحتلة، وفداً شعبياً ورسمياً، ضمّ رموزاً في الحركة الوطنية الفلسطينية والحركة الأسيرة والحراك الشبابي، شملت شخصيات مناضلة، من الداخل المحتلّ عام 48 ومن القدس المحتلة والضفة الغربية، لزيارة السفارة الروسية في رام الله، لتجديد الشكر لجمهورية روسيا الاتحادية، على مواقفها التاريخية والإنسانية الثابتة إزاء الحق الوطني الفلسطيني والحق الوطني السوري، لا سيما في ظلّ التحدي الكبير الذي يواجهه السوريون والفلسطينيون تحت جرم «قانونين» صهيوأميركيين، (قيصر) في سورية و(الضمّ) في الضفة الغربية.
(التتمة ص8)
وقدّم القيادي الفلسطيني عباس زكي، صورة كاملة عن مجمل الأوضاع الفلسطينية، وكيفية مواجهة قانون الضمّ، كما تحدث عن أهمية الدعم الروسي لسورية لتعزيز صمودها أمام المشاريع الصهيوأميركية التدميرية، وشدّد على أهمية الوحدة الوطنية التي بدونها لا يمكن أن يتخلص الشعب الفلسطيني من محتله، وأكد أهمية الموقف الروسي الداعم للحق الفلسطيني والسوري.
وقال زكي: انّ الشعب الفلسطيني تجاوز قيادته لأنه أكبر منها، وهدا الشعب الجبار يستحق كلّ أشكال الدعم، ونتمنّى أن تكون مظاهرة أريحا غداً الاثنين (اليوم) نقطة فاصلة للحراك الشعبي الفلسطيني، للتعرّف على قوّته وحجمه.
وشرح مدير مركز القدس للاستشارات الاقتصادية والاجتماعية، والقيادي في هيئة العمل الوطني في القدس، وعضو اللجنة الشعبية زياد الحموري، ظروف القدس المحتلة والمقدسيّين في ظلّ سياسة التهويد، وشرح بإسهاب بعض المشاريع الأخيرة التي تنفذها دولة الاحتلال في القدس للفصل بين أحيائها العربية وتشتيت التواصل بينها، وأشار بالتفصيل إلى سياسة إفقار أهل المدينة الأصليين، وأهمية دعم صمودهم وإفشال المخططات الاستعمارية المجرمة، مؤكداً أنها ذاتها أهداف المحتلّ وسيده الأميركي، في دمشق وكلّ سورية.
وتحدّث حسين أبو خضير، والد شهيد فجر القدس محمد أبو خضير، عن طريقة إحراق نجله البطل محمد وهو حي، من قبل مستوطني المحتلّ النازيين، وأشار إلى أهمية فضح الوجه النازي لدولة الاحتلال، وتعريته أمام العالم الحر والضمير الإنساني، ولفت إلى أهمية دعم الصمود السوري في مواجهة المخططات الصهيونية والأميركية، لأنّ سورية هي الداعم الحقيقي لمقاومة الشعب الفلسطيني المشروعة.
وأكد منير منصور، رئيس الحركة الأسيرة في الأراضي المحتلة عام 48، انّ الدعم الروسي للسوريين والفلسطينيين، هو مصلحة روسية الى جانب مصلحة الشعب الفلسطيني الوطنية والقومية، لأنّ إفشال المخططات الأميركية هو مصلحة عليا للإنسانية جمعاء، وأكد أنّ الرهان يكون أولاً على أصحاب الأرض والأوطان المهدّدة، لكن الشعوب المظلومة، في عوز لحلفائها المخلصين. وأضاف منصور أنّ مناضلي شعبنا الاحرار ينظرون الى روسيا نظرة المتعلّق بالأمل، كما نظرة الشعب الفلسطيني الى حلفائنا الأوفياء والحقيقيين، ويحق للشعب المناضل أن يتأمل خيراً بدولة عظمى كروسيا نحترمها ونقدّرها.
ونوّه طاهر سيف، عضو المكتب السياسي لحركة أبناء البلد في المحتلّ 48، الى ضرورة ان تعرف روسيا، كذب دولة الاحتلال، وان تطلع عبر الهيئات الفلسطينية على ما تقوم به تفصيلاً على الأرض، ليس فقط في الضفة والقدس بل في الأرض المحتلّة عام 48 أيضاً، وهذا الاطلاع من قبل سفارة روسيا في فلسطين، سيضيف الكثير من المعلومات في جعبة روسيا عن الوجه الحقيقي لدولة الاحتلال.
من جهته أعرب السفير الروسي د. غوتشا بواتشيدزة عن سعادته البالغة بلقاء الوفد، وإصراره على هذا اللقاء رغم تعليمات وزارة الصحة الروسية بعدم الاجتماع بعدد كبير من الأشخاص، بسبب فيروس «كورونا»، وقال:
صمود الشعب الفلسطيني ووحدته أمر يهمّ روسيا بكلّ مؤسّساتها، ونحن نعمل بقوة على وحدة الشعب الفلسطيني، ونحن ندعم الصمود الفلسطيني في القدس والضفة قولاً وفعلاً، حتى صمود المسجد الأقصى ندعمه وكنت في زيارة خاطفة الى المسجد منذ فترة قصيرة، وسوف أتوجه غداً الاثنين (اليوم) الى المظاهرة الفلسطينية في أريحا، ولن نتخلى عن الشعب الفلسطيني.
وفي الشأن السوري، أكد السفير بواتشيدزة أنّ روسيا بلد مسالم تاريخياً، لم تعتد على ايّ دولة ولا احتلت أي دولة، وتدخلها في بعض الدول كسورية هو تدخل شرعي، لأنه بطلب من قيادة الدولة الشرعية لحفظ أمنها واستقرارها، من مشاريع تفتيتها وتجزئتها، التي باتت واضحة. وفي سورية جيش قوي على الأرض يحتضنه الشعب السوري، ما شجع التدخل الروسي، لمساعدته في حماية وطنه.
وحول قانون قيصر قال السفير إنّ الدعم الروسي لسورية لن يتراجع بل سيزداد، ورحب بشدة برسالة اللجنة الشعبية الموجهة للرئيس بوتين، وقال: رسالتكم محلّ اهتمامنا واهتمام قيادتنا، وسوف تصل للرئيس بوتين بأسرع وقت ممكن، وكونوا على ثقة بأنّ روسيا لن تخذلكم.
وشارك في الوفد: الناشط البارز في الحراك الشبابي محمد قادري، وعضو المكتب السياسي لحزب الشعب الفلسطيني فدوى خضر، وسهى أبو خضير، والدة شهيد فجر القدس.
وفي نهاية اللقاء، قدّم الوفد درعاً رمزية للسفير باسم اللجنة الشعبية للدفاع عن سورية.
وفي ما يلي النص الكامل لرسالة اللجنة الموجهة إلى الرئيس بوتين :
«فخامة رئيس جمهورية روسيا الاتحادية العظيمة
الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين الموقّر
تحية الكفاح والثورة، من الشعب الفلسطيني، إلى فخامتكم ومكانتكم الرفيعة
بفخرٍ واعتزازٍ شديدين، نتوجه إلى فخامتكم، بأسمى آيات التقدير، على الموقف التاريخي والإنساني الثابت، لجمهورية روسيا الاتحادية العظيمة،، إزاء الحق الوطني الفلسطيني المُشرّع، والحق الوطني السوري الشرعي، في مواجهة القوانين الإمبريالية الأميركية، والصهيونية النازية، آخرها، (قانون قيصر) في سورية الشقيقة، و(قانون الضم) في فلسطين المحتلة، وهو أحد مشاريع (صفقة القرن).
إننا في اللجنة الشعبية للدفاع عن سورية في فلسطين – طلاباً، كادحين، مثقفين، مناضلين، ومسؤولين – نهيب بفخامتكم، مواصلة دعم قضايانا العادلة، ونصرة شعبيْنا المظلوميْن، في فلسطين وسورية، أمام الأطماع الأميركية والصهيونية، تلك الأطماع الرامية، إلى التخلّص من القضية الفلسطينية، وإسقاط الدولة السورية الوطنية الشرعية، المتمثّلة بفخامة الرئيس بشار الأسد، لتعجيل التخلّص من القضية الفلسطينية، ولتسريع تحقيق مآرب الإمبريالية الأميركية والصهيونية، في منطقة الشرق الأوسط.
فخامة الرئيس المفدّى بوتين، الذي نجلّه ونحبّه
إنّ التواصل الوطني الفلسطيني، مع السفارات الروسية في فلسطين المحتلة، لم ينقطع منذ تسعة أعوامٍ مضت، وسنستمرّ في هذا التواصل الرائع، ريثما يتحقق النصر السوري فالفلسطيني.
ونحن ندرك أن فخامتكم، هو الرهان الأول والأساس، على صمود وإرادة الشعبيْن السوري والفلسطيني الصامديْن، في وجه التحدّيات الراهنة والقاسية، لكننا، نحتاج حلفاءنا التاريخيين المخلصين لدعم صمودنا، لا سيما، دعم صمود شعبنا في سورية، في التصدّي لِـ (قانون قيصر) الجائر والظالم، بحق الشعب والدولة على السواء.
فخامة الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين
نحن في فلسطين، قوى وطنية ونضالية، تنضوي تحت راية اللجنة الشعبية للدفاع عن سورية، نستبشر بفخامتكم وعدلكم وشجاعتكم وإنسانيتكم خيراً.
نرجو لجمهورية روسيا الاتحادية العظيمة، ولفخامتكم، دوام التقدّم والقوة والازدهار، ودوام التميّز، ومحبة شعوب الأرض المظلومة والمناضلة لكم».
In the middle of the current global turmoil, largely ignored by the Western media, President Vladimir Putin of Russia recently wrote an article for the National Interest magazine (the article is featured on this site). In it, he magisterially dissected and integrated one of the most disputed topics in contemporary history—the cause(s) and antecedent(s) of World War II. The article is long and very detailed, drawing on a rich historical and historiographic documentation and it leaves no stone unturned. The point I wish to elaborate on here is that far from being a historical dissertation, the article is a last warning to the enemies delivered in the form of a parable. Rather than expound on the precarious state of the world and the seemingly inexorable drift to war, Putin used the tragic landscape of the late 1930s Europe to shed light not only on the true causes of WWII but also on the causes of a rapidly approaching WWIII.
Although discussing all the principal players responsible for perhaps the greatest holocide in history, I had a feeling that the article was aimed particularly at the Anglo-Saxon part of the Western empire (which also includes the EU, Israel and some Arab and Asian countries). Although I can’t be certain, there is a sense that this is president Putin’s last appeal to the former allies in the struggle against Nazism, the last melancholy hand of friendship extended to the powers that almost ignited WWII and are busy repeating the same horrible ritual of a total war against Russia. There is something deeply Russian and Orthodox Christian about Putin’s appeal. Precisely because he is aware of the deep enmity that the Anglo-Saxon establishment harbours for Russia in all its manifestations, he is that much more grateful to the British and American soldiers and statesmen for that all-too-brief, almost miraculous interlude of friendship and co-operation, that even today 80 years later appears to many like an unfortunate tear in the yarn of history.
And yet, this interlude offered a glimpse of a new dawn. The people in the West saw with their own eyes how uniquely heroic the Soviet people were in the defence of their motherland. The workers and peasants of the Soviet Union realised that there were many good people in the West who did not bear the eternal grudge but were glad to have the USSR on their side. It is often assumed that this short détente lasted five years—from the start of the German invasion until say, 1946, but this would not be accurate. The mistrust between the almost-allies was such that it took a concerted effort by Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt as well as a number of well-disposed politicians (e.g. Harry Hopkins, Anthony Eden) to cement the bond which started to crack well before the end of hostilities.
The “weakest link” in the allied leadership chain was Winston Churchill. Not fond of Russians to say the least, he was an imperialist and anti-communist par excellence. The current anti-racism protests show that this side of Churchill is well known to the younger generation. Whose fault is it that those same younger people don’t remember that Churchill once suppressed his natural instincts and fought a good fight against the greatest menace the world has ever known? Here again, we see the results of a massive blowback caused by the unceasing attempts to diminish the international and anti-fascist nature of the war-time alliance and WWII. Instead of cherishing the values that were defended by the three great nations, modern historians and politicians (with few exceptions) have competed in ways of demonising the Soviet Union (and Russia), burying the existential threat of nazi-fascism and treating WWII as a bloody misunderstanding among otherwise friendly nations. Yes, Nazi Germany was dangerous, but the USSR and its successor have been much more pernicious.
Granted, Churchill’s leadership in WWII was not enough to secure him a prime ministership in 1945, but the overall positive role he played in allying himself with the Americans and Soviets and his reputation as an anti-fascist gradually withered and ultimately died by the end of the last century. In a way, his fate is more tragic than that of Stalin who was the first to experience the “awakening of the people”. Although Stalin has not been fully rehabilitated, his role in saving the Soviet Union and freeing the world from the fascist beast is slowly being recognised and re-evaluated.
It was Churchill who started undermining the war-time alliance long before the guns fell silent. He sabotaged the relationship between Roosevelt and Stalin, refused to consider giving independence to British colonies, undermined the prospects of a progressive US government via his intelligence apparatus in the USA (he sent Roald Dahl to spy on Henry Wallace) and in the ultimate betrayal of the good faith that was supposed to underpin the alliance, began planning an all-out attack on the Soviet Union as early as 1944. Named Operation Unthinkable, this plan envisaged a massive offensive against the USSR which would involve Polish troops and even re-armed German prisoners of war.
Many historical records note Stalin’s deep disappointment and a sense of hurt at the betrayal of the blood brotherhood by Churchill and Truman. Long after peace returned to the villages and cities of Europe, Stalin kept warning and beseeching his former allies not to throw away the legacy of friendship and co-operation. Despite the decades of cruel and inhumane attacks on the USSR that ensued, contributing substantially to its downfall, Soviet leaders and people never forgot the supreme sacrifice made by British and American soldiers and sailors who gave their lives in the struggle against the common enemy. This tradition of honouring the Western allies has been preserved and nurtured by President Putin. The campaign in the West to denigrate the great sacrifice of the Soviet people brought about an absurd situation in which the brave British sailors who took part in the war-time convoys that delivered badly needed supplies to the USSR were barred from receiving Soviet decorations by David Cameron.[1]
Perhaps the most hurtful and one could say evil blow that the former reluctant allies could deliver has been the attempt to re-write the history of WWII and treat Russia as a co-aggressor on the par with Germany. This is a red line for any Russian patriot and any right-thinking human being. The constant pressure to delegitimise the role of the USSR in freeing the world from the menace of fascism has led to the revival of fascist tendencies in some European countries including Croatia, the Baltic states, the Ukraine and others. These virulent forms of extreme nationalism (Chauvin-ism) were salvaged from the embers of the dying Nazi Reich, cultivated for decades in the satanic laboratories of the Western intelligence services (including Israel’s) and weaponised against Russia and its allies.[2]
A special role in the total war against Russia has been assigned to Poland—a Slav nation whose complex history has largely rested on a constant opposition to Russia and somewhat less, Germany. Briefly, Poland’s raison d’etre and geopolitical role has been to act as a spoiler in any attempts to bring about a peaceful co-existence in Europe. In the 1920s and 1930s, Polish extreme right-wing (it could be argued fascist) regime saw the country as a major power which by virtue of its religion and military prowess should rule over Central Europe.[3] The Vatican’s Intermarium (“between the seas”) project designed in the 19th Century aimed at countering the rise of the protestant Prussia in the West and Orthodox Russia in the East. It involved forming a federation from the (now former) Austro-Hungarian Slav provinces under the auspices of the Catholic Church. After the Bolshevik revolution, Poland put the plan into practice and awarded itself the leadership of the prospective “cordon sanitaire”. With the help of its Western patrons (especially Britain and France), it occupied the largely Russian-speaking regions of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. Under the doctrine of Prometheism, Poland started lighting “fires of freedom” all along the Soviet border. The rest of Poland’s nefarious role has been (belatedly) exposed by Russian historians. Far from being an innocent victim of Nazi expansionism, Poland wholeheartedly collaborated with Germany in plotting against the Soviet Union, planning the mass removal of the Jews, sabotaging any possibility of an anti-Nazi alliance and enslaving and converting their “heathen” Slav brethren.
It is this giant geopolitical déjà vu combined with an exponentially increasing risk of a global war that must have compelled president Putin to address the Western audiences—perhaps for the last time. As recently as 50 years ago, it would have been unthinkable for Western politicians and media to equate the USSR and Germany with regard to the culpability for the war. Yet, a concerted campaign in the Western media and chancelleries that accompanied the fall the of the USSR and the ramping up of a Russophobic campaign in the intervening years have led to the current dangerous impasse which leaves no room for diplomacy and negotiation. Largely unnoticed by the commenters, in his inimitable subtle and statesmanlike style, president Putin delivered to the western public what I believe to be the last appeal for peaceful co-existence. As I stated above, the appeal was directed primarily at the Anglo-Saxon powers which are currently at the forefront of the undeclared war against Russia.
He reminded his former allies of the dangers of using “running dogs” such as Poland or the Ukraine in order to destabilise Russia. He also informed them in no uncertain terms of Russia’s determination not to allow any further besmirching of its historic sacrifice. No more mollycoddling of petty fascist fiefdoms in the name of class or ethnic/racial solidarity. It was also a warning to the Poles that their state policy of siding with any country as long as it is inimical to Russia can only lead to ruin and renewed partition. I’ll paraphrase the notorious Russophobe Josef Beck, one of the chief architects of Poland’s pre-WWII foreign policy, who admitted after the war that Poland was destroyed because it had been acting in the interests of the Vatican and not the Polish people.
In other words, president Putin drew a line—if you wish to avoid a potential nuclear war, stop demonising and destabilising Russia and join us in creating a more equitable world. Russia will never abandon its unique civilisational path and any attempts at thwarting its legitimate claim to life and development will be punished harshly. Russian insistence on peaceful conflict resolution should not be confused for weakness. Having experienced one of the greatest genocides in history, Russia will never advocate war. But if war becomes inevitable, it will fight to the death. This stern warning was couched in the language of reconciliation. President Putin harks back to the war-time alliance with the USA and Great Britain to remind the modern audiences that confrontation is not the only way but that if attacked, Russia would defend itself to the last Russian and inflict terrible and (this time) unsustainable damage.
As noted by some commenters, his message might have been too subtle for the ignorant and ideologically blinded hacks posing as geopolitical experts in the West. So, let me enlighten them a bit by explaining the deeper meaning of president Putin’s message. Those who think that this has to do mainly with righting the wrongs of modern Western history are only partly correct. The main point is simple yet profound: Whichever form the Russian state takes, it will never be accepted as an equal by the racists, fascists and religious bigots in the West. The President is deeply aware of this but is hoping against hope that some form of détente is still possible. To elucidate the situation, he uses historical precedent to highlight the similarity between the geopolitical situations in 1941 and today and delivers a parable disguised as a historical treatise.
2. History doesn’t repeat…
A long time ago, there was a large and powerful country—let’s call it country X. Having gone through a decade of terrible convulsions and a series of civil wars which resulted in millions of deaths and a wholesale destruction of the country’s social and political systems, it began to grow and develop and this growth was perceived as a direct challenge to the Western imperialist system. The country was far from perfect. Years of suffering and neglect had taken their toll and large parts of the country needed rebuilding—especially the transport infrastructure. The people were traumatised and yearning for peace. Then, somewhat unexpectedly, a strong leader emerged who shunned the idea of imperial expansion and focussed on building up the country and preparing it for a possible war. In a famous speech, the leader warned that the country needed to catch up with the West and warned of the dangers of the attempts by the imperialist enemy to encircle and destroy it.
The leader knew that the accusations levelled at his country were mainly propaganda lies. While some Westerners were fascinated by the rapid development of the vast land, most were convinced that the ideas of suppression of rampant capitalism, development within one’s own borders, ending of imperialism and moving towards a multipolar world were seriously endangering the survival of the imperialist system. In order to curtail and extinguish the perennial enemy, the Western powers started inflaming extreme nationalism in their client states (combined with financial globalism) to encircle and destroy the only country that was a threat to their dominance. Although one country was preeminent in terms of military might, the strategy called for continental unity and this was achieved by co-opting smaller countries one after another and pushing the borders of the aggressive empire ever closer to those of country X. Hiding behind the enlightened principle of defending the Western civilisation against the peril from the East, the Empire’s aim was to surround and eventually destroy country X in order to plunder its natural wealth and human resources and forever extinguish its spirit.
The leader of X was desperate to avoid conflict. Through an international forum set up to prevent future wars, he reached out to Western governments time after time trying to convince them of his peaceful intentions and readiness to co-operate in building a peaceful multipolar world. All his attempts were in vain. The military machine of the West was moving inexorably towards his country. Not only that but a new threat emerged from a belligerent rapidly militarising island off the country’s Eastern coast whose militarist revival was supported by X’s principal enemy. The loudest and most vicious enemy of country X was a smaller neighbouring state whose rabid hatred of X and religious zeal ensured its preeminent position as the mailed fist of the Western aggression. With the help of Western intelligence services, this country encouraged and funded innumerable plots against country X and sabotaged its attempts to revamp the international security architecture.
The leader of X was demonised in the imperialist press as a ruthless butcher of various nations and ethnic groups within or outside his country, an autocrat whose ruthless grip on power was maintained by fear and whose removal of foreign agents from the political and economic apparatus was evidence of his genocidal bloodthirst. By means of a vicious propaganda campaign, a regime of harsh sanctions and an intelligence offensive, X was gradually turned into a pariah, isolated and despised. At the same time, X gave hope to many people around the world that a more just and fair society was possible. Poor countries still burdened by colonialism and imperialism looked especially favourably on X as a potential patron and protector.
Instead of folding under the ostracism and pressure of sanctions, X continued to develop rapidly and soon outpaced most of its Western competitors. The leader of X attempted to parry the concerted campaign of the imperialist enemy by reaching out to various Western countries trying to create a united defensive front. However, this was made impossible by a fascist feeding frenzy that led to a dismemberment and occupation of a previously neutral/friendly country.
In a belated attempt at creating a buffer zone against the merciless existential foe, X recaptured some of the territories it had lost previously. For this it was lambasted and chastised even more. The critical moment came when the enemy, emboldened by years of appeasement and dithering, breeched the old borders of X and quickly found itself about 450 km away from the capital of X. An erroneous perception of the enemy places all the blame for the aggression on a single country. Yet, with a couple of honourable exceptions, the entire continent contributed troops and logistical, financial, economic and propaganda support to the aggressor.
3. Guess who
The legerdemain I employed here to illustrate the peril facing the world might just work. If you toggle USSR/Russia, Germany/US-NATO, Czechoslovakia/Yugoslavia/Ukraine, you will realise that the similarities between that faithful summer of 1941 and the COVID-infected summer of 2020 are more than accidental. I leave it to you to fill in the names of other players. I am not claiming that the two situations are identical, but simply that the template of demonisation perseveres through centuries and political systems. If I’d tried harder, I could have fitted the Russian empire into this template but it is not worth the effort—not because the Russian empire does not matter but because the comparison between the USSR and modern Russia suffices for my purposes.[4] In the same way that Stalin used religion and tradition to strengthen the fighting spirit of the people, Putin is turning to the epic struggle of the Soviets to prepare the Russian people for what is likely to come. In a supreme irony (another one of these) in its attempt to suffocate the historical memory of Russia’s role in WWII the West has denigrated its own effort to the point where younger generations of Westerners have no knowledge of their ancestors’ just war. In a sense, this is the blowback of all blowbacks.
The rest of the story which now refers to WWII goes something like this: At this very last moment, when all hope was lost, the leaders of the three major powers overcame their suspicions and joined hands in an epic struggle against fascism and militarism. For president Putin (and many of us) this moment was magical—akin to the brief state of weightlessness induced by a freefalling aeroplane. Freed from the gravity of earthly power, the world could ascend to new hights of peaceful development. His plea/warning is unlikely to be heeded by the intended audience. Nevertheless, it is very necessary. The world cannot afford another summer of war because this one would be unbearably hot. Briefly, Putin is saying “Remember your brave ancestors who gave their lives in the joint struggle and honour them by embracing Russia as an equal and respected partner.” Putin’s essay is a wholesale repudiation of the canard that “countries don’t have friends, only interests”. Although he is appealing to the sound political interests of his Western “partners”, he is articulating something greater—a world based not on predation and profit but on humane and universally valid civilisational principles.
There is little hope that his hand will be grasped by the current lot of political clowns who are currently in power in the West. While pretending to be friendly to Russia, the Jesuitical fraud Trump has done more to damage the Russian-American ties than most of his predecessors taken together. The mendacious tapir Boris is doubling down on using the Ukraine to irritate and annoy Russia.[5] In that, he bears some similarity to his idol Churchill who spared no effort to criticise the Russian Empire and sabotage the Soviet Union. However, the comparison ends there. Unlike Churchill, who despite his despicable ideology and actions was a statesman of a great calibre, Boris is a Churchill wannabe who unlike his idol seems incapable of grasping the uniqueness of the present moment and the importance of not repeating historical mistakes.
To my knowledge, president Putin has never publicly addressed the occupation of parts of Russia by the allied intervention forces in 1918. ↑
Note similar attempts by the Anglo-Zionist empire to equate China with imperial Japan through the curriculum of Hong Kong schools ↑
My criticism of Poland does not imply my fondness for Bolshevism. Needless to say, Poland has never changed its position vis-à-vis Russia irrespective of the latter’s system of government. ↑
In the same way that Stalin and Putin have been accused of being the butchers of the Ukrainians, Chechens and Tatars, Nicholas II was being lambasted by the “progressive” Jews for the pogroms (which occurred mainly in the Western non-Orthodox areas of the Russian Empire). Despite saving the Jews from the holocaust and being the first to support and recognise Israel (also see The Jewish Autonomous Oblast), Stalin soon became the bete noire of the Zionists/Trotskyites and a synonym for antisemitism. Despite having excellent relations with the Russian Jews and Israel, Putin has been the target of Zionist wrath almost from the beginning. The reader should draw their own conclusions. ↑
British involvement with the Ukrainian nationalism stretches back to the end of WWII when Sir Collin Gubbins took over from Abwehr as the runner of the Prometheus terrorist network. Of course, the links between the MI6 and Polish inspired anti-Soviet networks almost certainly existed before 1939. ↑
منذ أن اتخذ بروكسيل مقراً له وهو يغامر بشنّ حروب خفيّة لا يمكن الإمساك بكافة خيوطها بسهولة، فمَن هو هذا الرجل وماذا يمثّل..!؟
من جهة أخرى فقد شهدت مدينة شتوتغارت الألمانية الجنوبية ليلة أمس الاول حرب شوارع عنيفة حتى الصباح، فيما يشبه الحروب الأهلية في بلاد العرب والمسلمين، فمن يقف وراء هذه الاحداث حقاً..!؟
على الرغم من أن المستشارة الألمانية، انجيلا ميركل، ليست القائدة الشيوعية روزا لوكسمبورغ، التي اغتالها النازيون سنة 1919 من القرن الماضي، ولا هي حتى اشتراكية ديموقراطية، كي نقول إن ترامب يتهمها بأنها يسارية، الا انه يواصل شن حربه عليها وعلى بلادها، منذ أن تسلم الحكم في واشنطن. حيث عاملها بفظاظة وقلة احترام، في كل اللقاءات التي أجراها، او اضطر لإجرائها معها.
فلماذا يا ترى؟ وما هي الأسباب الحقيقية وراء هذا الموقف؟ وما هي الأدوات التي يستخدمها ترامب في حربه هذه؟ وهل تمكن من لَيِ ذراع المستشارة ميركل وذراع بلادها، العملاق الاقتصادي الأوروبي، الذي يطمع ويطمح الرئيس الأميركي في إخضاعه بشكل شامل وكامل لمتطلبات واحتياجات السوق الأميركية، وبالتالي إخضاعه (العملاق الاقتصادي) لمصالح رؤوس الأموال التي تحكم الولايات المتحدة، من خلال القوى العميقة والخفية، التي ترسم سياسة ترامب.
إذن، فالقضية ليست عدم وفاء ألمانيا بالتزاماتها تجاه حلف شمال الاطلسي، وهي بالطبع تهمة غير صحيحة، وإنما هناك قطبة مخفيةً في هذه القضية.
فما هي هذه القطبة يا ترى؟
إنها قطبةٌ مزدوجة تتكوّن من شقين:
الأول: اقتصادي محض، سببه إصرار المستشارة الالمانية وحكومتها على تنفيذ مشروع خط أنابيب الغاز الروسي، المسمّى: السيل الشمالي / رقم 2 / وهو قيد الإنشاء وينطلق من الأراضي الروسية الشمالية الغربية، بالقرب من لينينغراد، ويسير تحت بحر البلطيق، بطول 1222 كم مباشرةً الى الأراضي الالمانية، ومن هناك الى فرنسا وغيرها من الدول الأوروبية الغربية.
وهو المشروع الذي يعارضه ترامب والقوى العميقة، التي تقف وراءه ويمثل مصالحها، بشدة وذلك لأنهم يريدون او يخططون لما يلي:
أ) لإرغام الدول الاوروبية على شراء الغاز الأميركي المسال، والذي قام محمد بن سلمان بتمويل إنشاء إحدى عشرة محطة شحن له، في الولايات المتحدة قبل سنتين. ولكن هذه الدول لا ترغب في ذلك لأسباب عديدة منها المالي ومنها البيئي ومنها السياسي ايضاً.
ب) لإلحاق الضرر بالاقتصاد الروسي بدايةً، عبر تقليص واردات الدول الاوروبية من واردات الغاز الطبيعي الروسي، غير المسال ، وذلك تمهيداً لإخراج روسيا من سوق الطاقة الاوروبي وما يعنيه ذلك من ضربة للصادرات الروسية من ناحية وإحكام السيطرة والهيمنة الأميركية على الاقتصادات الأوروبية، من خلال سيطرتها على قطاع الطاقة والتحكم بالتالي بمستويات النمو والتطور في اقتصادات جميع الدول الأوروبية.
الثاني: هو سبب سياسي محض، يتعلق بموقف ألمانيا من الاتفاق النووي الإيراني، حيث ترفض ألمانيا سياسات ترامب المتعلقة بالموضوع، وهي بذلك تشكل رافعة لبقية الدول الأوروبية، التي وقعت الاتفاق، أن تبقى على موقفها الهادف الى منع انهيار هذا الاتفاق (وان كانت تصب في النهاية لجانب الموقف الأميركي بسبب كونها دولة محتلة من أميركا لم تستطع ومعها الدول الأوروبية الأخرى من الخروج على القرار الأميركي).
كما أن الموقف الفعلي، الذي اتخذته المانيا، تجاه موضوع العقوبات الدولية، المفروضة على بيع السلاح لإيران، والتي سينتهي العمل بها في بداية شهر 10/2020، يثير غضب القوى العميقة (الدوائر الإنجيلية المتطرفة في الولايات المتحدة) التي تدعم ترامب وتستخدمه رأس حربة لها، في مواجهة الجمهورية الاسلامية الايرانية. اذ ان هذا الموقف بالذات هو الذي جعل الرئيس الأميركي يتخذ قراره بتخفيض عديد الجنود الأميركيين الموجودين في القواعد العسكرية الأميركية في المانيا.
ولكن حسابات ترامب وداعميه كانت خاطئةً كالعادة، حيث أفاد مصدر دبلوماسي أوروبي، انه وعلى العكس من كل ما يتردد في الإعلام، حول تداعيات هذه الخطوة الترامبية على أمن المانيا، فإن الحكومة الألمانية والمستشارة انجيلا ميركل لا تكترثان لهذا التخفيض، خاصة أن المانيا لا تتعرّض لأي تهديد، أمني او عسكري، من اي جهةٍ كانت، سوى التهديدات المستمرة، التي تشكلها محاولات زيادة السيطرة الأميركية على كل شيء في أوروبا، وتلك النشاطات التي تنفذها ادوات اليمين الأميركي الإنجيلي المتطرف في اوروبا.
فإلى جانب الضغوط المباشرة، التي يمارسها الرئيس الأميركي وإدارته، على العديد من الدول الأوروبية وفي مقدمتها المانيا، هناك ضغوط هائلة غير مباشرةٍ، لكنها مرئيةً وملموسةً، تمارس على المستشارة الالمانية وحزبها، الحزب الديموقراطي المسيحي الالماني، والذي يمثل رأس الحربة فيها كبير مستشاري ترامب الاستراتيجيين في البيت الابيض سنة 2017، ستيف بانون ، الذي يدير مدرسة تدريب القيادات اليمينية في أوروبا (من مقرّه في بروكسل) وحقنها بما يطلق عليه تسمية القيم اليهودية المسيحية الغربية. هذه المدرسة التي يدير نشاطاتها اليومية ويقرّر توجّهاتها الفكرية، النائب البريطاني الجنسية والسيرلانكي الأصل، نيرج ديڤا، بالاعتماد على معهد أبحاث متطرف ومرتبط بحزب المحافظين البريطاني، اسمه:
اذ كان للنشاط، المتعدد الأشكال والأنواع، الذي قام به ستيف بانون قبيل الانتخابات التشريعية الالمانية، في ايلول 2017، الأثر البالغ في حصول الحزب الألماني النازي الجديد، حزب البديل لألمانيا على 94 مقعداً في البرلمان الألماني، من اصل 709، حيث احتل المرتبة الثالثة بين الأحزاب، بعد حزب المستشارة الديموقراطي المسيحي والحزب الاشتراكي الديموقراطي، الأمر الذي يشكل خطراً على النظام السياسي ليس فقط في ألمانيا، كما يعلمنا التاريخ.
اما آخر المحاولات، التي قام بها «تلامذة» ستيف بانون لمعاقبة المستشارة الالمانية وهز الاستقرار في بلادها فكانت أحداث الشغب الواسعة النطاق، التي قامت بها أعداد كبيرة من المشاغبين، مقسمة على مجموعات صغيرة، في مدينة شتوتغارت الصناعية الهامة (مركز شركة مرسيدس) ليلة السبت الأحد 20/21-6-2020 والتي استمرت من منتصف ليلة الاحد حتى الصباح، وفشلت خلالها قوات الشرطة في السيطرة على الوضع، رغم استدعاء تعزيزات شرطية من كل أنحاء المقاطعة. وهو ما خلف دماراً وتخريباً كبيراً في الأملاك الخاصة والعامة، تخللتها عمليات نهب واسعة النطاق، في المدينة.
ومن أهم القضايا اللافتة للنظر في أحداث الليلة الماضية، في مدينة شتوتغارت الألمانية، ما يلي:
*التنظيم العالي المستوى، الذي تمتعت به هذه المجموعات المشاغبة، خلال الاشتباكات مع الشرطة.
*مرونة وسرعة حركة هذه المجموعات والتنسيق العالي بينها، ما يدل على وجود مركز قيادة وسيطرة موحّد، يدير هذا التحرك.
*العنف الشديد الذي مارسته هذه المجموعات، سواءً في تخريب الأملاك العامة والخاصة ونهبها، او تجاه وحدات وآليات الشرطة، حتى تلك الآليات المتوقفة في أنحاء المدينة ولا تشارك في المواجهات. وذلك على الرغم من ان الشرطة لم تطلق اي غازات مسيلة للدموع او القنابل الدخانية او غير ذلك من وسائل مكافحة الشغب طوال فترة المواجهات والتزمت بضبط نفس شديد.
اذن، كان هذا النشاط عنفياً بامتياز قامت به مجموعات ذات ارتباطات سياسة واضحة، مع جهات تريد إرسال رسالة جليةً للمستشارة الالمانية، مؤداها أننا قادرون على ضرب الاقتصاد الالماني، بوسائل أخرى / القوة الناعمة / اذا ما واصلت المانيا عنادها في موضوع السيل الشمالي وموضوع الاتفاق النووي الإيراني ورفع حظر بيع الأسلحة لإيران. وهذا بالطبع نوع من انواع الحرب الاقتصادية، ولو أنها لا تتخذ شكل العقوبات المباشرة، تماماً كالحرب الاقتصادية التي يمارسها ترامب ضد 39 دولة في العالم، على رأسها إيران وروسيا وسورية والصين وكوريا الشمالية، اضافة الى حزب الله اللبناني.
عبثاً يحاول ترامب أن يخرج سالماً من هذه الحروب العبثية..!
لأن سهامه كلها سترتدّ الى نحره إن عاجلاً او آجلاً.
Mr Putin wrote a comprehensive history on the 2ndWW, which surprisingly first appeared in the The National Interest and released today. This writing leads to a further support for the request that Mr Xi Jinping, Mr Macron, Mr Trump and Mr Johnson – gather together to to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states, permanent members of the Security Council, with the focus being: ” a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet, for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all states. ”
Controversy is beginning to show .. with Foreign Policy saying he is rewriting history and the Moscow Times describing it as “Putin’s Latest Obsession: A New World War II Narrative”
75 years have passed since the end of the Great Patriotic War. Several generations have grown up over the years. The political map of the planet has changed. The Soviet Union that claimed an epic, crushing victory over Nazism and saved the entire world is gone. Besides, the events of that war have long become a distant memory, even for its participants. So why does Russia celebrate the 9th of May as the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump rise in their throat?
They usually say that the war has left a deep imprint on every family’s history. Behind these words, there are fates of millions of people, their sufferings and the pain of loss. Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.
For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my two-year old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown. He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years pass, the more I feel the need to talk to my parents and learn more about the war period of their lives. But I no longer have the opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart the conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.
People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure. They need to understand how their ancestors managed to persevere and win. Where did their sheer, unbending willpower that amazed and fascinated the whole world come from? Sure, they were defending their homes, children, loved ones and families. However, what they shared was the love for their homeland, their Motherland. That deep-seated, intimate feeling is fully reflected in the very essence of our nation and became one of the decisive factors in its heroic, sacrificial fight against the Nazis.
People often wonder: What would today’s generation do? How will it act when faced with a crisis situation? I see young doctors, nurses, sometimes fresh graduates that go to the ”red zone“ to save lives. I see our servicemen fighting international terrorism in the North Caucasus, fighting to the bitter end in Syria. They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of the legendary, immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 19–20 years old. But all of them proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of our Motherland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.
This is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia is to fulfil their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Fatherland remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone of our country’s sovereignty.
Nowadays, we have new traditions created by the people, such as the Immortal Regiment. This is the memory march that symbolises our gratitude, as well as the living connection and the blood ties between generations. Millions of people come out to the streets carrying the photographs of their relatives who defended their Fatherland and defeated the Nazis. This means that their lives, the ordeals and sacrifices they endured, as well as the Victory that they passed to us will never be forgotten.
We have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War. I have discussed this idea on several occasions with world leaders, and they have showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders held at the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and foremost by the entire Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the Soviet Union fought side by side together in that heroic battle, both on the frontlines and in the rear. During that summit, I also talked with my counterparts about the challenging pre-war period.
That conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. It means that it is indeed high time that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there were many emotional outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud accusations that followed. Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewrite history. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be found not only in Russian, but also in foreign archives.
Thus, there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and reflect on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its lessons, both for our country and the entire world. And like I said, it is crucial to rely exclusively on archive documents and contemporary evidence while avoiding any ideological or politicised speculations.
I would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The root causes of World War II mainly stem from the decisions made after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of grave injustice for Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed, being forced to pay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its economy. French Marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the Supreme Allied Commander gave a prophetic description of that Treaty: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.”
It was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical and revenge-seeking sentiments in Germany. The Nazis skilfully played on people’s emotions and built their propaganda promising to deliver Germany from the “legacy of Versailles” and restore the country to its former power while essentially pushing German people into war. Paradoxically, the Western states, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly contributed to this. Their financial and industrial enterprises actively invested in German factories and plants manufacturing military products. Besides, many people in the aristocracy and political establishment supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that were on the rise both in Germany and in Europe.
“Versailles world order” caused numerous implicit controversies and apparent conflicts. They revolved around the borders of new European states randomly set by the victors in World War I. That boundary delimitation was almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and mutual claims that turned into “time bombs”.
One of the major outcomes of World War I was the establishment of the League of Nations. There were high expectations for that international organisation to ensure lasting peace and collective security. It was a progressive idea that, if followed through consistently, could actually prevent the horrors of a global war from happening again.
However, the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the United Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless discussions. The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and a Pacific pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.
The League of Nations also failed to prevent conflicts in various parts of the world, such as the attack of Italy on Ethiopia, a civil war in Spain, the Japanese aggression against China and the Anschluss of Austria. Furthermore, in case of the Munich Betrayal that, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and was a welcome guest in the European capitals.
Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On September 20, 1938, Polish Ambassador to Germany Józef Lipski reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Józef Beck on the following assurances made by Hitler: “…in case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland.” The Nazi leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act “only after the Germans occupy the Sudetes.”
Poland was aware that without Hitler’s support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail. I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between German Ambassador to Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Józef Beck that took place on October 1, 1938, and was focused on the Polish-Czech relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It says: “Mr Beck expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded to Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The Government and the public [of Poland] fully appreciated the attitude of the Fuehrer and Chancellor.”
The partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical. Munich destroyed even the formal, fragile guarantees that remained on the continent. It showed that mutual agreements were worthless. It was the Munich Betrayal that served as the “trigger” and made the great war in Europe inevitable.
Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke their commitments and supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is not the only reason. Another is that it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.
The Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collective security system in Europe. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Beck wrote about it directly in his letter of September 19, 1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Józef Lipski before his meeting with Hitler: “…in the past year, the Polish government rejected four times the proposal to join the international interfering in defence of Czechoslovakia.”
Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white.
That was the essence of the western policy of ‘appeasement,’ which was pursued not only towards the Third Reich but also towards other participants of the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact – the fascist Italy and militarist Japan. In the Far East, this policy culminated in the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese agreement in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a free hand in China. The leading European powers were unwilling to recognise the mortal danger posed by Germany and its allies to the whole world. They were hoping that they themselves would be left untouched by the war.
The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.
Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance to create an Anti-Hitler coalition. Despite – I will say it again – the double‑dealing on the part of the Western countries. For instance, the intelligence services reported to the Soviet leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contacts between Britain and Germany in the summer of 1939. The important thing is that those contacts were quite active and practically coincided with the tripartite negotiations between France, Great Britain and the USSR, which were, on the contrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners. In this connection, I will cite a document from the British archives. It contains instructions to the British military mission that came to Moscow in August 1939. It directly states that the delegation was to proceed with negotiations very slowly, and that the Government of the United Kingdom was not ready to assume any obligations spelled out in detail and limiting their freedom of action under any circumstances. I will also note that, unlike the British and French delegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the Red Army, who had the necessary authority to “sign a military convention on the organisation of military defence of England, France and the USSR against aggression in Europe.”
Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have any obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western allies, the Polish leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red Army to fight against the Wehrmacht. It was only when they learned of the arrival of J. Ribbentrop to Moscow that J. Beck reluctantly and not directly, but through French diplomats, notified the Soviet side: “… in the event of joint action against the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet Union, subject to technical conditions which have to be agreed, is not out of the question.” At the same time, he explained to his colleagues: “… I agreed to this wording only for the sake of the tactics, and our core position in relation to the Soviet Union is final and remains unchanged.”
In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. It was practically the last among the European countries to do so. Besides, it was done in the face of a real threat of war on two fronts – with Germany in the west and with Japan in the east, where intense fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.
Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country’s defences.
Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period – with all its triumphs and tragedies – is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let me also remind you that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution of December 24, 1989 officially denounced the secret protocols as “an act of personal power” which in no way reflected “the will of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion.”
Yet other states prefer to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence – or even direct abetment – of some European politicians in the barbarous plans of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said by Polish Ambassador to Germany J. Lipski during his conversation with Hitler on September 20, 1938: “…for solving the Jewish problem, we [the Poles] will build in his honour … a splendid monument in Warsaw.”
Besides, we do not know if there were any secret “protocols” or annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for it. In particular, materials pertaining to the secret Anglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods – the way Russia has been doing it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.
But let us go back to the events immediately preceding the Second World War. It was naïve to believe that Hitler, once done with Czechoslovakia, would not make new territorial claims. This time the claims involved its recent accomplice in the partition of Czechoslovakia – Poland. Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the fate of the so-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The blame for the tragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership, which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitler’s machine of destruction.
The German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine. Despite the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on September 8, 1939 – only a week after the war broke out – the German troops were on the approaches to Warsaw. By September 17, the military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, betraying its people, who continued to fight against the invaders.
Poland’s hope for help from its Western allies was vain. After the war against Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometres deep into the German territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its first meeting on September 12, 1939 in the French city of Abbeville, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid developments in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.
Later, during the Nuremberg Trials, German generals explained their quick success in the East. Former Chief of the Operations Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command General Alfred Jodl admitted: “… we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions during our war with Poland remained absolutely idle.”
I asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body of materials pertaining to the contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939. According to the documents, paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939 stated that, in the event of territorial-political reorganisation of the districts making up the Polish state, the border between the spheres of interest of the two countries would run “approximately along the Narew, Vistula and San rivers.” In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included not only the territories that were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belorussian population but also the historically Polish lands in the Vistula and Bug interfluve. This fact is known to very few these days.
Similarly, very few know that, immediately after the attack on Poland, in the early days of September 1939, Berlin strongly and repeatedly called on Moscow to join the military action. However, the Soviet leadership ignored those calls and planned to avoid engaging in the dramatic developments as long as possible.
It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland and thus appear on the approaches to Minsk that the Soviet Union decided to send in, on the morning of September 17, Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines (Kresy), which nowadays form part of the territories of Belorussia, Ukraine and Lithuania.
Obviously, there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSR would face seriously increased risks because – I will say this again – the old Soviet-Polish border ran only within a few tens of kilometres from Minsk. The country would have to enter the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemyśl, Lvov and Wilno, would be left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices – anti-Semites and radical nationalists.
The fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging in the growing conflict for as long as possible and was unwilling to fight side by side with Germany was the reason why the real contact between the Soviet and the German troops occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secret protocol. It was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called Curzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of Poland.
As is known, the subjunctive mood can hardly be used when we speak of the past events. I will only say that, in September 1939, the Soviet leadership had an opportunity to move the western borders of the USSR even farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided against it.
The Germans suggested formalising the new status quo. On September 28, 1939 J. Ribbentrop and V. Molotov signed in Moscow the Boundary and Friendship Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as the secret protocol on changing the state border, according to which the border was recognised at the demarcation line where the two armies de-facto stood.
In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals, started the process of incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with international and state law of that time. Besides, in October 1939, the city of Wilno and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher government entities of the Soviet Union.
During all these months there was an ongoing invisible diplomatic and politico-military struggle and intelligence work. Moscow understood that it was facing a fierce and cruel enemy, and that a covert war against Nazism was already going on. And there was no reason to take official statements and formal protocol notes of that time as a proof of ‘friendship’ between the USSR and Germany. The Soviet Union had active trade and technical contacts not only with Germany, but with other countries as well. Whereas Hitler tried again and again to draw the Soviet Union into Germany’s confrontation with the UK. But the Soviet government stood firm.
The last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together was made by Hitler during Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November 1940. But Molotov accurately followed Stalin’s instructions and limited himself to a general discussion of the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan in September 1940 and directed against the UK and the USA. No wonder that already on November 17 Molotov gave the following instructions to Soviet plenipotentiary representative in London Ivan Maisky: “For your information…No agreement was signed or was intended to be signed in Berlin. We just exchanged our views in Berlin…and that was all…Apparently, the Germans and the Japanese seem anxious to push us towards the Gulf and India. We declined the discussion of this matter as we consider such advice on the part of Germany to be inappropriate.” And on November 25, the Soviet leadership called it a day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from Finland, mutual assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number of others. Thus it deliberately excluded any possibility of joining the Pact. Such position definitely shaped the Fuehrer’s intention to unleash a war against the USSR. And already in December, putting aside the warnings of his strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler approved Operation Barbarossa. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet Union was the major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming battle in the East would decide the outcome of the world war. And he had no doubts as to the swiftness and success of the Moscow campaign.
And here I would like to highlight the following: Western countries, as a matter of fact, agreed at that time with the Soviet actions and recognised the Soviet Union’s intention to ensure its national security. Indeed, back on October 1, 1939 Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty back then, in his speech on the radio said, “Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest… But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line [meaning the new Western border] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.” On October 4, 1939, speaking in the House of Lords, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax said, “…it should be recalled that the Soviet government’s actions were to move the border essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon… I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable.” Prominent British politician and statesman David Lloyd George emphasised, “The Russian Armies occupied the territories that are not Polish and that were forcibly seized by Poland after World War I … It would be an act of criminal insanity to put the Russian advancement on a par with the German one.“
In informal communications with Soviet plenipotentiary representative Ivan Maisky, British high-ranking politicians and diplomats spoke even more openly. On October 17, 1939, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R. A. Butler confided to him that the British government circles believed there could be no question of returning Western Ukraine and Belorussia to Poland. According to him, if it had been possible to create an ethnographic Poland of a modest size with a guarantee not only of the USSR and Germany, but also of Britain and France, the British government would have considered itself quite satisfied. On October 27, 1939, Neville Chamberlain’s senior advisor Horace Wilson said that Poland had to be restored as an independent state on its ethnographic basis, but without Western Ukraine and Belorussia.
It is worth noting that in the course of these conversations the possibilities for improving British-Soviet relations were also explored. These contacts to a large extent laid the foundation for future alliance and Anti-Hitler coalition. Winston Churchill stood out among responsible and far-sighted politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR, had been in favour of cooperating with the Soviets even before. Back in May 1939, he said in the House of Commons, “We shall be in mortal danger if we fail to create a Grand Alliance against aggression. The worst folly… would be to… drive away any natural cooperation with Soviet Russia…” And after the start of hostilities in Europe, at his meeting with Ivan Maisky on October 6, 1939 he confided that there were no serious contradictions between the UK and the USSR and, therefore, there was no reason for strained or unsatisfactory relations. He also mentioned that the British government was eager to develop trade relations and willing to discuss any other measures that might improve the relationships.
World War II did not happen overnight, nor did it start unexpectedly or all of a sudden. And German aggression against Poland was not out of nowhere. It was the result of a number of tendencies and factors in the world politics of that time. All pre-war events fell into place to form one fatal chain. But, undoubtedly, the main factors that predetermined the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind were state egoism, cowardice, appeasement of the aggressor who was gaining strength, and unwillingness of political elites to search for compromise.
Therefore, it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister J. Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of World War II. All the leading countries are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of them made fatal mistakes, arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others, secure unilateral advantages for themselves or stay away from the impending global catastrophe. And this short-sightedness, the refusal to create a collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous losses.
Saying this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, to accuse or acquit anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information confrontation in the historical field that could set countries and peoples at loggerheads. I believe that it is academics with a wide representation of respected scholars from different countries of the world who should search for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a calm, open and trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a self-critical and unbiased manner. Such an approach will make it possible not to repeat the mistakes committed back then and to ensure peaceful and successful development for years to come.
However, many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary, pursuing their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information attacks against our country, trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty. They adopt thoroughly hypocritical and politically motivated declarations. Thus, for example, the resolution on the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe approved by the European Parliament on September 19, 2019 directly accused the USSR – along with the Nazi Germany – of unleashing the Second World War. Needless to say, there is no mention of Munich in it whatsoever.
I believe that such ‘paperwork’ – for I cannot call this resolution a document – which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with real and dangerous threats. Indeed, it was adopted by a highly respectable institution. And what did it show? Regrettably, it revealed a deliberate policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order whose creation was a matter of honour and responsibility for the countries a number of representatives of which voted today in favour of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international community to create after the victorious 1945 universal international institutions. Let me remind you in this regard that the process of European integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant structures, including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons learnt form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those who deliberately put this consensus into question undermine the foundations of the entire post-war Europe.
Apart from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this also raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean. Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II mention all participants in the Anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly as in the situation when monuments erected in honour of those who fought against Nazism are demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of the fight against an unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also be bloody as in the situation when those who come out against neo-Nazis and Bandera’s successors are killed and burned. Once again, meanness can have different manifestations, but this does not make it less disgusting.
Neglecting the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly uphold the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be honest and impartial about the events of World War II. This includes a large-scale project to establish Russia’s largest collection of archival records, film and photo materials about the history of World War II and the pre‑war period.
Such work is already underway. Many new, recently discovered or declassified materials were also used in the preparation of this article. In this connection, I can state with all responsibility that there are no archive documents that would confirm the assumption that the USSR intended to start a preventive war against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed followed a doctrine according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory. However, such strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany first.
Of course, military planning documents, letters of instruction of Soviet and German headquarters are now available to historians. Finally, we know the true course of events. From the perspective of this knowledge, many argue about the actions, mistakes and misjudgement of the country’s military and political leadership. In this regard, I will say one thing: along with a huge flow of misinformation of various kinds, Soviet leaders also received true information about the upcoming Nazi aggression. And in the pre-war months, they took steps to improve the combat readiness of the country, including the secret recruitment of a part of those liable for military duty for military training and the redeployment of units and reserves from internal military districts to western borders.
The war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But the Nazi attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilised and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic and military potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also Germany’s satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.
The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means, nation-wide mobilisation and intensification of all efforts of the state and the people. In summer 1941, millions of citizens, hundreds of factories and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the east of the country. The manufacture of weapons and munition, that had started to be supplied to the front already in the first military winter, was launched behind the lines in the shortest possible time, and by 1943, the rates of military production of Germany and its allies were exceeded. Within eighteen months, the Soviet people did something that seemed impossible. Both on the front lines and the home front. It is still hard to realise, understand and imagine what incredible efforts, courage, dedication these greatest achievements were worth.
The tremendous power of Soviet society, united by the desire to protect their native land, rose against the powerful, armed to the teeth, cold-blooded Nazi invading machine. It stood up to take revenge on the enemy, who had broken, trampled peaceful life, people’s plans and hopes.
Of course, fear, confusion and desperation were taking over some people during this terrible and bloody war. There were betrayal and desertion. The harsh splits caused by the revolution and the Civil War, nihilism, mockery of national history, traditions and faith that the Bolsheviks tried to impose, especially in the first years after coming to power – all of this had its impact. But the general attitude of the of Soviet citizens and our compatriots who found themselves abroad was different – to save and protect the Motherland. It was a real and irrepressible impulse. People were looking for support in true patriotic values.
The Nazi ‘strategists’ were convinced that a huge multinational state could easily be brought to heel. They thought that the sudden outbreak of the war, its mercilessness and unbearable hardships would inevitably exacerbate inter-ethnic relations. And that the country could be split into pieces. Hitler clearly stated: “Our policy towards the peoples living in the vastness of Russia should be to promote any form of disagreement and split.”
But from the very first days, it was clear that the Nazi plan had failed. The Brest Fortress was protected to the last drop of blood by its defenders representing more than 30 ethnicities. Throughout the war – both in large-scale decisive battles and in the protection of every foothold, every metre of native land – we see examples of such unity.
The Volga region and the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia became home to millions of evacuees. Their residents shared everything they had and provided all the support they could. Friendship of peoples and mutual help became a real indestructible fortress for the enemy.
The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were heroes who fought to the end surrounded by the enemy at Bialystok and Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They launched attacks near Moscow and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They liberated Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.
We contend for genuine, unvarnished or whitewashed truth about war. This national, human truth, which is hard, bitter and merciless, has been handed down to us by writers and poets who walked through fire and hell of front trials. For my generation, as well as for many others, their honest and deep stories, novels, piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark on the soul forever. Honouring veterans who did everything they could for the Victory and remembering those who died on the battlefield has become our moral duty.
And today, the simple and great in their essence lines of Alexander Tvardovsky’s poem “I was killed near Rzhev …” dedicated to the participants of the bloody and brutal battle of the Great Patriotic War in the centre of the Soviet-German front line are astonishing. In the battles for Rzhev and the Rzhev Salient alone from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army lost 1,342,888 people, including wounded and missing in action. For the first time, I call out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do it to honour the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes, who for various reasons were undeservingly, and unfairly little talked about or not mentioned at all in the post-war years.
Let me cite another document. This is a report of February 1945 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission’s task was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers. The Commission concluded that “the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft.” On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the Anti-Hitler Coalition. During the war period, the Red Army “ground up” 626 divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.
On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: “These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together.” Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote that “it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine…”
Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320. Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Union’s hardest and grievous losses is not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names and fates of all who have perished – Red Army soldiers, partisans, underground fighters, prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians killed by the death squads. It is our duty. And special role here belongs to members of the search movement, military‑patriotic and volunteer associations, projects like the electronic database ”Pamyat Naroda“ (Memory of the People), which contains archival documents. And, surely, close international cooperation is needed in such a common humanitarian task.
The efforts of all countries and peoples who fought against a common enemy resulted in victory. The British army protected its homeland from invasion, fought the Nazis and their satellites in the Mediterranean and North Africa. American and British troops liberated Italy and opened the Second Front. The US dealt powerful and crushing strikes against the aggressor in the Pacific Ocean. We remember the tremendous sacrifices made by the Chinese people and their great role in defeating Japanese militarists. Let us not forget the fighters of Fighting France, who did not fall for the shameful capitulation and continued to fight against the Nazis.
We will also always be grateful for the assistance rendered by the Allies in providing the Red Army with munition, raw materials, food and equipment. And that help was significant – about 7 percent of the total military production of the Soviet Union.
The core of the Anti-Hitler Coalition began to take shape immediately after the attack on the Soviet Union where the United States and Britain unconditionally supported it in the fight against Hitler’s Germany. At the Tehran Conference in 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill formed an alliance of great powers, agreed to elaborate coalition diplomacy and a joint strategy in the fight against a common deadly threat. The leaders of the Big Three had a clear understanding that the unification of industrial, resource and military capabilities of the USSR, the United States and the UK will give unchallenged supremacy over the enemy.
The Soviet Union fully fulfilled its obligations to its allies and always offered a helping hand. Thus, the Red Army supported the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Normandy by carrying out a large-scale Operation Bagration in Belorussia. In January 1945, having broken through to the Oder River, our soldiers put an end to the last powerful offensive of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front in the Ardennes. Three months after the victory over Germany, the USSR, in full accordance with the Yalta agreements, declared war on Japan and defeated the million-strong Kwantung Army.
Back in July 1941, the Soviet leadership declared that “the purpose of the war against fascist oppressors was not only the elimination of the threat looming over our country, but also help for all the peoples of Europe suffering under the yoke of German fascism.” By mid-1944, the enemy was expelled from virtually all of the Soviet territory. However, the enemy had to be finished off in its lair. And so the Red Army started its liberation mission in Europe. It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror of the Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet soldiers.
It is also important not to forget about the enormous material assistance that the USSR provided to the liberated countries in eliminating the threat of hunger and in rebuilding their economies and infrastructure. That was being done at the time when ashes stretched for thousands of miles all the way from Brest to Moscow and the Volga. For instance, in May 1945, the Austrian government asked the USSR to provide assistance with food, as it “had no idea how to feed its population in the next seven weeks before the new harvest.” State Chancellor of the Provisional Government of the Austrian Republic Karl Renner described the consent of the Soviet leadership to send food as a saving act that the Austrians would never forget.
The Allies jointly established the International Military Tribunal to punish Nazi political and war criminals. Its decisions contained a clear legal qualification of crimes against humanity, such as genocide, ethnic and religious cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Directly and unambiguously, the Nuremberg Tribunal also condemned the accomplices of the Nazis, collaborators of various kinds.
This shameful phenomenon manifested itself in all European countries. Such figures as Pétain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers – though they were disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom from communism – are traitors and butchers. In terms of inhumanity, they often exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve, as part of special punitive groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were responsible for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt Khatyn, acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.
Today as well, our position remains unchanged – there can be no excuse for the criminal acts of Nazi collaborators, there is no period of limitations for them. It is therefore bewildering that in certain countries those who are smirched with cooperation with the Nazis are suddenly equated with World War II veterans. I believe that it is unacceptable to equate liberators with occupants. And I can only regard the glorification of Nazi collaborators as a betrayal of the memory of our fathers and grandfathers. A betrayal of the ideals that united peoples in the fight against Nazism.
At that time, the leaders of the USSR, the United States, and the UK faced, without exaggeration, a historic task. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill represented the countries with different ideologies, state aspirations, interests, cultures, but they demonstrated great political will, rose above the contradictions and preferences and put the true interests of peace at the forefront. As a result, they were able to come to an agreement and achieve a solution from which all of humanity has benefited.
The victor powers left us a system that has become the quintessence of the intellectual and political quest of several centuries. A series of conferences – Tehran, Yalta, San Francisco and Potsdam – laid the foundation of a world that for 75 years had no global war, despite the sharpest contradictions.
Historical revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, primarily with regard to the subject of the Second World War and its outcome, is dangerous because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the principles of peaceful development, laid down at the Yalta and San Francisco conferences in 1945. The major historic achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that time is the agreement to create a mechanism that would allow the leading powers to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving their differences.
The twentieth century brought large-scale and comprehensive global conflicts, and in 1945, nuclear weapons capable of physically destroying the Earth also entered the scene. In other words, the settlement of disputes by force has become prohibitively dangerous. And the victors in the Second World War understood that. They understood and were aware of their own responsibility towards humanity.
The cautionary tale of the League of Nations was taken into account in 1945. The structure of the UN Security Council was developed in a way to make peace guarantees as concrete and effective as possible. That is how the institution of the permanent members of the Security Council and the right of the veto as their privilege and responsibility came into being.
What is the power of veto in the UN Security Council? To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable alternative to a direct confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the five powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests and its ideas about the right approach. And other countries, even if they do not agree, take this position as a given, abandoning any attempts to realise their unilateral efforts. It means that in one way or another it is necessary to seek compromises.
A new global confrontation started almost immediately after the end of the Second World War and was at times very fierce. And the fact that the Cold War did not grow into the Third World War has become a clear testimony of the effectiveness of the agreements concluded by the Big Three. The rules of conduct agreed upon during the creation of the United Nations made it possible to further minimise risks and keep confrontation under control.
Of course, we can see that the UN system currently experiences certain tension in its work and is not as effective as it could be. But the UN still performs its primary function. The principles of the UN Security Council are a unique mechanism for preventing a major war or a global conflict.
The calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish the power of veto, to deny special opportunities to permanent members of the Security Council are actually irresponsible. After all, if that happens, the United Nations would in essence become the League of Nations – a meeting for empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. How it ended is well known. That is why the victor powers approached the formation of the new system of the world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition of mistakes made by their predecessors.
The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of World War II. Even the most insurmountable contradictions – geopolitical, ideological, economic – do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence to the social, economic and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.
It is a duty of ours – all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victor powers in the Second World War – to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues – Mr Xi Jinping, Mr Macron, Mr Trump and Mr Johnson – supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for this and hope that such face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.
What is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our opinion, it would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs. To speak frankly about the issues of preserving peace, strengthening global and regional security, strategic arms control, about joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other major challenges and threats.
A special item on the agenda of the meeting is the situation in the global economy. And above all, overcoming the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Our countries are taking unprecedented measures to protect the health and lives of people and to support citizens who have found themselves in difficult living situations. Our ability to work together and in concert, as real partners, will show how severe the impact of the pandemic will be, and how quickly the global economy will emerge from the recession. Moreover, it is unacceptable to turn the economy into an instrument of pressure and confrontation. Popular issues include environmental protection and combating climate change, as well as ensuring the security of the global information space.
The agenda proposed by Russia for the upcoming summit of the Five is extremely important and relevant both for our countries and for the entire world. And we have specific ideas and initiatives on all the items.
There can be no doubt that the summit of Russia, China, France, the United States, and the UK will play an important role in finding common answers to modern challenges and threats, and will demonstrate a common commitment to the spirit of alliance, to those high humanist ideals and values for which our fathers and grandfathers fought shoulder to shoulder.
Drawing on a shared historical memory, we can trust each other and must do so. That will serve as a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet, for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all states. Without exaggeration, it is our common duty and responsibility towards the entire world, towards the present and future generations.
كثر أخيراً الكثير من الكلام وفيه الغث والسمين عن خلافات في الرؤى بين روسيا بوتين وسورية الأسد، وذهب كثيرون من دون علم ولا مسؤولية عن نية مزعومة لدى القيادة الروسية بالضغط باتجاه تغيير القيادة في سورية أو ما سمّوه تغيير الرئيس بشار الأسد، وهو ادّعاء لا يصحّ إلا مع مرضى النفوس ممن ينطبق عليهم المثل الإيراني الشهير:
«الكافر يقيس الناس على معتقده…»!
ظناً منهم أنّ كلّ عالم السياسة هو كعلاقتهم الذئبية مع سيدهم الأميركي…!
صحيح أن التاريخ ليس وحده من يعطي العلاقات السورية الروسية الحاليّة، ذات الطبيعة الاستراتيجية المتينة طبيعتها، وإنما الاقتصاد والسياسة والأمن والضرورات العسكرية للطرفين. وهذا يعني أن العلاقات الحاليّة مبنيّة على أسس القانون الدولي الشديدة الوضوح، في تنظيم العلاقات بين الدول، وكذلك الأمر فهي مبنية على المصالح المتبادلة للطرفين.
ومن نافل القول أيضاً أنّ هذه العلاقات، التي تزداد ترسّخاً في الوقت الحاضر، ليست علاقات جديدة، بل هي موجودة منذ استقلال سورية عن الاستعمار الفرنسي، منتصف أربعينيات القرن العشرين. وتعمّقت هذه العلاقات بعد توقيع اتفاقية التعاون المشترك بين البلدين، سنة 1955، والتي أثارت حفيظة القوى الاستعمارية الدولية يومها وعلى رأسها الولايات المتحدة، التي اتهمت سورية بأنها تجنح لأن تصبح دولة شيوعية مرتبطة بالاتحاد السوفياتي وقاعدة لتوسيع نفوذه في المنطقة…!
وقد قامت تلك القوى الاستعماريّة بمحاولة فاشلة لتطويق سورية ووقف تعاونها مع الاتحاد السوفياتي، وذلك من خلال العمل على إنشاء حلف عسكري معادٍ للاتحاد السوفياتيّ، أُطلق عليه اسم حلف بغداد، بحيث يضمّ العراق الملكيّ والأردن وتركيا وبريطانيا والولايات المتحدة. وقد رفضت سورية ومصر عبد الناصر هذا الملف العدواني العسكري وقاومته بكلّ الوسائل حتى أسقطته وتمّ دفنه بعد عدوان 1956 على مصر وتكريس الدور السوفياتي في «الشرق الاوسط»، اقتصادياً وسياسياً وعسكرياً.
ولكن المحاولات الاستعمارية الأوروبية، بقيادة الولايات المتحدة الأميركية بعد العدوان الثلاثي، لإسقاط سورية ومنعها من تمتين علاقاتها مع الاتحاد السوفياتي، قد استمرّت وتمّ تصعيدها عبر ما أطلق عليه: «مبدأ آيزنهاور»، الذي اعلن عنه الرئيس الأميركي آنذاك، أيزنهاور، في رسالة أرسلها إلى الكونغرس الأميركي، وجاء فيها أن الولايات المتحدة مستعدة لتقديم المساعدة الاقتصادية والسياسية والعسكرية، لأيّ دولة في «الشرق الاوسط» تطلب ذلك.
ولم يمضِ وقت طويل حتى طلبت الإدارة الأميركية، من عضو الناتو تركيا، بالبدء بالتحرّش بسورية عسكرياً. وبالفعل بدأت تركيا بحشد الآلاف من جنودها على الحدود السورية… وقد بلغ التوتر ذروته في 18/8/1957 إثر تعيينات وتغييرات أجراها الرئيس السوري شكري القوتلي على قيادات الجيش السوري، اعتبرتها الولايات المتحدة انقلاباً شيوعياً نقل سورية الى المعسكر السوفياتي. وهو ما دفع تركيا (الناتو) إلى دقّ طبول الحرب ضد سورية. إلا انّ تهديد الزعيم السوفياتي، نيكيتا خروتشوف، بقصف تركيا بالصواريخ إن هي اعتدت على سورية، الأمر الذي دفع المعسكر الغربي بالتراجع عن نيات العدوان وسحب تركيا حشودها عن الحدود السورية وإنهاء الأزمة في شهر 10/1957. وبهذا يكون مبدأ أيزنهاور هو الآخر قد سقط تماماً وانتهت أحلام الولايات المتحدة بالسيطرة على سورية، بحجة التصدي لتمدّد النفوذ السوفياتي في «الشرق الأوسط».
وكما كانت خطط العدوان الاستعماري الأوروأميركي ضدّ سورية، في خمسينيات وستينيات وسبعينيات القرن الماضي، متواصلة ضدّ سورية والدول العربية الأخرى المعادية للاستعمار، إلا أنها وفِي جزء كبير منها كانت تستهدف المصالح السوفياتيّة، ومن ثم الروسية بعد انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي، في المنطقة والعالم، وذلك عبر تكريس سيطرة الولايات المتحدة على بحار وأسواق العالم. وكان للسيطرة على البحر المتوسط، من قبل الأساطيل الأميركية، أهمية مزدوجة خدمة للمصالح الأمنية العسكرية والاقتصادية لكلّ من الولايات المتحدة والكيان الصهيوني.
ولا بدّ هنا من العودة بالذاكرة الى السياسات الأميركيّة، المعادية لسورية، منذ بداية القرن الحالي، وصولاً الى اغتيال الحريري في لبنان واستصدار القرار 1559 من مجلس الأمن وإرغام الجيش السوريّ على الانسحاب من لبنان وافتعال أزمة دولية لحصار وتدمير سورية، بعد اتهامها زوراً باغتيال الحريري. ولكن فشل هذه الحملة وصمود سورية قد دفع قوى العدوان الاستعماريّ الى إشعال حرب 2006 ضدّ لبنان، أملاً من واشنطن في تحقيق الهدف بإخضاع سورية وإنهاء دورها، المتمثل في كونها خط الدفاع الأول عن القضايا العربية، وفي مقدمتها قضية فلسطين، وكذلك لكونها قلعة أمام السيطرة الأميركية على المنطقة.
أما عن علاقة كلّ هذا مع طبيعة العلاقات السورية الروسية واكتسابها صفة العلاقات الاستراتيجية، فلا بدّ من توضيح بعض النقاط، لإظهار حقيقة العلاقة الجدلية، بين المصلحة الروسية وتلك السورية في التعاون العسكري والسياسي والاقتصادي، والتطور والنمو اللذين شهدته هذه العلاقات، منذ بدء الحرب الكونية العدوانية على سورية، سنة 2011. وأهم هذه النقاط هي التالية:
1
ـ اتفاقية التعاون المشترك، بين سورية والاتحاد السوفياتي، الموقعة سنة 1971، والتي شكلت قاعدة تعاون صلبة، على مختلف الصعد وبينها الصعيد العسكري، حيث حصل الاتحاد السوفياتي آنذاك على نقطة ارتكاز بحرية لأسطوله، الذي يقوم بمهمات الدوام القتالي في البحر الأبيض المتوسط.
ورغم تعثر عمليات الاسطول الروسي لبضع سنوات، بعد سقوط الاتحاد السوفياتي سنة 1991، الا ان بداية الالفية الحاليّة قد أعادت الحياة الى هذا الوجود البحري الروسي في المتوسط. وهو الوجود الذي يعتبر، من وجهة نظرنا، القوة الروسية التي تتواجد على خط الدفاع الأول عن أسوار موسكو، حتى قبل بدء العدوان على سورية. وليس علينا إلا أن نتذكر، بأن الاساطيل الأميركية والبريطانية والفرنسية والايطالية، التي شاركت في حروب التدخل، التي بدأتها البحرية البريطانية، في شهر حزيران سنة 1918، عندما نفذت عملية إنزال بحري على ميناء مورمانسك Murmansk في المحيط المتجمّد الشمالي، وسيطرت عليه، نقول إنّ هذه الأساطيل قد تحركت للهجوم على روسيا من البحر المتوسط الى مضائق البوسفور والدردنيل وصولاً الى البحر الأسود، جنوب روسيا، حيث وصلت الأساطيل الفرنسية والبريطانية واليونانية والايطالية الى ميناء اوديسا (حالياً في أوكرانيا)، بالإضافة الى قوة بحرية أميركية، قوامها 8000 من عناصر المارينز، قد تم إنزالها على سواحل ڤلاديڤوستوك، في أقصى الجنوب الشرق الروسي، وبدأت جميع هذه القوات، ومن خلال عمليات منسقة، بمهاجمة الأراضي الروسية… ولكنهم فشلوا في اختراق الأراضي الروسية واحتلال أجزاء منها.
2
ـ كما أنّ اتفاقية التعاون السورية الروسية، المذكورة أعلاه، قد شكلت أرضية لقيام وزارة الدفاع السوفياتية بتعزيز الوجود العسكري السوفياتي في طرطوس، بعد أن قرّر السادات يوم 8/7/1972 الاستغناء عن خدمات المستشارين العسكريين السوفيات في مصر، وهو الأمر الذي وصفه الزعيم السوفياتي ليونيد بريجنيف بأنه أكبر هدية للولايات المتحدة من دون ثمن.
الى جانب ذلك فقد شكلت هذه الاتفاقية القاعدة التي قام بموجبها الاتحاد السوفياتي بتسيير 900 رحلة جوية، لطيران النقل العسكري، لنقل 15000 طن من المعدات العسكرية للجيش السوري، بعد حرب تشرين 1973، وذلك لتعويض الخسائر التي لحقت بقوات الجيش. كما تمت إقامة جسر بحري بين روسيا واللاذقية للغرض نفسه.
ولا بدّ، في هذا الصدد، من التأكيد على ان الاتحاد السوفياتي لم يكن ليقوم بكلّ تلك العمليات، التي اعتبرها استثماراً استراتيجياً في علاقاته مع سورية، لم يكن ليقوم بذلك لو لم يكن على قناعة بأنّ الدور السوري في التصدّي لمحاولات الهيمنة الأميركية في العالم هو دور أساسي.
3
ـ وقد تأكد هذا التقدير السوفياتي العميق، للدور السوري، سنة 2010، عندما حصل الهجوم الدبلوماسي الاقتصادي الأميركي الأوروبي التركي الخليجي على روسيا الاتحادية، وذلك عندما قام الرئيس الفرنسي، نيكولا ساركوزي، بترتيب قمة رباعية في دمشق، ضمّت إلى جانبه الرئيس بشار الأسد ورئيس الوزراء التركي، رجب طيب ردوغان، والذي لم يكن رئيساً لتركيا بعد، وأمير قطر، الشيخ حمد بن خليفة آل ثاني.
وقد عقدت هذه القمة في دمشق، بتاريخ 27/5/2010، حيث عرض هؤلاء على الرئيس الأسد ما يلي:
أ ـ عرض الفرنسي العمل على إعادة دمج سورية في المجتمع الدولي وتقديم مساعدات اقتصادية أوروبية لها.
ب ـ أما أردوغان فقد عرض الضغط على «إسرائيل»، حيث كان يعمل وسيطاً في المحادثات غير المباشرة بين سورية والكيان الصهيوني، عرض تكثيف الضغط على «إسرائيل» للوصول الى حلّ لمشكلة الجولان المحتلّ.
ج ـ أما أمير قطر فقد عرض على الرئيس السوري تمويلات وقروض تصل الى 150 مليار دولار.
وذلك في مقابل موافقته على:
بناء خط أنابيب لنقل الغاز من جمهوريات آسيا الوسطى، السوفياتية سابقاً أذربيجان وتركمانستان، وإيران بعد إسقاط الحكم فيها، الى جانب الغاز القطري، ومن العراق أيضاً الذي كان لا زال تحت الاحتلال الأميركي، بحيث يمرّ هذا الخط من شمال شرق سورية ليصل الأراضي التركية ويتابع مسيره من هناك عبر بلغاريا… رومانيا المجر وصولاً الى النمسا، حيث ستقام محطة توزيع لهذا الغاز لكلّ أنحاء أوروبا. وقد سمّي هذا المشروع في حينه: خط غاز نابوكو Nabucco وهو مشروع كان يحظى بدعم أميركي أوروبي كامل وبدأ التحضير لإقامته سنة 2002، بينما تم التوقيع على الاتفاق الخاص بالتنفيذ، من قبل كل من: تركيا/ رومانيا/ بلغاريا/ المجر/ النمسا/ بتاريخ 13/7/2009. وذلك لمنافسة روسيا، أو بالأحرى لضرب الصادرات الروسية من الغاز الى أوروبا، خاصة أنّ روسيا كانت تخطط لإقامة خط أنابيب لتصدير الغاز، من جنوب روسيا إلى أوروبا، اسمه ساوث ستريم South Stream، الذي استبدلته روسيا بخط آخر اطلقت علية اسم تورك ستريم Turk Stream، وتمّ افتتاحه قبل أشهر.
ـ تجميد علاقات سورية مع إيران.
ـ وقف دعم حزب الله وحركتي حماس والجهاد الإسلامي في فلسطين.
ومن المعلوم طبعاً انّ الرئيس بشار الأسد قد رفض رفضاً قاطعاً تلبية أيّ من هذه الشروط. وربما يكون مفهوم لدى الكثيرين رفض الرئيس الأسد قطع علاقاته مع إيران وحزب الله والمقاومة الفلسطينية، ولكن ما قد يصعب فهمه على الكثيرين هو أسباب رفض الرئيس الأسد، وبشكل قاطع، الموافقة على مشروع خطوط الغاز.
ولكن السياق التاريخي للعلاقات الروسية السورية، الذي عرض أعلاه، لا بدّ انّ يساعد في فهم خلفيات وموجبات هذا الموقف السوري الصلب، وبالتالي الموقف الروسي الداعم عسكرياً للرئيس الأسد منذ عام 2015. إذ إنّ صانع القرار السوري يعلم تماماً ان موضوع خط الغاز المذكور لم يكن مشروعاً تجارياً عادياً وإنما كان مخططاً استراتيجياً أميركياً يرمي الى إخراج روسيا من أسواق الغاز الأوروبية، وإلحاق أكبر الأضرار باقتصادها بهدف شل قدرتها على مواصلة عمليات التحديث والتنمية والتطوير للدولة الروسية بشكل عام وللقوات المسلحة الروسية بشكل خاص.
من هنا، ومن منطلق الوفاء للصديق الصدوق، الاتحاد السوفياتي السابق ووريثته القانونية الحاليّة، جمهورية روسيا الاتحادية، فإنّ الرئيس الأسد، وبالاستناد الى الأخلاق السياسية العليا التي يتمتع بها، فقد قرّر أن يقيم خط صدّ عن موسكو لعلمه، المبني على تحليل دقيق للأبعاد الاستراتيجية لخطوته تلك، وذلك لأنّ التآمر على مصالح روسيا كان سيُمَكِّن دول الاستعمار الغربي بإلحاق أضرار كبيرة بروسيا وبسورية تتابعاً ونتيجة لذلك. وهو ما جعل الولايات المتحدة وأذنابها، من صهاينة وأعراب وعثمانيين جدد ودول أوروبية مُستَعْمَرَةٍ من قبل الولايات المتحدة تلجأ الى الخطة البديلة، ألا وهي تدمير سورية وتفكيكها كدولة، أملاً منها في تدمير خط الدفاع الأمامي عن موسكو. ولكن الصمود الأسطوري للشعب السوري وجيشه ورئيسه وتزايد الخطر على كيان الدولة السورية وما بدأ يلوح في الأفق محدودية قدرة الدولة السورية على مواصلة الحفاظ على حصونها على شواطئ المياه الدافئة، ونظراً للأهمية الاستراتيجية الفائقة لهذه المياه، فقد قرّرت القيادة الروسية التدخل مباشرة وبالقوة العسكرية اللازمة، لدعم صمود الحصون السورية.
وقد مثَّل هذا القرار تحركاً استراتيجياً قلب موازين القوى الدولية، خاصة أنّ سورية وروسيا قد اتفقتا، بعد التدخل العسكري الروسي، على تعزيز التعاون العسكري بين البلدين، على قاعدة اتفاقيات قانونية ورسمية طويلة المدى، تم بموجبها ليس إقامة قاعدة حميميم الجوية وطرطوس البحرية، فحسب وانما إيجاد الاطار القانوني اللازم لذلك، حسب الأصول والقوانين الدولية، خدمة للمصلحة الاستراتيجية للدولتين.
من هنا فإنّ العلاقات السورية الروسية ليست علاقات قائمة على الانتهازية او التسلط او الاستغلال، وانما هي استمرار لنهج من التعاون المثمر الذي يخدم المصالح الاستراتيجية المشتركة للبلدين.
وهي بالتالي ليست علاقات خاضعة لمزاج البازارات السياسية ولا لقوانين السيطرة والهيمنة، التي تمارسها الولايات المتحدة مع أذنابها في العالم، وانما هي علاقات متكافئة تعكس مستوى عميقاً جداً من الفهم والتحليل السياسي العلمي والموضوعي الذي هو أساس كل قرارٍ صائب.
وهذا هو السر الذي يقف وراء متانة هذه العلاقات واستحالة تعرضها للخلل بسهولة عند أول تباينات في قراءة هذا الحدث او ذاك من وقائع السياسة اليومية وتحولاتها الموسمية…!
بعد أن عجز الأميركي عن إنجاز أهدافه بنتيجة عشر سنوات من الحرب على سورية لإسقاطها كدولةٍ، وليس كنظام سياسي فحسب، من خلال البدء بدعم ما يُسمّى بالثورات الملوّنة والتي تعتمد على تأليب المجتمع وضربه بعضه ببعض بواسطة القوة الناعمة التي أطلقها الرئيس الأميركي السابق باراك أوباما، ثم دعم مختلف أنواع الحركات التكفيرية والإرهابية في العالم لتأتي وتعيث في الأرض السورية خراباً وتدميراً وتحاول بعد ذلك تقسيم الأرض السورية إلى مناطق نفوذ تحكمها إمارات ظلامية تكفيرية. ها هي الولايات المتحدة تعلن الحرب من جديد بسلاح الاقتصاد على سورية، فقانون قيصر الذي بدأ تطبيق مندرجاته من قبل الإدارة الأميركية والذي يعتمد على شهادات قيل إنها لمصوّر فارّ من سورية واسمه المستعار قيصر.
فمن الواجب قبل الشروع في الحديث عن التفاصيل المتعلقة بـالسياسة أن نقول بأنّ هناك عملاً تفنيدياً قانونياً كاملاً يجب، بادئ ذي بدء، أن ندعو المختصين في القانون من جميع المتطوّعين والخبراء القادرين وأصحاب الخبرة القريبين من محور المقاومة لـتفنيد الأسس القانونية التي سار عليها إدراج هذا القانون، لأنه يحتوي على الكثير من الثغرات غير المنطقية مثل عدد الصور التي ادّعى امتلاكها وهي أكثر من خمسين ألف صورة إضافةً إلى مصداقية الشاهد ومسائل قانونية أخرى يجب على القانونيين أن يتصدّوا لها وينشروا بشأنها في مختلف الدول ومنها الدول الحليفة أو ذات المواقف الأكثر حيادية، كون هذا الأمر ينطوي على أهمية كبرى لو قيّض لنا دحض المشروع برمّته من الناحية القانونية وهذا ممكن ولو بنسبة قليلة بحسب بعض الخبراء.
لكن الفلسفة الأساسية التي يقوم عليها هذا القانون تعتمد ليس على حصار سورية، لأنّ سورية أصلاً محاصرة من قبل الغرب أيّ بشكل رئيسي الولايات المتحدة الأميركية والدول الأوروبية والدول العربية وتركيا، والتي هي جزء أساسي من منظومة الغرب حيث أنها ومنذ عام 2011 لم تقطع صلتها الاقتصادية مع سورية فقط، وإنما قامت كما نفهمها نحن هنا في سورية قبل عام 2011 بسنوات عديدة بالتمهيد لـما جرى في العام 2011 من خلال الكثير من الإجراءات الترغيبية السريعة والمريبة التي ربطت فيها الاقتصاد السوري بشكل كبير مع الاقتصاد التركي والخليجي، وبالأخصّ بما يتعلق بعلاقة قطر بسورية، وعلاقة تركيا أيضاً بسورية حيث أنّ شهر العسل الاقتصادي إذا صحّ التعبير قد امتدّ لسنوات عديدة سبقت عام 2011، ثم وجدنا بأنّ من دخل إلى بيتنا صديقاً كان يتولى ريادة العمل العدواني الذي بدأ على سورية وأعني بالتحديد ما أصبح يُعرف بالمحور التركي القطري، بعد تراجع الدور الآخر للسعودية والإمارات، فتركيا لا تزال تحتلّ الأرض السورية وتشكل مع قطر جبهة العدوان في الحرب الاقتصادية على سورية.
لقد قامت فلسفة العقوبات الأميركية وبالأخص قانون قيصر المستجدّ الآن على محاصرة الدول التي لا تحاصر سورية وهنا يكمن لبّ الموضوع.
لسورية حلفاء وهؤلاء الحلفاء هم في رابط نضالي معها وبأهداف مشتركة سواء كان حلف المقاومة المعروف بخطه أو ما أسماه الرئيس بشار الأسد حلف مكافحة الإرهاب الذي يضمّ روسيا والصين أيضاً مع حلف المقاومة، حيث تكمن هنا مساحات مشتركة منها وبأساسها الرغبة الشديدة والمصلحة في نهوض سورية ووقوفها من جديد على قدميها ومنع انزلاقها في الأزمة الاقتصادية أو المعيشية، وبالتالي فإنّ السلاح الذي أقرّت الإدارة الأميركية محاربة سورية به هو وفق الفقرة 5318 من قانون الولايات المتحدة الأميركية لاعتبار المصرف المركزي هو مؤسسة مالية هدفها الأساسي يكمن في غسيل الأموال، ومعنى هذا الأمر أيّ إضافةً إلى شروحها المختلفة هو أنّ المطلوب من وزير الخزانة الأميركية إصدار تقرير جزء منه غير سري، أيّ معظمه معلن مع إمكانية أن يشمل على ملحق سري، ويعطي لـمجلس النواب الأميركي الـشرح الذي يفيد بأنّ المهمة الرئيسية للمصرف المركزي السوري هي غسل الأموال وفي نفس الوقت وضع جميع الوزارات والإدارات الأميركية في صورة هذا التقرير ومنها لجنة الشؤون الخارجية ولجنة الخدمات المالية ولجنة العلاقات الخارجية واللجنة المختصة بالمصارف والإسكان والشؤون العمرانية واللجنة المختصة باعتمادات مجلس الشيوخ وكلها عليها أن تأخذ علماً بالتقرير الذي يتمّ إرساله ثم وضع كلّ شيء بعهدة رئيس الولايات المتحدة الأميركية لكي يقرّر هو في ما إذا كان المصرف المركزي هو مؤسسة لـغسيل الأموال، وبالتالي هو يقرّر البدء بمعاقبة كلّ الكيانات والأشخاص والمنظمات غير الحكومية والدول بالتالي، وقد وضعت عبارات واضحة تشير إلى حكومة الاتحاد الروسي أو الحكومة الإيرانية بشكل مباشر بأنها هي المعنية بهذه القرارات، وبالتالي فإننا أمام استهداف مباشر للدول التي أصبح واضحاً بأنها هي الدول القادرة على أن تُعين الدولة السورية على الصمود، وهذا ما ذهبنا إليه في الشرح الأساسي وهو معاقبة كلّ من لا يُعاقب الدولة السورية، كون الدول الأخرى ومنذ عام 2011 قد ذهبت بملء إرادتها ابتداءً من تركيا إلى دول الخليج إلى دول أوروبا بقطع علاقاتها مع سورية وبمعاقبتها وفقاً للإملاءات الأميركية.
إذن… نحن أمام عملية إطباق حصار من خلال قرار قيصر على سورية بحيث يمكن وفق غايته ضرب كلّ باقي الكيانات التي يمكن أن تساعد الدولة السورية بأيّ شكل أو بآخر.
المجالات التي خصها القانون بـالذكر تتعلق بشكل رئيسي بصناعة النفط والغاز أو المنتجات النفطية إضافةً إلى ما يتعلق بالأغراض العسكرية وخاصةً لسلاح الطيران أو قطع الغيار المتعلقة به، بالإضافة إلى المصالح الهندسية المهمة للحكومة السورية، بمعنى أنها فقرة تصبح مفتوحة على اعتبار أيّ مشروع يتعلق بالإعمار مندرجاً ضمن فقرة من هذا النوع، وبالتالي نحن أمام إعطاء الحق لـرئيس الولايات المتحدة الأميركية كما جاء في النص أن يمارس كلّ صلاحياته الممنوحة له بوصفه رئيساً بموجب قانون القوى الاقتصادية لحالات الطوارئ الدولية رقم 50 في قانون الولايات المتحدة الأميركية رقمه 1701 وما يليه، وبالتالي لحجب ومنع كلّ الصفقات المتصلة بالملكية والفوائد على الملكية التي تعود لشخصية أجنبية في حال وجود تلك الممتلكات والفوائد التابعة لها ضمن حدود الولايات المتحدة الأميركية وهذا يستهدف المصالح الروسية الكثيرة جداً لروسيا والتي تعدّ بمئات مليارات الدولارات داخل الولايات المتحدة الأميركية، حيث تصبح أيضاً مندرجة وعرضة للمعاقبة بموجب هذا القانون.
طبعاً هناك فقرات محدّدة في هذا القانون تتعلق كلّ هذه الفقرات بالأشخاص الحاصلين على الجنسية الأميركية أو الذين يحملون سمات الدخول للولايات المتحدة الأميركية وهذا ينص على أن يحتوي القانون على عقوبات زاجرة وكبيرة يتأثر بها هؤلاء الأشخاص.
أما الاستثناءات من القانون فـهو موضوع يتعلق أصلاً بكلّ ما يندرج تحت عنوان مساعدة الشعب السوري وهو أن تستثنى منظمات الأمم المتحدة من عواقب تطبيق هذه النصوص القانونية وتسهيل المساعدات الإنسانية وهذا يذكرنا أصلاً بما قامت عليه الحرب السورية والتي قامت فلسفتها التي حاربت سورية وقطعت الطرق وضربت البنية الإنتاجية فيها كما فعلت تركيا من خلال مجموعاتها في مدينة حلب التي فكفكت الكثير من معاملها وسرقتها إضافةً إلى ضرب الصناعة والتجارة في سورية، وللعلم بأنّ سورية كانت دولة فريدة في العالم العربي حيث كانت تحوي في العام 2010 على 113000 منشأة صناعية مسجلة وأكثر من 850000 سجل تجاري مسجل لدى الدوائر الرسمية السورية، بمعنى أنّ الشعب السوري ونسبةً لعدد سكانه البالغ آنذاك 23 مليون نسمة، يعتبر بلداً عاملاً عندما يتمّ قسمة الرقمين السابقين سواء بالصناعة أو التجارة. هذا عدا عن باقي المهن المتنوعة، ونحن هنا أمام شعب لديه معدلات إنتاجية عالية جداً نسبةً للأرقام العالمية، وعندما تندلع حرب كالتي اندلعت في سورية منذ عام 2011 ثم تقوم الأمم المتحدة بدعم من الدول التي حاربت سورية نفسها بإرسال الكثير من المساعدات ونعم أنا أقول إنّ هذه المساعدات ليست أبداً في صالح الشعب السوري فهي جزء أساسي من خطة الحرب على سورية والخطة تقوم على ضرب البنية الاقتصادية والإنتاجية لسورية وتحويل الشعب السوري من شعب منتج إلى شعب متلقّ للمساعدات فقط، وهنا نشاهد بأنّ فلسفة قانون «سيزر» أيضاً هنا تنطوي على ضرب ما تبقى من البنى الإنتاجية في سورية وإتاحة تسهيل المساعدات الإنسانية وهذا يأتي بالفقرة 202 من قانون «سيزر» والذي يريد إعادة تحويل الشعب السوري إلى متلقي إعانات فقط وهو ما يعني سلب إرادته واستقلال قراره الاقتصادي، وبالتالي استقلال قراره السيادي والسياسي.
تعليق العقوبات
إنّ التلخيص السياسي الذي يمكن أن يستنتجه القارئ لكلّ ما سبق ولـسبب إصدار هذا القانون وإصداره كقانون ملزم للرئيس تمّ التصديق عليه من قبل الكونغرس يكمن في دفتر الشروط المطلوب ليس من سورية والذي يفسّر الفقرة 301 تحت عنوان (تعليق العقوبات)، وهو أنّ هذه العقوبات هي بشكل رئيسي ليست على سورية لأنّ سورية معاقبة أصلاً منذ عشر سنوات، وإنما على حلفاء سورية وبشكل رئيسي على روسيا وإيران، حيث تتحدّث الفقرات المختلفة بكلّ ما يجري على الأرض السورية وتتهم فيها القوات السورية أو الحلفاء، وتذكر بالاسم حكومة روسيا الاتحادية بالفقرات وخاصة الأولى والثانية وبالفقرة الرابعة من السند الثالث وهو تعليق العقوبات، وبالتالي يجب أن نستنتج بأنّ هذا القانون بكليته هو دفتر شروط كامل مُعطى للرئيس الأميركي أياً كان، وليس بالضرورة للرئيس دونالد ترامب، أيّ ونحن على أبواب انتخابات أميركية مقبلة فقد يتبدّل فيها الرئيس ليأتي رئيس ديمقراطي. ولا يعني أبداً مجيء رئيس ديمقراطي أنه سيكون أفضل من الرئيس ترامب بل بالعكس ويجب أن ننوّه بأنّ الحرب على سورية قد بدأها الرئيس السابق باراك أوباما، وبالتالي يجب أن نعرف بأنّ الرئيس أصبحت مهمّته التفاوض مع الروس والإيرانيين إما لإعلان الحرب على الأرض السورية وعلى المصالح الجيوسياسية السورية ومع الحلفاء الروس والإيرانيين، أو التوصل إلى اتفاقات في التفاوض معهما، وهذه النتيجة هي الخلاصة التي يمكن أن نتوصل إليها لأنّ أيّ خلاصة أخرى لا تعني شيئاً في ظلّ وجود التزامات محققة يجب على الرئيس الأميركي أن يطبّقها لكن هو يتمتع بسلطة عدم تطبيقها وفق ما جاء في فقرات القانون، وبالتالي فنحن أمام دفتر شروط كامل يتعلق ببدء الرئيس بمصارعة حلفاء سورية الروس والإيرانيين على الأرض السورية وعلى النفوذ في سورية، ولا يمكن بموجب هذا القانون للرئيس الأميركي أن يتجاهل أو أن يترك المصالح الاقتصادية في سورية أن تتحرك بمعزل عن تطبيق هذا القانون بل عليه أن يلاحق كما أتى في الفقرات السابقة كلّ الكيانات والأشخاص والمؤسسات التابعة للدولتين التي تتعامل مع سورية، وهنا نكون أمام حلبة اشتباك حقيقية ومحققة ويجب الذهاب بموجبها إلى نتيجة ما، هذه النتيجة قد تكون الحرب وقد تكون أيّ شيء آخر لكنها لا يمكن أن تنتهي بـسكون المشهد أو بأن لا يكون هناك أيّ فعل لأنّ القانون يحتم على الرئيس كما أسلفنا اتخاذ مواقف.
لكن إنْ اعتقد من كتب هذا القانون في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية بأنّ حلفاء سوريـة سيتعاطون وفق منطق بروتس، فهذه أضغاث أحلام لا يمكن أن يعني تحقيقها إلا التسليم بالهزيمة.
إنّ المتابع للإجراءات الإيرانية الأخيرة التي أرسلت فيها بوارجها عبر آلاف الأميال حتى شواطئ فنزويلا والخط البحري الموقع بين ميناء طرطوس وجزيرة القرم بالإضافة إلى تهيئة البنية القانونية في الداخل الروسي من خلال منح الرئيس بوتين لسفيره في دمشق ألكسندر يفيموف صفة الممثل الرئاسي الخاص وتفويض وزارتي الخارجية والدفاع الروسيتين للتفاوض مع الحكومة السورية يعني أننا أمام سلة استعدادات لإيران وروسيا للتعاطي بجدية مع الوضع المستجد وفق ما يتطلبه والذي سيكون أهمّه خلق بنى اقتصادية تشابكية بعيدة عن طريقة التبادل التجارية التقليدية المكبّلة بالدولار والتحويل والتأمين، والتي تحتاج ربما إلى حوار أعمق على مستوى النخب الفكرية في كلّ البلدان بإضافة لبنان والعراق إلى سورية وروسيا وإيران، لخلق بيئة تبادل اقتصادي تكاملي جديد لا يهتمّ بالتأثيرات الخارجية بعد أن ثبت توافر كلّ العزيمة والإمكانات لذلك، ونحن أصحاب مقولة لن نتوقف عن ترديدها بعزيمتنا قبل شفاهنا وهي «هيهات منا الذلة».
*عضو المكتب السياسي في الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي، عضو الرابطة الدولية للخبراء والمحللين السياسيين
In 2011, a significant Western-Arab coalition joined together and invested huge finance, media support and military resources in attempting to topple the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. For this purpose, the alliance had established military operating rooms where US, British, Turkish and Arab intelligence services were established in northern Syria, Jordan and Turkey to prepare for the post-Assad stage. But this President had already refused any concessions to US Secretary of State Colin Powell when he visited him in 2003 after the occupation of Iraq. Two years after the beginning of the war, the Syrian President asked his allies in Iran and Lebanon (and then later on Russia) for help for each of them to preserve their interests, strategic goals and obligations with their Syrian partner. The Russian military intervention came in September 2015. It was due to several factors: while the Iranian and allied forces dominated the ground, the troops of Moscow were needed to dominate Syrian airspace, and this turned the tables on the Arab – international coalition. Has the situation changed today for President Assad, now that most parts of Syria have been liberated? What does Russia want: control of the Levant and the removal of Assad?
President Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar did not offer concessions on the Golan Heights, and refused to reconcile with Israel: they would not give up Syrian territory in return for a peace deal. Many years later, President Bashar al-Assad refused to hand over the head of Hamas and “Hezbollah” as he was requested to do by the US in 2003, 2008 and even 2018. During the Syrian war, the United Arab Emirates mediated for a US delegation to visit Damascus in a proposal to end the war and rebuild what was destroyed in Syria in exchange for expelling Hezbollah, Iran and Russia from the Levant.
At the outbreak of the Syrian war in 2011, Russia was not ready to emerge from its self-imposed hibernation and kept on ice its international and Middle Eastern role. The then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev allowed NATO to destroy Libya in 2011. However, in 2015 when President Vladimir Putin was in power, the screws were tightened on Syria’s allies in the vast Syrian countryside with the deployment of tens of thousands of jihadists and militants financed and trained by dozens of western and Arab countries. The Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani travelled to Moscow and was able to persuade President Putin to send his planes to the Levant to defend Russia’s interests (naval base in Tartous that the jihadists threateneded to remove) and its Syrian ally.
Since that date, Western and Arab media have not stopped mocking Russia’s military capabilities. Western think tanks hoped that Russia would fail, and predicted its descent into the Syrian quagmire. When Russia proved its efficient air superiority (Iran was committed to securing ground forces to follow through the Russian airstrikes), reckless analysts claimed, in a mirror image of the US intentions, strategy and wishful thinking that Russia wanted to remove President Assad and impose whoever it wanted because Moscow has become the dominant force in the Levant.
And when this theory is exhausted, another naive approach begins, that there is an American-Russian understanding in Syria to displace or marginalise President Assad. Naturally, those – who have spent nine years believing, promoting and foretelling the fall of President al-Assad and the government of Damascus every month or every year – are in a permanent state of wishful thinking. They ignore what the former Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassem said when he bravely admitted defeat: “the [quarry] has escaped the trap, and the time has come to acknowledge the reality of our defeat”, he said.
Leading sources within the “Axis of the Resistance” in Syria said “there is no Russian-US understanding, but a clear challenge to Washington’s influence in the Middle East. Russia is harassing US planes, approaching these at a critical distance. Russia aims to be granted Assad’s approval of expanding Hmeimim airport, its Tartous naval base and to create more static bases in northern Syria. Russia has decided that the Middle East is part of its strategic interests for confronting the US forces that are based in the Middle East and Europe. It is only possible for Russia to survive in the Levant if it establishes a strategic relationship with President Assad, Iran and its allies. Iran’s allies take every opportunity to challenge the authority of the US in the Middle Eastern region, which falls perfectly well within Russia’s objectives. “
Since Russia decided to engage within the Syrian arena, its leadership was nevertheless concerned about falling into the Middle East quagmire. Thus, it has depended on Iran and its allies to restore power to President Assad over all the Syrian occupied territories. Therefore, Russia has no intention to earn the hostilities of the Sunni jihadists as well as confronting Shia and Alawites in an unpredictable war of attrition. If this happened, Russia would be facing another 1981-Afghanistan war, an “objective” contrary to Putin’s plan to establish himself in the Middle East. It is essential to add that Russia does not control the land or need an army to spread, protect, or even start a new costly war, after seeing the confirmed capabilities of Syria and its allies in the battlefield throughout the years of the Syrian conflict.
“Russia has promised to modernise the Syrian air fleet and the defensive-offensive missile capability of the Syrian army. Furthermore, Moscow will invest in rebuilding part of the Syrian infrastructure projects, mainly in the field of energy. In exchange, Russia will expand its combat capability to confront the US and NATO. The Syrian President is dealing with the Russian President as a strategic ally even if Russia has allies – such as Israel – that are the enemies of Syria. Russia has decided to cooperate with several Middle Eastern countries, and this means that it wants strong allies in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. That could only be possible through its relationship with President Assad and with Iran, a strong and influential position in their respective countries,” explained the source.
President Putin has assigned the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence to negotiate with the Syrian state on expanding the military presence and deployment in other bases because Russia certainly does not wish to move away from the Middle East. American unilateralism has ended its era, and Russia’s new robust position in Syria and Libya has created a gap in the NATO area of influence. Russia is no longer passive but, with its positioning, has moved to the confrontation phase. Hence, the expansion of the Russian strategic positioning has little to do with the continuity of President Bashar al-Assad in power. And Assad has decided to hold the forthcoming presidential elections notwithstanding the international attempt, which includes the United Nations, to prevent the return and vote of the Syrian refugees from nearby countries.
Russia believes the US is weak now. Therefore, it should take advantage of President Donald Trump’s domestic struggle and the challenge he is facing in the coming months when the elections will be knocking on US doors. Russia would like to take advantage of this opportunity to progress on the Middle Eastern front, and thus establish a robust position in the warm waters of the Mediterranean.
President Trump is struggling domestically due to the mismanagement of the “Coronavirus” pandemic and the large number of Americans finding themselves jobless. Furthermore, for more than a week, he is facing a real challenge to his ruling based on his provocative response to state-sponsored racial discrimination. He is in crisis with China and Russia. He has to swallow Iran’s challenges: not only has it bombed the largest US base in Iraq, but also violated the US sanctions on Venezuela by sending five oil tankers and spare parts to repair the refineries. The US president is showing severe weakness on several fronts and has managed to draw together both the Russian bear and the Chinese dragon to confront him. A new and solid strategic alliance – not a blind alliance – between Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and its allies in the Middle East is picking up and is challenging the US hegemony.
President Putin has appointed a special envoy as a go-between him and President Bashar al-Assad so that there is no hindrance between messages, agreements, and quick decisions that must be taken or to remove any obstacles as quickly as possible. It is the era of partnership between allies, not the age of domination and bullying or dominance, in contrast with the style of America’s usual dealings with the Middle East. The Middle East is living a new era: a balance has been created which was missing for decades.
Proofread by: C.G.B. and Maurice Brasher
This article is translated free to many languages by volunteers so readers can enjoy the content. It shall not be masked by Paywall. I’d like to thank my followers and readers for their confidence and support. If you liked it, please don’t feel embarrassed to contribute and help fund it, for as little as 1 Euro. Your contribution, however small, will help ensure its continuity. Thank you.
Have you noticed that since the beginning of the Coronavirus epidemic the “Putin Dumped the Kuril Islands” topic quietly died out? Not only this but many similar topics disappeared from the opposition publications as if they never existed. Now the liberals scribble, while the authorities ‘conceal’ it, in support of the Western discourse of supposedly existing in Russia understating the COVID-19 death rate. But you shouldn’t think that ‘allislostism’ has disappeared. Simply, this baton has been taken by emo-Marxists.
I regularly direct your attention to the fact that the Russian imitators of the left opposition hype anything they can. The previous story on the topic was about attempts by a PM from the Commercial Party of RF to fit into the subject of throwing money from a helicopter. [Ed. – Commercial Party is the nickname for the Communist Party during the 2018 presidential elections, when Pavel Grudinin was their candidate.] However after 11 May when Putin voiced the new supporting measures for the Russian citizens, it’s rather hard to hype the aforementioned topic. Nevertheless the emo-Marxists do not lose heart. They simply reanimate the “Putin Dumped…” discourse in different directions.
Appreciate this headline: “Russia Won’t Even Notice How She Will Lose the Kurils Along With Sakhalin During the War Between US and PRC.” One can’t shriek that Putin dumped the Kurils to Japan anymore. You’d be a laughing stock. But – swoosh! – and the topic has got a new dimension. Now they scribble that Japan will take the Kurils by force with the US support in the process of the war between America and China. And these are other headlines on the “Free Press” website:
“Kremlin Cannot Hide Its Disgrace.” “Damascus Threatens to Wipe Putin’s Name from History.” “The Ruble Will Face American Roller Coaster – First 65 rubles for a dollar, then – 140.” “Putin Got to Be Led by Navalny.” Had I not shown you which site these headlines come from, would you guess it? Not necessarily. Because they don’t differ from the click bait that fills up the liberal media sites. The publicist Aleksandr Rogers ran a test recently, having put together a mix of headlines from the ‘Free Press’ and the ‘Svidomy Observer’. Here are examples:
“The Economist: The authorities will support the business wives of ministers and daughters of senators”, “Koch named the first region that Russia might lose.” “The Ghost of Freezing Hovers Over Citizen’s Bank Deposits.” “Significant photos of Peskov next to Putin before getting infected with COVID-19 appeared on the Net.” “Kremlin Faces Choice: Either a Political Uprising by Angry Russians or Revoking the Pension Reform.” “Where Does Putin Hide from Coronavirus.” “The RF Regional Budget Loses Might Reach Maximum Levels Since the Beginning of This Century.” “Kremlin Loses the Battle With US and Becomes Junior Partner of the Chinese Regime.”
The even headlines are from the ‘Free Press’, the uneven ones are from the Ukro-Nazi ‘Observer’. The difference? There is none. That is the editorial policy of the people that head the Russian supposedly left media doesn’t differ in any way from the analogous editorial policy of the ‘Svidomy’ russophobes. Who then heads the ‘Free Press’ that threatens us with the loss of the Kurils, infection of Putin and the political uprising of angry Russians?
Yes, it is that very [Zakhar] Prilepin of whom I’ve been saying all this time that he doesn’t differ from the liberals. For instance, this is the ‘Editor’s Choice’ section on the same web page. Zyuganov’s marasmus. The pseudo-shaman Garbyshev’s alcoholism. The Kremlin’s shame. Coronavirus is compared to the ‘Kursk’ submarine disaster. And I have already quoted about Damascus. What is lacking? That’s right, the news about UFOs, the celebrities’ private life, and a restaurant guide from Bykov-Zilbertrud, who, as we know, is very close to Prilepin.
However, even without the addition of these topics, the site of emo-Marxists reeks of tabloid press. But this tabloid’s direction is to create an impression with the reader that he lives in hopelessness, that around him is not one of the most developed countries in the world, but some sort of hell. And now compare it, for instance, to what the Russian nationalist [Konstantin] Krylov used to write about Russia before he recently died of a stroke.
“Russia is a monstrously dull, dirty, acid burnt country, exactly alike everywhere at that. Some semblance of real life exists in Moscow and St. Petersburg. And even that is merely a whiff. All Russian cities are equally dull, dirty, ruined, built up with plaster-cardboard abomination, mud and concrete walls are everywhere (all in the same style), tire shops, youth in track pants, shitty food, shitty vodka, gray sky, and other ‘barns-cowsheds-mama-we-are-in-hell.’ And it is hell indeed. If someone is proudthat he ‘traveled around Russia’, it is the same as ‘did time in the joint’. Only beyond the Russian borders something good can exist and only that is worth sharing.”
“If you go left you’ll come to the right,” as ‘comrade’ Stalin used to say in such instances. When emo-Marxists depict Russia as hell, they quickly join the Nazis. Which means that the lefties who like so much to show themselves as fans of Iosif Vissarionovich, during his time, would definitely meet the fate of their predecessors – the Trotskyites. And Professor Preobrazhensky’s famous phrase now should sound like this: “Do not read the lefties’ sites before lunch.” Today it is not hard to follow this advice, because we, unlike Dr. Bormental, have a choice. Luckily, Prilepin’s ‘all-is-lost’ picture is not the sole source of information about what’s happening in Russia. I don’t even need to say: “Watch us.” You do it anyway. And we keep working for you.
Just as Hezbollah destroyed the myth of Israeli impunity, Iran destroyed the myth of US impunity.
At this time of writing, it is too early to declare the danger over, but at least three out of five Iranian tankers have made it safely to Venezuela (confirmation from TeleSur and PressTV). Furthermore, while we should never say “never”, it appears exceedingly unlikely that the US would let three tankers pass only to then try to impede the arrival of the other two. So it ain’t over until its over, but as of right now things look way better than last week.
Besides, this is mostly a symbolic issue. While these 5 tankers will make a difference, it won’t be a huge one, especially considering the devastating consequences which the US sanctions, sabotage and subversion have inflicted on Venezuela.
Still, symbols are important, if only because they create a precedent. In fact, I would argue that the latest climbdown by Trump is no different than all his other climbdowns: Trump has had a very consistent record of threatening fire and brimstone before quietly deflating walking away. And since he did that many times now, we have to wonder whether this strategy is effective or not?
One could argue that this strategy could be described by saying that you put the maximum pressure on the other side in the hope that the bluff will entice the adversary to fold. This could be a semi-credible argument where it not for a very simple but crucial problem: so far the other guys have never folded. In other words, Trump’s bluff has been called over and over again, and each time Trump had to quietly deflate.
Some will say that this only proves that Trump is truly a peace-loving President who, unlike his predecessors, does not want to go to war. But then, what about the cruise missile strikes on Syria? What about the murder of Soleimani?
Truth be told, the kindest thing we can say about this strategy (assuming that it is a strategy to begin with, not the evidence of a total lack of one) is that it is tantamount to yelling “fire!” in a crowded movie theater: the fact that Trump did not set any movie theater ablaze hardly justifies his yelling “fire” in such a dangerous environment. The perfect example of this kind of irresponsible behavior is the murder of General Soleimani which truly brought the US and Iran a millimeter away from a real, full-scale war.
Furthermore, while I salute Trump’s climbing down following the Iranian strikes, I also believe that in doing so he hurt the international image of the US. Why? Think about this: this is the first time ever (if I am not mistaken) that the US was the object of a major military strike coming from another state-actor and did not retaliate. In the past and until this Spring, the US always held the view that if anybody dares to mess with it this would result in very serious consequences. Thus the US upheld a world order in which some where a lot more equal than others. Specifically, “others” had to meekly accept US strikes and shut up whereas Uncle Shmuel could strike left and right and expect no retaliation.
By “accepting” the Iranian counter-strike, Trump did essentially place an “equal” sign between Iran and the US. He probably never understood that, but in the region this was understood by all.
Just as Hezbollah destroyed the myth of Israeli impunity, Iran destroyed the myth of US impunity.
Still, I will always prefer the politician who does not start a war (for whatever reason) to one who would. I also have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary would have started one, or even several, wars. But the fact that Hillary would have been even worse than Trump is hardly a reason to start fawning about Trump’s brilliant “5D chess” genius or peace-loving policies…
Trump reminds of a guy pointing a gun a people in the street only to later say “but it was a toy gun, I never meant to really shoot anybody”. This is definitely better than shooting people with a real gun, but this is hardly a sign of maturity or intelligence.
The other problem with this “strategy” (let’s assume for argument’s sake that this is a strategy of some kind): each time the “indispensable nation” and “sole hyperpower” has to climb down, it increasingly looks like a paper tiger. Not looking like such a paper tiger is probably the mean reason behind Michael Ledeen’s famous words“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business“. In a strictly evil and imperialistic sense, Ledeen’s strategy makes a lot more sense than what Trump has been doing.
As Marx famously said, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce“. The outcome of what some now call the “Battle of Macuto Bay” is a perfect example of this: if the Bay of Pigs was the “root case” then the disaster in Grenada was the tragedy and the Battle of Macuto Bay the real farce.
Humor can be a devastating weapon and anybody who has studied the late Soviet Union (in the late Brezhnev years and after) knows how the Russian people ridiculed the Soviet leaders with literally thousands of jokes.
A real imperialist would much rather be hated than ridiculed, and while Trump himself probably does not realize that he is the laughingstock of the planet, his aides and deep state bosses most definitely do and that is very, very dangerous.
Why?
Because the pressure to, once again, “ pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall” increases with each climbdown (see my article “Each “Click” Brings Us One Step Closer to the “Bang!” for a fuller discussion of this).
Besides, finding an even smaller and weaker country than Venezuela will be hard (maybe the Island of Saba? or Grenada again? who knows?). And potentially very dangerous.
The other problem is predictability. Any international system requires that its most powerful actors be predictable. In contrast, when a major international actors acts in what appears to be unpredictable, irrational or irresponsible manner, this puts the entire stability of the system at risk.
This, by the way, is also why it is so disastrous that the US has withdrawn from so many international organizations or treaties: the participation in international organizations and treaties indicate that the US is willing to play by the same rules as everybody else. The fact that the US is ditching so many of its former international obligations only shows that the US has gone rogue and is from now on totally unpredictable.
Finally, there are also lessons for Moscow here, the main one being that when confronted with a determined adversary, the Empire tries to bluff, but eventually folds. True, Moscow has to be much more careful than Tehran simply because the consequences of a US-Russian war would be dramatically worse than even a major conflict in the Middle-East. Yet it is also true that over the past years the Russian armed forces did have the time to prepare for such a conflict and that now Russia is ready for pretty much anything the US could try to throw at her, at least in purely military terms.
In contrast to the military posture of Russia, the political environment in Russia has changed for the worse: there is now a potentially very dangerous “hardline” opposition to Putin which I have christened the “6th column”, as opposed to the liberal and pro-western 5th column. What these two “columns” have in common is that they both will categorically oppose pretty much anything and everything Putin does. The 6th column, in particular, has a seething hatred for Putin which is even more rabid than what the liberal 5th column usually express. Check out this excellent video by Ruslan Ostashko, who prefers the term “emo-Marxists” and who very accurately describes these folks. Whether we think of them as 6th-columnists or emo-Marxists does not matter, what matters is that these folks are eager to act like a soundboard for any and all anti-Putin rumors and fakes. While Putin certainly has his flaws, and while the economic policies of the Medvedev, and now Mishustin, government are a far cry from what most Russians would want, it is also true that these two “columns” are objectively doing the bidding of the Empire, which could present a real problem if the current pandemic-induced economic crisis in Russia is not tackled more effectively by the government.
I have always said that Iran, while being much weaker than Russia, has consistently shown much more courage in its dealings with the Empire than Russia. Furthermore, Iran’s policies are primarily dictated by moral and spiritual considerations (like in the case of Iran’s principled stance on occupied Palestine) while Russian policies are much more “pragmatic” (which is really a euphemism for self-serving). But then, Iran is an Islamic Republic whereas Russia still has to develop some kind of unifying and original worldview.
Conclusion:
For all his innumerable negative character traits and other flaws, it remains true that Trump has not launched a major war (so far). Yes, he has brought the world to the brink several times, but so far he has not plunged the world into a major conflict. How much of the credit for this truly should go personally to him is very debatable (maybe cooler heads in the military prevailed, I think of folks like General Mattis who, reportedly, was the one who stopped the US from seriously attacking Syria and settled for a symbolic strike). Some Russian analysts (Andrei Sidorov) even believe that the US is in no condition to fight any war, no matter how small. Furthermore, most (all?) Russian analysts also believe that the US is fully committed to a full-spectrum information and economic war to try to economically strangle both Russia and China. I think that it would be fair to say that nobody in Russia believes that the relationship with Trump’s US can, or will, improve. The tone in China is also changing, especially since the US has now launched a major anti-China strategic PSYOP. In other words, the US is merrily continuing down its current road which leads it to a simultaneous confrontation with not one, or even two, countries, but with a list of countries which seems to grow every day. So while it is true that in this case Trump appears to have canceled two wars, we should not assume that he won’t soon start one, if only to deflect the blame for his total mismanagement of the COVID19 crisis. Should that happen, we can only hope that all the “resistance countries” and movement will provide as much support as possible to whomever the Empire attacks next.
