Why the West will never either defeat or forgive Russia

 

Historically, Russia has always fought intuitively for the survival of all mankind. Of course, the events do not always look this way. But whatever they look like, this huge country has repeatedly rebuffed the most powerful forces of evil which were becoming a threat to the very existence of our planet.

By Andre Vltchek

During the Second World War, the Soviet (mostly Russian) people sacrificed at least 25 million men, women and children for the sake of the victory over Nazism. No other country in the modern history has ever had to go through such hardship.

Right after this victory Russia, along with China and Cuba, launched the most incredible and noble project of all times: the systematic destruction of the Western colonialism. All over the world the oppressed masses rose up against the European and North American barbarity, and the Soviet Union was ready to become a beacon of hope for them, to provide them with substantial financial, ideological and military aid.

As the oppressed and disadvantaged nations, one after another, gained their independence, in all the capitals of the Western world there was growing hatred of the Soviet Union and the Russian people. After all, the looting of “non-white” continents was considered a natural right of the “civilised world”.

In the USA and Europe such words as “colonialism” and “imperialism” very quickly acquired a negative connotation, at least, outwardly. So demonising the Soviet Union (leaving alone attacking it) for supporting the struggle for liberation on all the continents would have been counterproductive. Instead, there were developed theories about the “Empire of evil”.

Russia has always been an “obstacle”. This enormous country has been preventing brutal plans of Washington, Berlin, London and Paris. Plans of controlling and plundering the entire world.

However, the more noble the deeds are, the dirtier the attacks on them become.

Russia has always been known for its incredible ability to mobilise its forces, to throw all its resources to achieve a single, deeply humanistic and moral, goal. In its struggle there has always been something sacred, something high and extremely important.

‘Arise, the great country, arise to fight to death!’. This is how begins one of the greatest patriotic songs of the World War II. When Russia is fighting, it is only the victory that is important for it. The victory at any cost.

Russia was destined to fight for the fate of the entire world. If you do not believe in fate, you’ll never understand the famous “Russian soul”. It is not about a religion, as for the most part Russia is anarchist and atheistic. But it believes in destiny and accepts it.

Besides, in most cases, Russia hardly had a choice. It was the end of mankind that was an alternative to the victory.

So, when the very existence of the world was under threat, Russia always rose – fierce and frightening but, at the same time, incredibly beautiful in its anger and determination. It fought with every handful of its land, with every heart of its people. And it almost always won. But it did so at a terrible price – having buried millions of its sons and daughters, and having plunged itself into the sea of ​​unimaginable sorrow and pain.

Moreover, there never was anyone nearby to comfort it. While the fires were still raging, while the faces of mothers and wives who had lost their close ones were still wet with tears, the country already was being spat upon, mocked and humiliated by the treacherous Western regimes and their propaganda.

Its heroism was belittled, its victims were mocked. It was alleged that its millions who had given their lives for mankind had actually died for nothing.

In exchange for its heroism Russia has never asked for anything, except for two basic things: recognition and respect. And yet, it has never received either.

Now Russia is rising again, it is beginning the epic struggle against the ISIS, a monstrous parody of the Muslim faith, created and armed by the West and its regional mean hangers.

Russia was forced to act. After all, who else could have done it? After centuries of the Crusades and barbarian colonialism of the West there is almost nothing left of the Middle East, one of the cradles of our civilisation. The Middle East, plundered and humiliated, has turned into a mosaic of miserable client states standing in service of the West. Tens of millions have been killed. All that could have been looted has been. The socialist and secular governments have been pressed to the wall and overthrown.

I have worked a lot in this region and can attest that, perhaps, with the exception for Africa, there is no greater victim of the West’s greed and barbarism in the world.

Syria and Iraq, two desperate, long suffering, mortally wounded countries, appealed to Russia for help. And it agreed to provide it.

Oh yes, I can already hear the cacophony of shrieks about the ‘Russian interests’ and ‘spheres of influence’, coming from Europe and the North America. Because there is nothing sacred in the West. There can not be anything sacred there. Because everything there is tainted with grim sarcasm and nihilism … If the West behaves like a thug, the picture of the rest of the world should also be drawn in the same colours. After all, the West has neither allies nor feelings. Only interests. It is not my idea, it was said to me over and over again when I was living and working in the destroyed parts of Africa.

But I do not care what they say in Paris and Washington. What matters is what they say in Iraq, Syria and Libya. And I will explain to you how things are there: if you go to the barber and say that you are Russian, the people will rise, hug you and weep.

Russia will never attack other countries, but if it comes under attack itself, its fury can be terrifying, especially during a war. ‘Who comes to us with a sword, shall perish by the sword!’, said the Novgorod prince Alexander Nevsky in the XIII century.

The recent incident with the Russian bomber that was shot down over Syria by the Turkish Air Force increases the risk of a wider regional war. Turkey, a NATO member country, is spreading terror all over the region: from Libya and Somalia to Iraq, Syria and its own Kurdish territories. It is torturing people, destroying a lot of them (including journalists), robbing millions of their natural resources and dissipating (mostly with Qatar’s money) the most extremist Islamist teachings.

I met Recep Tayyip Erdogan many years ago, in the early 1990s in Istanbul when he was still the mayor of the city, and I was “licking my wounds” after the publication about the West systematically destroying Yugoslavia.

‘Do you speak Turkish?, he asked me once.

‘Not very well,’ I replied. ‘Just a little’.

‘But you know perfectly well how to pronounce the name of our party!’, he exclaimed. ‘This proves how important we are’.

From the very first meeting I realised that he was an aggressive villain with delusions of grandeur and the inferiority complex. And yet, I had no idea that he would go so far. But that is exactly where he has gone. And because of it millions of people are suffering all over the region.

Now he has shot down the Russian bomber and invaded Iraq.

Turkey has repeatedly fought with Russia and almost always lost. Moreover, in the period between the two world wars it was able to survive only with the help of the Soviet Union. So, it should have twice thought over the next step.

Russia does not just “wage wars”. Its struggle for the survival of mankind is nothing but a work of art, poetry, a symphony. It’s hard to explain but it’s true. Everything is intertwined there.

To meanly shoot down the Russian Su-24 is the same thing as to spit on the graves of 25 millions who died in the Second World War. It is a disgusting and stupid move. In Russia people do not act like this. In Russia, if you want to fight, you fight face to face with your adversary.

But if you kill like a coward, if you invade devastated neighbouring countries, one day it can be not the Su-24 that you will see in the sky, but heavy bombers.

Russia can not be defeated. There are many reasons for that. One of them is very pragmatic: it is a nuclear superpower. Another is that Russia usually fights for a just cause. And it does it with all its might and with all its heart.

But for Russia, the planet Earth would no longer exist. At least, in the form we are used to seeing it in. The West and its Christian fascist states would fully control the world. And they would treat “sub-people” like animals (even worse than they are doing now); there would be no boundaries, no limits to theft and destruction.

The so-called “civilised world” (the one that builds its theatres and schools on the bones of the others) would, without the slightest resistance, go to the full control over our planet.

Fortunately, Russia exists. And it can not be defeated. No one will ever manage to do it. And that is why the West will never forgive it for standing up for the poor and oppressed.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  “Fighting Against Western Imperialism.  Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western TerrorismPoint of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear“. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

Posted January 24, 2016

Pravda

 

Pres. Assad’s Full Text Int.: Terrorists receiving chemical weapons directly from Turkey

Source

President Bashar al-Assad stressed that what has been said on Khan Sheikhoun is a fabricated story, adding that the West and the United States blocked any delegation from coming to investigate as all narratives on Khan Sheikhoun and then the attack on Shairat airport was a false flag.

In an interview given to Russia’s RIA Novosti and Sputnik news agencies, President al-Assad said that we always announce that Syria is ready to cooperate with any country who is genuinely ready or wants or has the will to fight terrorism.

He added that he is  already aware that the West supports the terrorists and it doesn’t have a will to fight them.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Thank you, Mr. President, for giving an opportunity for this interview, and I will start with the recent tragic event in Aleppo, where the majority of those killed and wounded were children. Who do you think organized this crime, and on what purpose?

A few months ago, the same agreement was about to be implemented, but as you know, you’re talking about different factions, all of them are linked to Al Qaeda or al-Nusra Front, and one of those factions attacked the buses that wanted to transport the same civilians outside of al-Foua’a and Kefraya beside Aleppo, and they attacked those buses and they burned them, and it was shown on the internet, where they said “we won’t allow this reconciliation to happen, we’re going to kill every civilian that wants to use the buses,” and that’s what happened. When we thought that everything is ready to implement that reconciliation, they did what they announced, and they are al-Nusra Front, they didn’t hide themselves from the very beginning, and I think everybody agrees that this is al-Nusra.

Any specific group or al-Nusra itself?

No, because when you talk about al-Nusra, it’s their ideology, so different names – and as you know al-Nusra itself changed its name – so different names doesn’t mean changing the ideology or the behavior or the course of killing. So, it doesn’t matter what’s the name.

And how many people have died since the beginning of the war, at this point?

Actually, we can talk only about official numbers. It’s tens of thousands, not like what you hear in the media about hundreds of thousands. Of course, we can talk about thousands of missing people that we don’t know anything about their fate. This is the official number. But in the West, of course they add altogether the number of the terrorists, and a large amount of the terrorists of course they’re not registered at the state as killed or dead, and the same thing about the foreigners who came to Syria in tens or maybe hundreds of thousands to fight. So, the numbers that we’ve been hearing in the Western media during the last six years were not precise, it’s only to inflate the number just to show how horrible the situation, to use it as humanitarian pretext to intervene in Syria. So, as a state, we only talk about tens of thousands of victims till this moment.

So, you’re not agreeing with the number that the United Nations give?

No, because the United Nations doesn’t have any means to calculate the numbers, and actually no-one has, as I said, because you’re talking about different factions; foreigners, Syrians and terrorists and so on, so it’s complicated to tell. The only thing that we have are the official records. Of course, it must be higher than the official record, but we cannot just estimate and give any number.

I see. Yesterday, there were reports that al-Baghdadi was captured by the Russian and Syrian military at the border of Syria and Iraq. Can you confirm it?

No, no. That’s not true.

That’s not true?

No, no. That’s not true. Anyway, those borders are under the control of ISIS till this moment., it’s neither Syrian nor Russian, not even Western or American or any other one; it’s only ISIS who’s controlling those borders, so it’s safe for al-Baghdadi to be in that area.

Let’s talk a little bit about this missile strike from the United States. So, the Shairat airbase quickly returned to its operation, but many wondered why the Syrian Army didn’t hit the US missiles, didn’t try to down it, why?

Many people wonder about whether our air defense or the Russian air defense and they look at it as absolute power that can take down any missile. Technically, it’s complicated, because the missile must see its target, let’s say, our missile, and to see it you need a radar that can see every angle of the country which is impossible because you’re talking about terrain and topography, and as you know the cruise missiles use those terrain in order to hide from the radar, so it needs an intensive system to see every angle, in that way you can take it down. This is one.
Second, maybe a few people knew that the terrorists at the very beginning of the attacks, they started by destroying the Syrian air defense, which has nothing to do with what they called it that time the “peaceful demonstrations.” Most of the air defense are outside the cities in outlying areas, so they started attacking that air defense and it was affected dramatically during the crisis. So, you have many factors that could influence taking down those missiles.

So, how many items from the air defense system you lost during these attacks by terrorists before the US launched its attack?

A huge number, a huge number. It was the first target. The first target was the air defense. We don’t have to give a precise number now, because as you know it’s military information, but I can tell you more than fifty percent. Of course, the Russians, through their support to the Syrian Army, they compensated part of that loss with quality armaments and air defense systems, but this is not enough when you talk about a full country. It takes a long time to recover all your air defense.

Are there any concrete negotiations underway with the Russians regarding the purchasing of new air defense systems?

Yes, it’s always the case, before the war and during the war. Of course, we need more armaments after the war and because of the consumption, and this is part of the daily relation between the two institutions in the Ministry of Defense in Russia and Syria.

What kind of systems are you interested in now after the attack, like S-300, S-400, or what kind of system?

Usually we’re always interested in the last generation of any system, but that depends on what’s available, that depends on the policy of the vendor, which is Russia, and that depends on the prices. You have many criteria and that depends of course on the specifications that you’re looking for that could be suitable to your kind of war, to your army, to your terrain, to many other criteria that’s related to the air defense.

Has there been any talks of possible non-repayable deliveries, delivery for free from Russia, or is it a commercial contract?

In this situation, I mean our war, Russia looks at this war as more than Syrian war, and more than Syrian-Russian war. I think it’s the war of every country that wants to protect its citizens from the terrorists. So, when Russia supports our army, it not only protects the Syrian citizens, it also protects the Russian citizens, and I think the European and others. So, for them they don’t look at it as commercial war like the Americans; when they launch a war they calculated how much jobs can you create out of this war. They look at it as a war that needs to protect their citizens, our citizens, other citizens, the position of Russia, the balance, the political balance, the military balance around the world, as a great country. So, in that regard, you don’t look at the armaments as how much do they cost or how much do they bring as benefit or profit.

Alright. So, Damascus has said that it is ready for the mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to come and to investigate the Khan Sheikhoun incident. Have there been any contacts between you and this organization, and what are the possible dates for the arrival of the first team of experts?

Actually, since the first attack a few years ago that happened in Aleppo by the terrorists against our army, we asked the United Nations to send investigation delegation in order to prove what we said about the terrorists having gases used against our army, and later many incidents happened in that way, and they didn’t send any delegation. It’s the same now. We formally sent a letter to the United Nations, we asked them in that letter to send a delegation in order to investigate what happened in Khan Sheikhoun. Of course till this moment they didn’t send, because the West and the United States blocked any delegation from coming, because if they come, they will find that all their narratives about what happened in Khan Sheikhoun and then the attack on Shairat airport was a false flag, was a lie. That’s why they didn’t send. Now the only contact I think is between Russia and maybe the other countries in order to send that delegation. Till this moment, we didn’t have any positive news regarding any delegation coming.

What is your view of what happened there? Because there were a lot of different reports of different kinds, and misinterpretation and accusation of fake news. So, what happened there according to your information?

Actually, that area is under the control of al-Nusra Front which is Al Qaeda. The only information the whole world has is what this organization or this group – which is al-Nusra – published on YouTube, on the internet in general, and in different outlets, mainly Western outlets, so we cannot base our judgment on their reports. First of all, we don’t know if the site that we attacked that day half an hour before noon, about 11:30, was a chemical warehouse or depot or anything like this. And their story said that the attack happened at 6, 6:30 in the morning. We didn’t launch any attack at that time. So, you have two possibilities: the first one is that there was an attack at lunch time or at about 11:30. The other possibility that we believe in is that it was a false flag, there was no attack, all what we saw as pictures and videos was like the videos we’ve been seeing for the last year or two years or more regarding the White Helmets, the humanitarian Al Qaeda which is an elusive story, let’s say, it doesn’t exist anyway, and the picture that shows children being killed by Russian airstrike to discover later that it wasn’t a real picture, they put a boy, they covered him with mud and blood, fake blood of course, and so on. All these ploys could be part of them. That’s what we believe in, because the attack was already prepared, and they didn’t want to listen, they didn’t want to investigate; they only wanted to launch the attack. We believe it was a false flag for one reason and a simple reason: if there was gas leakage or attack, and you’re talking about 60 dead in that city, how could the city continue its life normally? They didn’t evacuate the city. No-one left the city, life continued as normal, and this is mass destruction. The other day, they attacked Shairat where they said there was the gas depots, and they attacked all the depots, and there was no gas coming out of that airport. No-one of our army officers or military staff, was affected by any gas. So, for us, there was no gas attack and no gas depot, it was a false flag play just to justify the attack on the Shairat base. That’s what happened.

So, the main version is that no chemical weapons or no chemicals were used there?

No, I mean even if you look at the pictures, you can see that the rescuers – presumable rescuers – were rescuing people without masks, without gloves, and they were moving freely. How? This is against all the specifications of the sarin gas that they talked about. They cannot, they would have been dead like the others, and you don’t know that those people who are lying on the ground were dead or not. You can fake this image, it’s very easy. So, you cannot just base your judgment on images and videos, especially made by Al Qaeda.

And what about possible future provocations like that, because our President Putin has said that there’s information that such kind of provocations could happen in the future. What is your assessment of this possibility?

Actually, this possibility is not only because of what happened recently. It happened before, and we had this possibility a few years ago, since the first time they used it in 2013, since that time it’s a possibility for us, and it’s been used, it wasn’t only a possibility, but this time the propaganda was different, because everybody was ready for the attack, so that was part of the agenda, part of the plan, it was one plan, it wasn’t two different incidents. So, of course it is a possibility. This is first, I mean because it happened before.
Second, because the regime in the United States hasn’t changed. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has been attacking different countries in different ways without taking into consideration the Security Council or the United Nations. So, the deep regime hasn’t changed, the deep regime is the same that go and attack and kill and tell lies in order to justify what you are doing or what you have been doing. So, nothing has changed regarding the United States. They can do it any time, they can do something different, because their aim is to destabilize Syria, their aim is to change the government, to topple the government, and to bring their puppets instead, so they will do everything, for them the end justifies the means, no values, no morals at all, anything could happen.

And is there a threat of using of chemical weapons by the terrorists? And if so, from where do they get it? From which countries?

From Turkey. Directly from Turkey, and there was evidences regarding this, some of them have been shown on the internet a few years ago. You had many parties and parliament members in Turkey who questioned the government regarding those allegations. So, it’s not something hidden. Many in Syria knew that, and the only way, the only route for the terrorists to get money, armaments, every logistic support, recruits, and this kind of material, is through Turkey, they don’t have any other way to come from the north. So, it’s a hundred percent Turkey.

Let’s go to another point about the military situation. When will the Syrian Army start an operation to liberate Raqqa, and will the Kurdish units be involved, and will Russians be involved, and is there a possibility of cooperation with the Western coalition and Iraqi forces?

Regarding fighting terrorism, we always announce that we are ready to cooperate with any country who is genuinely ready or wants or has the will to fight terrorism. We didn’t even define which countries; any country including the West, taking into consideration that we already know that the West supports the terrorists and it doesn’t have a will to fight them. But we said whoever is ready, we are ready. Regarding the Syrian-Russian cooperation and talking about the Kurds, we always talk with different factions in Syria who are fighting the terrorists, and we had direct contact with the Kurds, and of course with the Russians regarding this. The question on how, you know that only a month ago our army was advancing from Aleppo towards the east, toward Raqqa, it wasn’t far from reaching Raqqa, and this is when the terrorists launched their attack against the middle of Syria, against the city of Hama, in order to protect ISIS in two areas: the eastern area is Hama, which is close to Palmyra after we liberated Palmyra recently, in order to slow the advance of the Syrian Army in that direction. The second one is toward Raqqa for the same objective. And actually because of that attack on Hama we had to slow down our attack – not stop it, to slow down – because part of the troops, Syrian Arab Army troops, in both directions have to come south and west to Hama in order to defend the city, and of course they repelled the attack and they succeeded, but at the expense of advancing in different areas. So, that will tell you about the relation between ISIS and al-Nusra, and the relation between ISIS and al-Nusra and Turkey, and of course Turkey means the United States, and the United States means France and the UK, and both mean Saudi Arabia, and so on. So, this is one choir actually, and they have one army, one proxy army, which is different factions, mainly Al Qaeda, mainly al-Nusra and ISIS. So, that’s why our advancement toward Raqqa has been slowed down, because we changed the priority because of different fronts of the terrorists.

I see. And regarding Turkey, you’ve mentioned, so in the north of Aleppo, in al-Bab, the Syrian Army is facing Turkey forces that have invaded Syria in breach of international law. Will the Syrian Army undertake any action to put an end to this Turkish intervention, and so when and how this could take place?

When you talk about the Turkish invasion, when you talk about the American troops – again, it’s an invasion – and when you talk about the terrorists on the ground, it’s one entity, there’s no difference. There’s one master who’s controlling all these factions. So, the priority now is to defeat the terrorists. When you defeat the terrorists, the Turkish army and any other army will be weak on the ground. Their real strength are their proxies, not their own army. In that regard, when you defeat the terrorists in different areas, it’s going to be very easy to expel any other one including the Turks; either they leave, or it’s your land, you have to defend it, you have to go and fight, you can’t say “they can stay” or “let’s negotiate.” No, you don’t negotiate; it’s your land, you defend it, you expel them, you fight them. But the priority now is to fight their proxies, because they are the strongest element on the ground.

And do you expect military escalation after the US missile strike, and can this result lead to direct confrontation between Syria and the United States?

Actually, as you know, they attacked the airbase from the Mediterranean, so you’re talking about hundreds of miles, sometimes thousands of miles away, which is out of our reach as Syrian Army. So, if we want to be realistic, we can say we don’t reach their ships in the Mediterranean, but if you talk about the troops on the ground, again, the same like the Turkish issue, when you defeat their terrorists – because the terrorists are their terrorists – this is where you can go and fight others who occupy the land. In that regard, the Americans, like the Turks, like any other occupiers, they have to get out by their will or by force.

Do you think that there can be an improvement in the bilateral relations between Syria and the United States?

We always try to look at the full half of the cup, but we couldn’t find it. We tried to see anything positive, we said that what this president, Trump, what he said, we said “promising,” I described it as promising, a few months ago. But actually, it’s not about what they promise, because we all know that the American officials say something and do something different, they’re never committed to their promises or their words. So, that’s what have been proven recently after the attack on Shairat; they say something and they do something different. So, in politics you don’t say “I wouldn’t do this.” Whenever there is a window of hope that this state or this regime can change its attitude toward respecting your sovereignty, toward more preventing of any blood-letting in your country, you have to cooperate. It’s not a personal relation, it’s not hate and love; it’s the interest of your own people. So, I cannot say this escalation has changed anything, because this escalation is the real expression of the reality of the American regime that’s been there for decades, it’s not new for the United States to do such a thing, but you need to deal with the United States as a great country, at least to make it refrain from any harmful effects, generally, I’m not talking only about Syria. When they change their behavior, we are ready, we don’t have a problem.

Have you tried to establish any contacts, or do you plan to have contacts with representatives of the Trump administration?

Not really, we don’t have any channel now between Syria and the United States regime or administration, we don’t have.

Okay, and how do you assess the emerging coalition between the United States and Kurdish units? Have you taken steps to prevent We don’t have control in that area, in the meantime, but talking about self-control or confederation or anything like this, when you don’t have war, when you have a normal situation, it’s going to be related to the constitution, because Syria is a melting pot of different cultures, different ethnicities, religions, sects, and so on. So, not a single part of this social fabric can define the future of Syria; it needs consensus. So, regarding what you mentioned, it’s better to wait to discuss the next constitution between the different Syrian shades of our spectrum, let’s say, and this is where we can tell how’s it going to be there. Our impression today is that the majority, the vast majority of Syrians, never believe in self-governance or confederation or anything. In this time, it’s being used as an excuse because there’s no government in that area. They say “we are governing ourselves because there is no government.” It’s an excuse for today, but when you have stability and the government taking control of the country, of course there’s no excuse to deal with such a situation unless there’s a constitution that allows a certain area to have its confederation or federation or any other way of governance.

And regarding the constitution, have you already started the project that is now debated in Geneva, and what do you think about the proposal of withdrawing the word “Arab” from the name of the country?

Again, as a government, we don’t own the constitution; it should be a Syrian consensus. If the Syrians don’t believe in the word of “Arab state,” what’s the meaning of having this word? Just because the government believes? No, we have to be the mirror of the majority of the Syrians, when we say yes or no. Our impression is that the majority of the Syrians, they adhere to this word, because this is their identity, the majority of Syrians are Arabs, and they believe in their identity. But again, I wouldn’t say that this is right or wrong till the Syrians have their own say in a referendum, before saying the President said he supports this word or he’s against that word. It means nothing in the meantime. It’s still early to discuss that point, it’s not a contention issue, I mean, nobody is discussing it now. A few people in Syria, mainly among the Kurds, mention this issue. It’s not a big problem.

And what is the most contentious issue, according to you?

To the constitution?

To the constitution, yes.

Being secular. Most of the factions that apparently joined the negotiations in Astana and part of them in Geneva, they don’t accept a secular state, they want it a religious state, Islamic state. This is the most important part of, could be, the disagreement regarding the constitution. Of course till this moment we haven’t started direct negotiations, but we know through the mediators what they propose, and what we propose.

So, we just talked about the situation in the north, and something is happening there down in the south. So, do you have any information about Jordan’s plans to deploy its troops in Syria in coordination with the United States under the pretext of fighting ISIS? Certain media reported. And if this is the case, do you think that there is a threat from the neighboring countries to dismember Syria?
We have those information, not only through the media, through the different sources, because you know we have the same tribes, the same families living on both sides of the borders, so they can see any changes in the mood or in the logistics, any new plans of the army you can see it on the ground. So, we have such information, but anyway Jordan was part of the American plan since the beginning of the war in Syria. Whether he likes it or not, he has to obey the orders of the Americans. Jordan is not an independent country anyway, whatever the American wants, it will happen, so if the Americans want to use the northern part of Jordan against Syria, they’re going to use it, so it’s not about Jordan, we don’t discuss Jordan as a state; we discuss Jordan as land in that case, because it’s the United States who defines the plans, who defines the players, and who endorses everything regarding Syria coming from Jordan, and many of the terrorists coming from Jordan, and of course Turkey, since day one of the war in Syria.

Let’s talk a little bit about the situation in Mosul. What is your estimate of the number of ISIS militants pushed out of the Mosul region into the Syrian territory? And to what extent did the coalition’s operation in Mosul and the withdrawal of terrorists strengthen the positions of ISIS here in Syria? Could this, for instance, lead to the full terrorist control over Deir Ezzor?

If we want to link different events with each other, we can have the answer. First of all, no-one has a precise number of ISIS coming to Syria because it’s a free border now; you don’t have regular borders, you don’t have Syrian Army, you don’t have police, you have no state there. So, no-one can tell you, but the estimation from the information that we have from the citizens in those areas, they talk about tens of thousands of fighters of ISIS coming to Syria. If you go back a few months ago when the alliance airplanes attacked our military site beside Deir Ezzor, they attacked one of the major sites, it’s a mountain called Thurda, which is a strategic mountain to protect Deir Ezzor from being in the hands of ISIS. They attacked our army for more than one hour, and they killed tens of our soldiers, and they said “sorry, it was a mistake,” although it is a big mountain, a huge mountain; you cannot make a mistake, it’s not a building. Then later, they started allowing the fighters coming from Mosul. Of course, they wanted to do a two-aspect operation. The first aspect is that the United States is attacking ISIS in Mosul, they are against ISIS, but at the same time, they are supporting ISIS and they allow them to cross the border from Iraq into Syria. It means they helped ISIS to come to Deir Ezzor and to undermine the Syrian Army who are defending Deir Ezzor. They wanted Deir Ezoor to fall into the hands of ISIS and maybe later in one of their plays like what happened in Jarablus, in Ein al-Arab, in different areas, they will make negotiations with ISIS to leave Deir Ezzor and to say that they liberated Deir Ezzor to send their proxies and puppets to attack them. Fortunately, the Syrian Army was resilient and strong enough to repel ISIS after the alliance attack a few months ago. Now, it’s advancing slowly, recapturing the area from ISIS slowly, but the situation today is better than yesterday and better than a week ago, and so on. So, your question is a hundred percent correct. That’s an American plan, and they allow them and they give them the cover to come to Syria.

So, it changes the situation, the military situation as you said, the threats from the north, from the Iraqi part of the borders, from Jordan, and the military missile attack from US ships. In this situation, are you going to ask Russia for more help to enhance the Russian assistance, including probably on the ground?

Actually, the Russian air forces were very effective and efficient during the last year and a half, little bit more, in supporting the Syrian Army, and everybody knows that since that support started in 2015, the balance has changed, and we could recapture Palmyra and Aleppo and many other areas, and we could defend Hama recently; it was a very huge and well-organized attack, but we could repel it. So, that support was very efficient, and of course, we shouldn’t forget the efficient support of the Iranians on the ground; they did not send troops, but with their officers, with their advisors, they played a very important role. So, I don’t think now there is a need for ground troops. Sometimes when there is intense attack on different fronts, as you mentioned, north, east, south, and in the middle, the Russian missiles attack from the sea. The Russian strategic bomber came from Russia to attack in Syria. So, the military support, the Russian military support is not limited to their base in Syria. Actually, they are aware about what the need of the fight; you have this fluctuation, but you don’t need troops on the ground till that moment. Maybe in the future if our enemies and their supporters, their terrorists, the proxies, change their strategy and bring more terrorists from around the world, and you have full armies of terrorists at that time, it could be needed, but at this moment, I don’t think it’s needed. What’s been done is good and enough.

Regarding the future of the political settlement, how do you see it, taking into account the low effectiveness of the Geneva talks? And can Astana replace Geneva as a main platform for negotiations? And another question: are there any people with whom you are ready to contact, to engage in direct talks from the opposition side, I mean from those who come to Astana, from the military factions, or in Geneva?

First of all, our estimation of Geneva is that it hasn’t started yet; till this moment, nothing, it’s a still-born, it’s dead, because, I mean if you want to buy utility in the market, the first you read on the box is the requirement, what’s the requirement for this utility to work properly, to deliver what you expect? The same for anything in this world. If you are talking about Geneva, it could be a good idea. Astana is a very good idea, but do we have the requirement for these two means to produce? Till the moment, no, because part of this event which is Russia, Iran, and of course Syria, they are willing to achieve a peaceful solution. They respect the sovereignty of Syria, they’re looking for the unity of Syria, they respect the Charter of the United Nations, the different Security Council resolutions, and so on, while if you look at the other party, the Western bloc with their allies in the region and their proxies, of course, they are in the other side. They are using these events only as a political umbrella for the terrorists, not for the political solution. So, the requirement is that to have one objective. Now, you don’t have one objective; you have different objectives, you have at least two objectives. You need to discuss it with the other side, let’s call them opposition, whether they are militants or political opposition, but they are different factions and they have different points of views. So, you are not talking about one entity. So, many of the requirements haven’t been provided yet in order for these initiatives to succeed till this moment. Now, are we ready to sit? Of course, in Syria we sat with the terrorists, and how can we make those reconciliations if we don’t sit with them? From the very beginning, we noted that there was no real and genuine political track for the reason that I just mentioned. So, I said let’s go and pave the way for your own political track, which is direct negotiations with the terrorists or militants in different areas, and tell them if you give up your armaments, I will give you amnesty and you go back to your normal life, live normally like any other citizen. Otherwise, if you are not part of this reconciliation, you can leave anywhere you want, and that’s what’s happening today and yesterday and every day, that’s happening from time to time, and that helped the stability in many areas in Syria, and that undermined the terrorists and their masters. So, yes, we are ready to sit with whoever could help us in stopping this blood-shedding in Syria, whoever, we don’t have any problem, we don’t have any taboo in that regard.

But you don’t have any preferences as well?

In what way, what do you mean?

In the way of having some concrete people, concrete names, with whom the Syrian government can talk directly?

No, sometimes, you can say I’m going to sit with political opposition, I wouldn’t sit with the militants, let’s say. I would sit with the opposition that’s not linked to Qatar or to Saudi Arabia or to France, and so on. It’s not part of the foreigner or foreign agenda against Syria, but at the end, the main question that you are going to ask before starting any negotiation: is he able to deliver? What can he do? If I sit with somebody who doesn’t have any influence on the ground, on the reality in Syria, what are we going to agree upon? It’s just a waste of time. So, actually we are very pragmatic in that regard; we say let’s sit with whoever can change the situation in two ways. The first one is to stop the killing, this is number one, this is a priority for every Syrian, not for the government; every Syrian. If you ask anyone, he’ll tell you we need security, we need stability, this is number one. Second, if you want to discuss it politically, you can talk about anything. You can talk about the constitution, the future of Syria, the political system that you want, the economic system; anything is going to be viable. It won’t be complicated that time, but without stability, you cannot achieve anything in any negotiation. That’s why I said, we went directly to talk to the militants, that is not our preference, as your question, but it’s the most effective in the meantime.

You’ve mentioned Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and recently Kazakhstan as a host country of Astana process invited… not invited, but proposed to invite more countries to this process, including Qatar and the Saudis, how do you think about that?

I think the more countries you have, the better, in different ways; you either have more support to this initiative and that will protect that initiative and raise the possibility of success, or you have the same countries that they are going to oppose it whether they are part of it or outside. But if they are part of it, you can point at them, you can tell them that you’re part of the problem and you have to help, and if you are genuine about helping, not only by your discourse and rhetoric, this is the initiative, be part of it and show us that you are against the terrorism, show us that you support what the Syrian people want. So, in both ways, it’s positive to invite whoever wants to come. So, I support what the Kazakhstani officials announced yesterday about expanding the participation in Astana.

Recently, the foreign ministers of Russia, Syria, and Iran assessed their talks in Moscow as a success. Would you like to build on this success and hold that trilateral meeting on a presidential level?

It’s not about the level, what they expressed in their statements, their views, it represents their presidents, because the minister of foreign affairs, he works with the president anyway. So, it’s not about which level, because whoever talks, any official, represents the whole government, the whole state. Maybe if there is a necessity in the future to do it, of course it’s a good idea, but for us in Syria, now the priority is to reach the objective. It’s not about the formalities, let’ say.

Let’s talk a little bit about the bilateral relations in the economic filed. So, recently, our Vice Prime Minster Dmitry Rogozin has visited Damascus and he said that there was an agreement to promote Russian companies in Syria, and that he received guarantees from you that Russian companies will be well-received and have priorities here. So, what are the specific mechanisms that were established to fulfill this purpose?

We have our laws regarding how to make contracts with the different companies. We already started with some of the companies after his visit, especially as the Western companies left Syria, not because of the security situation, not for security reasons, actually for political reasons. So, if we want to call it market, the Syrian market is free now for Russian companies to come and join and to play an important part in rebuilding Syria and investing in Syria. The most important part for me, and I think for them as well, is the oil field, the oil and gas, and some Russian companies now joined, let’s say, that sector recently during the last few months, and the process of signing the contracts, the final, let’s say, steps of signing the contracts is underway. So, that’s how I look at it.

Alright Mr. President. Thanks a lot for this interview. It was very frank and very interesting. Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming

أكراد سورية أمام المفترق

—————————–

أكراد سورية أمام المفترق

ناصر قنديل

– يواجه حزب الاتحاد الديمقراطي الكردي أصعب لحظات سياسية منذ حضوره في الحرب السورية، وبعدما نجح في حجز مقعد قوة حاضرة ولاعب رئيسي، بمعزل عن قبول أو رفض أو الاعتراض على السياسات التي انتهجها، لكن هذا الحزب المتأثر بأفكار وتوجّهات حزب العمال الكردستاني الذي يقاتل في تركيا دفاعاً عن حقوق الأكراد، التقط المزاج العام لأكراد سورية بالنظر لتركيا كعدو وقوة احتلال، ورفض الدخول في صفقة تضمن له دور اللاعب الثانوي في الميليشيات التي تديرها تركيا والسعودية، وتحمّل بسبب ذلك إقصاءه عن صيغ التفاوض في جنيف، من دون أن يخسر مكانه في الميدان وينجح باستدراج عروض الدول الكبرى، في موسكو وواشنطن خصوصاً، وصولاً للتحوّل إلى الذراع الرئيسية للأميركيين في الحرب السورية، ومنحهم امتيازات أمنية وعسكرية استراتيجية في مناطق سيطرته.

– إذا كان بعض قيادات أكراد سورية قد اشترى الوهم ذاته الذي اشترته قيادات أكراد العراق من الأميركيين بدعم نشوء كيان كردي مستقل، فإنّ مرور أربعة عشر عاماً على الاحتلال الأميركي للعراق دون تنفيذ هذا الوعد تقول لهؤلاء السوريين المراهنين على الموقف الأميركي لقيام كيان كردي ماذا ينتظرهم، لكن بعض القيادات الكردية الأخرى، وهي الأغلبية باتت على يقين، بعد تجاربها مع الأميركيين، بأنّ وعود قيام كيان مستقلّ أو فدرالية، لا يمكن صرفها في الواقع مع وجود معادلات سورية داخلية وإقليمية ودولية معقدة لا تتيح استسهال التفكير بهذه الخيارات بمجرد الحصول على كلام أميركي أثبتت الأيام أنه عرضة للتبدّل مراراً. وتكتفي هذه القيادات باعتبار العائد المجزي لهذه العلاقة مع واشنطن هو منع الاستفراد التركي بأكراد سورية، وجعلهم هدفاً لحربهم في سورية، بعد فشلهم في تحقيق الهدف الأصلي وهو السيطرة على سورية، وتسليمهم بخطوط حمراء يرسمها الدور الروسي، ليصير النزاع التركي الكردي قائماً على كيف سترسم واشنطن خطها الأحمر، وهل سيكون الأكراد من ضمنه؟

– قدّم الأكراد للأميركيين كلّ ما يريدونه، فمنحوهم الجغرافيا التي يسيطرون عليها، ومعها شرعية شعبية لتدخّلهم، وتتيح لهم الادّعاء بأنهم ليسوا قوة احتلال، وفقاً للخطاب السوري الرسمي الذي يرفع عنهم غطاء الشرعية القانونية، وقاتلت الميليشيات الكردية ضدّ الجيش السوري بطلب أميركي، لإبعاده عن منطقة الحسكة، واشترى الأكراد غضب شرائح سورية تتشارك معهم وستتشارك على مرّ الأزمنة المقبلة مستقبل عيش واحد، فاضطروا لتبلية مقتضيات توسع الجغرافيا العسكرية الأميركية أن يوسّعوا جغرافيتهم السياسية عنوة، بضمّ مناطق ليس فيها أكراد لنطاق ما أسموه بالإدارة الذاتية، وحربهم على الإرهاب التي كانت ضدّ داعش والنصرة في مناطق حضورهم عدّلوا وجهتها لتنسجم مع الأجندة الأميركية، فحصرت بداعش، وصارت تشمل كلّ الحرب على داعش بما في ذلك في المناطق التي سيدخلونها كقوة غريبة وربما قوة احتلال كتصدّرهم عنوان الحرب في الرقة. ووصل قادة الأكراد لقبول تنازلات طلبها الأميركيون عن علاقتهم بحزب العمال الكردستاني تقرّباً للأتراك فجاءهم الجواب بفتح الحرب التركية عليهم تحت العيون الأميركية.

– يقف الأكراد في سورية اليوم أمام نموذجين مختلفين في معاملتهم، النموذج الأميركي الذي لا يقدّم لهم الحماية عندما تدقّ ساعة المواجهة كما حدث في منبج وقبلها جرابلس ويحدث اليوم، مقابل أنهم أعطوه كلّ شيء، ونموذج الدولة السورية التي نكّلوا بها وأساؤوا إليها فتسامحهم، وتمدّ اليد إليهم، كما حدث في منبج ويحدث اليوم بفتح طريق القامشلي إلى دمشق. ومع توسّع المعارك التركية ضدّ الأكراد ينطرح عليهم الوقوف على مفصل طرق، قبول التحوّل مجرد أداة أميركية لتقرّر لعبة المصالح الدولية والإقليمية مصيرهم، أو التطلع لدور وطني جوهره ومحوره التمسك بالهوية السورية والاحتماء بخطاب وطني سوري، ينطلق من اعتبار الدولة السورية حضناً لجميع أبنائها، ومرجعاً لهم، واعتبار دور الجيش السوري سقفاً لكلّ معادلة أمنية وعسكرية، ولا أحد يطلب اليوم من حزب الاتحاد الديمقراطي حرباً هوائية على الأميركيين، بل الاقتناع بخطورة التحوّل أداة أميركية، والاكتفاء بالعودة خطوة إلى الوراء تقول: لا حرب في الرقة بلا ردع شامل للعدوان التركي.

 

Related Videos

Related Articles

Exclusive: U.S. troops in Northern Syria

U.S. troops in northern Syria visiting the site of the Turkish airstrikes against Kurds

U.S. troops escorted by Kurdish fighters visited sites around the Karachok mountains east of al-Qamishli in north eastern Syria, Tuesday, where Turkish military jets carried out airstrikes against Kurdish forces, leaving dozens dead.

لماذا لايسقط اردوغان .. ولماذا لاتقسم سورية؟؟

 

بقلم نارام سرجون

..لايمكنك أن تصل الى اليقين مالم تمعن في الشك .. ولايكشف الأسرار ويسقط عنها الاقنعة الا عين الشك .. ولذلك لايصل الى الايمان المطلق من لم يداهمه الشك وان كان ينام في قلب الكعبة كل يوم أو يصلب على نفس الصليب الذي مات عليه السيد المسيح ..

والشك هو الذي يجب أن يسائل اردوغان وحكمه ويقيسه بمرحلة مصطفى كمال أتاتورك الذي أعلن نهاية الخلافة وقيام الجمهورية .. لان مصطفى كمال لم يستطع حتى هذه اللحظة من الهروب من تهمة العمالة للمخابرات البريطانية التي صنعته كبطل قومي لتركيا أنقذها من براثن الهزيمة وهو يحارب عدة جيوش (باستثناء الجيش البريطاني) وكانت النتيجة أن مصطفى كمال أخذ تركيا من الشرق الى الغرب وانتزع منها شيفرة الخلافة وهي الحرف العربي القرآني الذي يصلها بأربعمائة عام متواصلة .. ولايزال سر مصطفى كمال غير قادر على الهروب من الشك بعلاقته بالمخابرات البريطانية التي خدمته وخدمها .. وقد قامت جمهورية أتاتورك في نفس الفترة التي أقيمت فيها مملكة آل سعود ومملكة بني هاشم الأردنية على يد الانكليز الذين صنعوا لبلاد نجد والحجاز قائدا اسمه عبد العزيز آل سعود وصنعوا منه زعيما بانتصارات عسكرية .. ثم صمموا للعرب ثورة الشريف حسين وصنعوا لها قائدا ليكون سريره مفرخة للملوك “الجواسيس” تمثلت بأسرة الشريف حسين وسلالته .. والبريطانيون بارعون جدا في صناعة الزعماء والقادة لأنهم يعرفون أن الشعوب تتبع الزعماء فبدلا من مواجهة الشعوب فان الأفضل وضع اليد على لجام الشعب .. فهم يرون أن الشعوب ثيران هائجة أو جياد لاتقاد الا باللجام .. ولالجام للشعوب مثل ملوكها وزعمائها .. فبدلا من ترويض الجواد اصنع له لجاما ثقيلا ..

وهذه المقاربة التاريخية لنشأة الجمهورية الاتاتوركية التي اختار الانكليز لها العلمانية لالغاء طابعها الديني تفصلها اليوم عن خلافة أردوغان مئة سنة تقريبا .. فقد دفن اردوغان جمهورية كمال اتاتورك منذ أيام لأن وظيفتها انتهت وظهر أن مهمتها الحالية في ولادة الشرق الأوسط الجديد (الديني والمذهبي) لاتستطيع القيام بها دولة علمانية بل دولة دينية تتفاعل مع السديم المذهبي الهائج .. فأعيدت لها صفتها الدينية عبر حكم العدالة والتنمية ..

في ظروف نهوض الاسلام السياسي من ثورة الامام الخميني في ايران لم تعد تنفع النزعة القومية التي قادها صدام حسين لايقاف التمدد الثوري الايراني وفكر الدين الثوري ولم تعد مملكة آل سعود قادرة على التنطح العقائدي لهذه المهمة بسبب ظهور بثور وبذور فساد المملكة وتبذير أمرائها وحياتهم الباذخة وكان لابد من اطلاق العدو الطبيعي للموجة الخمينية الطاغية .. ولم يكن هناك افضل من العثمانية الصاعدة .. فالجمهور العربي المسلم مشدود بالنوستالجيا والحنين الى الدولة القوية المركزية التي شكلت المظلة العقائدية .. “وكان المذهب السني محرجا بسبب تمكن المذهب الشيعي “من تطوير نموذج للحكم الاسلامي فريد وقدم تجربة للثورة الفكرية والايديويولوجية الجهادية أصابت المثقفين الاسلاميين العرب بالصدمة وهو يظهرون عاجزين عن انجاز الثورة الاسلامية التي وعد بها الاخوان المسلمون وغيرهم طوال عقود .. وكان أفضل مرشح في نظر الغربيين للقيام بدور العدو الطبيعي للاسلام السياسي بنسخته الشيعية هو تركيا العثمانية .. وهنا لايمكن فصل احتلال العراق عن مصادفة غريبة في نجاح حزب العدالة والتنمية وصعود نجم لاعب الكرة التركي وبائع البطيخ أردوغان في نفس الوقت الذي هبط فيه نجم صدام حسين معه الى الحفرة التي روّج الأميريكون أنهم وجدوه فيها .. ففي العراق ظهرت الحاجة الماسة لقيادة للجمهور السني اليتيم الذي بدا مظلوما بعد أن اطيح بحكم السنة بالقوة .. وبدا المثقفون العرب يتلفتون حولهم بحثا عن رمز اسلامي قوي .. وكان القائد الجديد أردوغان قد اكتملت صناعته .. خطيب مفوه وذو صوت عال “كبائع بطيخ “وممثل بارع ومناور .. ونموذج عصري للخميني التركي السني .. انه النموذج المطلوب والمفصّل على مقاس الجمهور التائق لقائد مناظر للولي الفقيه ..

ومن يحار في السؤال عن سبب بقاء رجب طيب أردوغان في السلطة كل هذا الوقت وهو ينتقل من نصر انتخابي الى نصر آخر وكأنه طائر الفينيق فانه اما أن يكون من أولئك السذج الذين ينامون في قلب الكفر وفي سرير الرذيلة وهم يعتقدون أنهم في قلب الكعبة واما أنه من أولئك الواهمين بأن تركيا دولة تلعب اللعبة الديمقراطية بجدارة دون أن يكون للغرب أي دور فيما يجري فيها .. فالغرب لايسمح بأي ديمقراطية لاتتوافق مع مصالحه وتوجهاته .. وتجربة الزعيم النمساوي هايدر خير دليل لأن هايدر امتدح هتلر ونجح في الانتخابات بشكل غير متوقع فقاطعت أوروبة النمسا وحاصرتها حتى أرغم هايدر على التراجع والتخلي عن نصره الديمقراطي الناجز من أجل الشعب النمساوي الذي قاطعته أوروبة لأسابيع متتالية .. أما أردوغان فانه يهاجم أوروبة ويتبجح أنه أبو الاسلام السياسي وأنه يريد احياء الامبراطورية العثمانية ألد اعداء أوروبة التي حاصرت فيينا .. وهي اسوا الذكريات العثمانية في الوعي الاوروبي .. ومع ذلك فانه لايحظى الا بأصوات تلفزيونية ناقدة .. ولكن لاأحد يعلن مقاطعته أو محاصرته اقتصاديا ولاتخرج فتوى واحدة من رجال الاعمال والمال لسحب الاستثمارات الهائلة في البورصة التركية .. ولايقدم الاتحاد الاوربي على منع السياحة اليه لتدمير عموده الاقتصادي القائم على السياحة كما فعل الروس وجعلوا فنادقه شبه فارغة عندما أسقط لهم طائرة السوخوي .. والرجل يتعامل علنا مع داعش والنصرة وكل المجموعات الارهابية ويصدر الارهابيين واللاجئين الى اوروبة ومع ذلك تبقى اوروبة مستكينة له وكأنها عاجزة بلا حول ولاقوة ولاتقوم باي رد فعل وكأن يد السلطان هي العليا .. بالرغم من أن السلطان يخوض حربا عالمية يحارب فيها ايران وروسيا والعراق وسورية ومصر والصين ..

ماهو سر اردوغان؟؟ وكيف يغامر رجل مثله لاتزال صناديق الاقتراع بالكاد تعطيه نجاحا صعبا بأصوات 51% من الناخبين ولايبالي بأصوات 49% يعارضونه ويتصرف وكانه يحصل على أصوات 90% رغم أن السياسي الذي يفوز فوزا صعبا يخشى أن يخسر نقطة أو نقطتين بسبب اي قرار غير مدروس .. الا أردوغان الذي لايهزم ولايقهر .. فهو لايبالي بالأكراد ويطحنهم ويسحقهم ويزج بقياداتهم في السجن .. ويناطح تيار فتح الله غولن القوي .. وهو يعلي الخطاب المذهبي والاثني في بلد مليء بالمتفجرات المذهبية والعرقية .. ومع هذا فانه لايسقط .. فهل هو ابن الاله أم روح محمد الفاتح.. أم مصطفى كمال أتاتورك آخر بتصميم انكليزي بنسخة عثمانية يراد له أن يكون أبا الأتراك الجدد؟

والحقيقة أن سقوط اردوغان لم يكن يوما وهما نهذي به أو حلما يداعبنا بل انعكاسا لحقيقة وواقع ينقله لنا مثقفون ونخب تركية تناصبه العداء وتتوجس منه .. فهو محاصر بكل أسباب الخسارة وظهر ضعفه وترنحه في انتخابات عام 2015 عندما اهتز حزب العدالة والتنمية وكان عليه تشكيل حكومة ائتلافية ولكن اردوغان أعاد الانتخابات بعد ان هيأ طريقة الفوز والتلاعب على قواعد اللعبة بمباركة أوروبة التي لم ترفع صوتها كما تفعل عندما لاتروق لها المكائد الانتخابية ..

ان سبب بقاء اردوغان جاء من الحاجة اليه بسبب الدور التركي في الحرب السورية .. وأردوغان مدين للحرب السورية في بقائه لأن كل برنامجه الانتخابي في البقاء يستمده من تداعيات الحرب على سورية .. لأن مشروع الغرب القاضي بخلق حاجز داعش بين ايران والعراق وسورية على امتداد نهر الفرات يستحيل أن ينجح دون العون التركي .. كما ان جبهة النصرة في الشمال لاتقدر على الصمود دون الدعم التركي المطلق .. وهذان التنظيمان هما عماد مشروع الفوضى الخلاقة والشرق الأوسط الجديد .. فهما يرسمان حدود المذاهب بالدم وهما الاسفين الذي يمكن أن يقسم سورية .. ولايمكن ان تقاد الحملة الدينية الطائفية في المنطقة بحزب تركي علماني بل بحزب ديني يجمع حوله السنة الباحثين عن عمق مذهبي لاعلماني .. ولايمكن المخاطرة بتغييب شخص أردوغان عن الساحة التركية لما قد يحمله هذا الغياب من ضعف في معسكر الاسلام السياسي الذي قد يهتز اذا غاب ملهمه الروحي والرجل الساحر الذي التفت حوله الجماعات الاسلامية من المحيط الى الخليج وتحول الى مغناطيس تتبعه جماعات الاسلام السياسي كالمنومة مغناطيسيا وتهاجر اليه حتى من غزة المحاصرة .. تماما كما كانت الأحزاب الشيوعية العربية تنسخ التجربة السوفييتية وتسير معها كظلها .. ولذلك لايبالي اردوغان باي اعتبار انتخابي فالمال الخليجي يسرع اليه كلما أوعز البريطانيون بذلك .. والانتقادات الاوروبية لاردوغان مجرد كلام ونباح دون عض .. بل ان النباح يزيد من التفاف الاتراك حوله وهم يرون ان مستقبلهم صار غامضا في ظل السعار الغربي نحو تركيا ..

وحتى الانقلاب العسكري التركي الذي لاتزال أسراره تتكشف رويدا رويدا جاء لتثبيت الرجل بعد اهتزاز شرعيته في انتخابات عام 2015 .. وبدا تثبيت اردوغان في الحكم بعد اعادة الانتخابات والزج بقادة الأحزاب الكردية في السجن وكأنه طعن في التشكيك بشعبيته وشرعيته .. حيث ظهر بعد الانقلاب وكأنه عاد بقوة الشعب وليس بالتحايل على قوانين الانتخابات .. والحقيقة هي انه عاد بقوة المتطرفين الاسلاميين الذين أزاحوا من طريقهم بعنف كل من يمكن أن يحول بينهم وبين الحكم المطلق حتى انجاز مهمة الشرق الاوسط الكبير الذي لاتقدر على انجازه الا تركيا الاسلامية بحكم مطلق التي توقف التمدد الايراني والتي تثبت دولة سنية يحاول الغرب صناعتها بين سورية والعراق وترضعها من أثدائها العثمانية حتى يشتد عودها لأن لاأمل لها الا بالثدي العثماني وهي محاصرة غربا وشرقا .. وربما كان من نتائج الدكتاتورية الاسلامية التركية التي يريدها الغرب أن تكون مثل قنبلة موقوتة هو استقطاب المجتمع التركي وابقائه متوترا ريثما تحين لحظة تقسيمه لأن الديكتاتورية الاسلامية لايمكن التنبؤ برد فعلها اذا ماخسرت السلطة في صناديق الاقتراع أو في انقلاب عسكري .. فهي تتصرف وكأنها في مهمة تاريخية وجهادية وان ليس من حقها فقدان السلطة بل حماية الخلافة التي خسرتها في حرب عالمية ولن تقبل بخسارة ثانية لها مهما بلغ الثمن .. حتى وان كانت الخسارة ديمقراطية في صناديق انتخاب ..

أهمية تركيا اليوم جاءت من دورها السوري فقط ودون مراوغة واجتهادات وتبريرات عن اسطورة الاقتصاد المتفوق الاسلامي وغير ذلك .. واستمرار الحرب السورية هو الذي يمد بعمر أردوغان الذي صار حاجة غربية لاستمرار الحرب على روسية والصين وايران من البوابة السورية ولذلك تم التمديد له بمشروع النظام الرئاسي حتى عام 2028 وهو عام يوافق نهاية الفترة الثانية للأسد لأن مشروع الشرق الاوسط الكبير تعثر ولم ينجز في الزمن المرسوم في الربيع العربي ويقدر له أن يتعثر لسنوات بعد أن ثبت ان الأسد يستحيل اسقاطه .. وقد قدم أردوغان أوراق اعتماده من جديد عقب الانتخابات الأخيرة بالقول بأن سورية تقسم قطعة قطعة .. وهو تعهد قديم يعيد تقديمه لمن صنعه وكلفه بمهمته وهي بناء قطع الشرق الأوسط الكبير قطعة قطعة .. وتقسيم سورية هو قلب الشرق الأوسط الجديد وقلب مهمته التي كلف بها منذ سنوات .. والشرق الاوسط الجديد بخرائطه الدموية يعتمد عليه .. ولكن ثبات الأسد في دمشق جعل مشروع التقسيم صعبا للغاية .. وهو مشروع لايتحقق الا بغياب الأسد وبقاء اردوغان .. وينتهي بغياب اردوغان وبقاء الأسد .. ولذلك بقي اردوغان ..

اردوغان كان قد بدأ مشروعه من سورية التي ساعدت في صعوده وسمحت له بالتدفق في قضايا المنطقة ومنحته صفة الوسيط الوحيد في المفاوضات مع اسرائيل بعد مسرحية دافوس ومرمرة ثم ساعدته اقتصاديا لانعاش اقتصاد شرق الاناضول على حساب اقتصاد شمال سورية وهذا ماساعد الكتلة الانتخابية في شرق الاناضول وهي الكتلة الاسلامية على الانتعاش والثراء ومن ثم اجتياح الاقتصاد التركي في غرب الاناضول مما اثر على الوزن الانتخابي لغرب الأناضول العلماني الذي لم يسترد موقعه منذ تلك اللحظة الفاصلة ..
ولكن كما بدأ أردوغان مشروعه من سورية فان استمراره مرتبط بسورية .. ومن كانت بدايته واستمراره من سورية فان نهايته لاشك لايمكن ان تكون الا من سورية .. وان بيته العثماني أوهن من بيت العنكبوت الاسرائيلي ولن يصمد اذا هبت عليه الريح أو جزء من الريح التي هبت على سورية .. انه منطق النشوء والوجود والبقاء والخلود .. بأن لحظة الموت تقررها لحظة الميلاد .. فميلاده كان في سورية .. وموته سيكون في سورية .. مهما طال الزمن .. ولايزال هناك شيء خفي تنتظره تركيا والمنطقة ستجعل بائع البطيخ يدرك أن تركيا مجرد كومة بطيخ .. وأن تكسير وتقسيم سورية لايشبه تقسيم البطيخ على الاطلاق .. لكن البطيخة التي ستتكسر هي التي تقف فوق كتفيه .. وبامكانه انتظار معركة ادلب ليتحقق من ذلك ..

 

   ( الثلاثاء 2017/04/25 SyriaNow)

Turkey, Korea, and Yemen, but not Syria تركيا وكوريا واليمن لا سورية

Turkey, Korea, and Yemen, but not Syria

Written by Nasser Kandil,

أبريل 20, 2017

Usually the open crises in the countries which have high excitability due to their political geography give the opportunity for one of two choices. The first is to resolve the conflict in favor of an international camp against another one, its indicators emerge quickly; the non-outbreak of the crises. Where the elements of surprise, readiness, and the inadequacy of the necessary preparations for the confrontation on the two local and the external sides of the conflict contribute in that. The second choice is the transformation of these crises into open wound in which the balances of powers are tested, and where the negotiations and the barters are taken place, and thus will lead to balances. When this occurs at a critical moment internationally the crises will roll to the brink of a major war that draws new international equations.

It is clear that the international balance which based on a permanent test of the ability of America of the rapid resolving did not include the development of any local crisis by the opposite camp or the proceeding in it toward turning it into an opposite test or a balance arena. It is clear as well that there is not any opportunity for the resolving due to the US inability to resolve the open files in the ignited arenas from Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya towards Syria, Yemen, and Korea despite the change of tactics and the succession of the US administrations, so the crises remained open, but it is clearer that Syria alone despite its importance, it has conditions that ensure the turn of scale in favor of the camp which is opponent to Washington to proceed in a semi-resolving in most of the Syrian geography, and the inability of the existing attempts to create different background or to change the destination of the military and the field balances as the strikes of the US missiles.

According to the international politics this means the end of the strategic dimension and even the functional dimension of the Syrian war; therefore there will be a need for alternative areas more effective, less costly, and broader opportunities that achieve the same goal in the tests of power and the industry of the negotiation with opponents. This may make of Yemen an appropriate arena for the attraction with Iran in the regional concept, while it grants Korea the opportunity of the rapid movement after latency throughout the years of the war on Syria as a negotiating and mutual understandings arena with China, but Russia which is the first winner in Syria is not involved to be present strongly in the forefront but only as a mediator in the two crises and wars in each of Yemen and Korea. So Turkey will emerge as an alternative arena of the Syrian war arena, where the West led by Washington was awakened that all the Atlantic investment on Turkey is fading, because the non-satisfaction of the Ottoman imperial anticipations of Ankara’s rulers turns them into single player that is difficult to be controlled, and may it becomes an ally to Russia that can have control over the Balkans, the Black Sea, and the Central Asia. Turkey which is surrounded by a Russian- Iranian alliance gets by mutual consent wide roles in the Asian and Balkan depths that it will not dream of in case of the collision with the Russian and the Iranian partners.

Since the coup in Turkey there was a mysterious arena that could be a place for solutions instead of Syria. The Kurdish platform provided by the war in Syria does not change the situation in Syria, but it is useful for the expansion toward the Turkish interior, furthermore, the emerge of the feature of the Muslim Brotherhood of the Turkish regime provided by the war in Syria is no longer useful to change the Syrian balances, but it is useful to instigate the Turkish secularism. It seems that the last referendum in Turkey for reading the fragile balances of the small differences in the opposite forces was not known by Turkey since the rise of the Justice and Development Party as a Western approved project in a way that raises questions about a secular Kurdish alliance that appeared in the referendum and contained half of the Turks, so it became the ally of the West, while the Turkish President is still in the Russian-Iranian cuddling, Astana is an example, it paved the way to the unknown as long as Turkey is on the borders of Russia and Iran not on the borders of America. When the ruling party in the referendum loses the support of three major cities Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir does not that mean something?

The Turkish President will be slow in the positioning on the line of the fruitful settlements in Syria, and he will miss his opportunity and the opportunity of Russia and Iran, so the Turkish interior wound will grow, exaggerate, inflame, and it may it explode. Thus Turkey will be an arena for the mutual attraction before it becomes the debatable player by the major countries.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

تركيا وكوريا واليمن لا سورية

أبريل 19, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– توفر عادة الأزمات المفتوحة في البلدان ذات الحساسية العالية بمكانتها في الجغرافيا السياسية الفرصة لأحد خيارين، الأول هو حسم الصراع لصالح معسكر دولي بوجه معسكر آخر، وهذا تظهر مؤشراته سريعاً مع اندلاع الأزمات وتفجرها ويسهم فيه فعل عناصر المفاجأة والجهوزية وعدم تناسب التحضيرات اللازمة لمواجهة على ضفتي الصراع المحلية والخارجية والثاني هو تحوّل هذه الأزمات جرحاً مفتوحاً تختبر فيه موازين القوى وتجري على ساحته المفاوضات والمقايضات، وترتسم عبره التوازنات. وعندما يجري ذلك في لحظة حرجة دولياً تتدحرج الأزمات إلى شفا حرب كبرى ترسم معادلات دولية جديدة.

– الواضح أنّ التوازن الدولي الذي قام على اختبار دائم لقدرة أميركا على الحسم السريع، لم يكن مطروحاً فيه إقدام المعسكر المقابل على تطوير أيّ أزمة محلية والسير بها نحو التفجّر لتحويلها اختباراً معاكساً أو ساحة توازن، والأوضح ثانياً أنّ العجز الأميركي عن حسم الملفات المفتوحة في ساحات ساخنة من أفغانستان إلى العراق وليبيا وصولاً لسورية واليمن وكوريا، لم يوفر في أيّ منها فرصة الحسم، رغم تغيّر التكتيكات وتعاقب الإدارات الأميركية، وبقيت الجروح المفتوحة مفتوحة، لكن الواضح أنه في سورية وحدها، رغم كونها الأهمّ بين شقيقاتها تتوافر شروط تقول برجحان واضح للكفة لصالح المعكسر المناوئ لواشنطن على السير نحو شبه حسم في أغلب الجغرافيا السورية، وعجز المحاولات القائمة باللعب على حافة الهاوية كضربات الصواريخ الأميركية عن خلق مناخ مختلف أو تغيير وجهة التوازنات العسكرية والميدانية.

– بمنطق السياسة الدولية هذا يعني نهاية البعد الاستراتيجي وحتى الوظيفي للحرب السورية، مع الحاجة لساحات بديلة تحقق الهدف نفسه في اختبارات القوة وصناعة التفاوض مع الخصوم، أشدّ فعالية وأقلّ كلفة، وأوسع فرصاً. وهذا ما قد يجعل من اليمن ساحة مناسبة بالمفهوم الإقليمي للتجاذب مع إيران، ويمنح كوريا فرصة التحرك السريع بعد كمون طوال سنوات الحرب في سورية، كساحة تفاوض وتجاذب وتفاهمات مع الصين، لكن روسيا التي تشكل الرابح الأول في سورية، ليست معنية أن تحضر بقوة في الواجهة إلا كوسيط في الأزمتين والحربين في كلّ من اليمن وكوريا، لتظهر تركيا إلى الواجهة كساحة بديلة لساحة الحرب السورية، حيث تنبّه الغرب وفي طليعته واشنطن إلى أنّ كلّ الاستثمار الأطلسي على تركيا يتلاشى، وأنّ عدم إشباع التطلعات الإمبراطورية العثمانية لحكام أنقرة يحوّلهم لاعباً منفرداً يصعب ضبطه، وربما يصير حليفاً للجانب الروسي يفتح له باب السيطرة على البلقان والبحر الأسود وآسيا الوسطى، فتركيا المحاطة بتحالف روسي إيراني تحصل بالتراضي على أدوار واسعة في العمقين الآسيوي والبلقاني لا تحلم بها بالتصادم مع الشريكين الروسي والإيراني.

– منذ الانقلاب تفتحت في تركيا ساحة غامضة ترشحها للحلول مكان سورية، فما قدّمته الحرب في سورية من منصة كردية لا يغيّر الوضع في سورية، لكنه يصلح للتمدّد نحو الداخل التركي، وما وفّرته الحرب في سورية من ظهور الطابع الإخواني للنظام التركي لم يعد مفيداً في تغيير التوازنات السورية، لكنه يفيد في استنهاض العلمانية التركية، ويبدو الاستفتاء الأخير في تركيا لقراءة صورة توازنات هشة على فوارق ضئيلة في الأوزان المتقابلة، لم تعرفه تركيا منذ صعود حزب العدالة والتنمية كمشروع معتمد غربياً، بصورة تطرح الأسئلة عن حلف كردي علماني ظهر في الاستفتاء يشكل نصف الأتراك، يصير هو الحليف للغرب، ورمي الرئيس التركي في الحضن الروسي الإيراني، وها هي أستانة مثال، وفتح الباب في تركيا نحو المجهول، طالما تركيا على حدود روسيا وإيران وليست على حدود أميركا، ألا يعني شيئاً أن يخسر الحزب الحاكم في الاستفتاء دعم المدن الثلاث الكبرى، اسطنبول وأنقرة وأزمير؟

– سيتثاقل ويتباطأ الرئيس التركي في التموضع على خط التسويات المجدية في سورية، ويضيّع فرصته وفرصة روسيا وإيران، وسيكبر الجرح الداخلي التركي ويتفاقم ويلتهب وربما ينفجر، وتصير تركيا ساحة التجاذب قبل أن تصير اللاعب المتنازع عليه بين الكبار.

(Visited 4٬067 times, 59 visits today)
 
 
Related Videos





Related Articles

Trump Enthrones Erdogan – Destroys Trust In U.S. Diplomacy

Trump Enthrones Erdogan – Destroys Trust In U.S. Diplomacy

Trump contradicted his speaker, the State Department and his allies by congratulating the Turkish President Erdogan for winning Sunday’s referendum vote. He undermined his diplomacy.

Sundays referendum in Turkey makes the presidential office a quasi dictatorial position that leads the executive and can, via decrees, also overrule the legislative and judiciary elements of the state. President Erdogan is now in a dictatorial position. It maybe that a majority of the Turkish voters voted for this change but it is far from certain. The number of votes in doubt because they were not taken in accordance with the legal procedures (2-3 million)  is higher than slight majority lead (1.5 million) for the “yes” side.

Official international election observers noted (pdf) that the vote was neither free nor fair. The Turkish state is under emergency rules which  give the president (temporarily) extraordinary powers. The vote happened after an extreme hunt against anyone that could have endangered Erdogan’s position. He jailed opposition politicians and civil servants, forbade some political groups and closed down opposition media. All state institutions were used in support for Erdogan’s side. If he could only win by 1.5 million votes in a 80 million strong society after this extreme anti-opposition campaign how many Turks would really have agreed with him on more leveled grounds?

Twenty years ago, when he was mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan said in a Milliyet interview: “Democracy is like a tram ride: when you reach your stop, you get off”. On Sunday Erdogan stepped off the tram.

Turkey is now a Tyranny of the Majority. There are no longer any institutional constrains to remove any minority group from the political scene or  maybe even from the physical world. Turkey as we knew it is no more.

EU members refrained from accepting the vote before the ongoing legal fight over it is decided. Only Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf and Central Asian dictatorships congratulated him. The terrorist group Ahrar al Sham, which fights the people and government of Syria, also congratulated Erdogan. Al-Qaeda in Syria, under its new alliance name HTS, joined in as well as other Takfiri groups in Syria.

Like the EU countries the U.S. State Department held out on congratulations. It only released a statement that noted reports of voting “irregularities” and an “uneven playing field”. It voiced support for inner-Turkish dialog and legal processes. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the U.S. administration would wait until the final report by the international observers mission was released.

The State Department and the spokesman were quickly undermined by President Trump. Only an hour later the Turkish side reported of a Trump-Erdogan telephone conversation:

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday called Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to congratulate him on the referendum victory.The two leaders had a “pleasant” call which lasted for 45 minutes, diplomatic sources said.

This was later confirmed by a White House readout of the call. (The readout is not yet on the White House website but was sent out to the press via email).

The published content of the call does not bode well for Turkey, Syria and Iraq (emphasis added):

“President Trump and President Erdogan also discussed the counter-ISIS campaign and the need to cooperate against all groups that use terrorism to achieve their ends,” the White House statement said.

The Turkish version of the readout was worse:

The two leaders also discussed an alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government on April 4 that killed approximately 100 civilians and injured 500 others in the opposition-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province.
..
Trump and Erdoğan agreed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the attack.The U.S. president also thanked Turkey for its support for U.S. missile strikes on the Shayrat air base on April 7 in retaliation for the chemical attack.

Both leaders also stressed the need for cooperation in the fight against terror groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

The Khan Sheikhun incident was likely a “false flag” attack initiated by the terrorists on the ground -possibly with Turkish support. The proven number of casualties was far less than the statement claims. The only purpose of the following U.S. missile strikes was to dispel allegations that Trump is in cahoots with Russia.

A question now is who the two countries regard as terrorist groups. The mostly Shia Hizbullah fighting on the Syrian government side is seen as such by both even while it holds parliament positions in Lebanon. While the U.S. agreed to UN Security Council resolutions designating al-Qaeda in Syria as a terrorist group that must be “eradicated”, Erdogan is sponsoring and supporting the group. The U.S. is allying with parts of the Kurdish YPK/PKK groups in Syria while Turkey has designated those as terrorist entities. Does the “against all groups that use terrorism” formulation include the Iraqi militia in Syria? Does it include Iran?

What is most concerning is the fact that a 45 minute call is extremely long for such an occasion. We can be sure that plans were made in it that have not yet been published. It is likely that a new, higher level of war against Syrian (and Iran) was agreed upon. Besides the battlefields of Syria there is Turkish military interference in Iraq. Were common plans made for that country too?

Still one wonders why Trump would undermine his speaker, his State Department and his European allies by contradicting their statements and positions with his Erdogan call. A precedent was set.  Foreign countries can no longer rely on official U.S. administration statements unless Trump personally voices his agreement with them. (Which he may then retract and reverse on a moments notice.) The basis of diplomacy is a certain level of trust in reliability – words and standing by those words matter. The diplomatic standing of the United States was severely damaged by this unprecedented move.

The reversal of the original position of the Trump administration is extreme. From a realist standpoint a much more neutral position towards Erdogan’s shenanigans, as shown by the State Department, would be advisable.

Why did Trump reverse it? Has this five year old tweet something to do with it?

Ivanka Trump‏ @IvankaTrump
Thank you Prime Minister Erdogan for joining us yesterday to celebrate the launch of #TrumpTowers Istanbul!
1:56 PM – 20 Apr 2012

%d bloggers like this: