IAF CROSS-BORDER RAIDS IN THE LARGER PICTURE OF HEZBOLLAH VS ISRAEL

IAF Cross-Border Raids in the Larger Picture of Hezbollah vs Israel

Illustrative image

Written by Dennis M. Nilsen exclusively for SouthFront

As has become worldwide news, on February 10 the Syrian Air Defense Forces succeeded in causing, directly or indirectly, the downing of an Israeli Air Force (IAF) F-16I.  The warplane comprised part of an eight-plane attack group returning from a raid on the Tiyas Military Airbase just west of Palmyra, launched in response to the shooting down of a drone over Israeli territory just beyond the Golan Heights.  An Apache attack helicopter of the IAF shot down what Israel claims was an Iranian drone launched from the Syrian airbase, and upon the demise of one of its F-16s the IAF launched further raids on Syrian and Iranian military targets in the vicinity of Damascus, including three air defense posts.  Syria claims its air defense thwarted the attacks, while the Iranian IRGC have refused to confirm the Israeli claims and, further, deny that they have set up military installations in Syria.  The Syrians and Iranians both claim that the drone was engaged in an operation against one of the several terrorist groups operating on the Syrian-Lebanese border.  Incidentally, the two Israeli pilots successfully ejected; while one is in serious condition in hospital, his partner walked away with minor injuries.  Casualties for their opponents have yet to be confirmed.

While Israeli consternation at the violation of its airspace is understandable, the fact that the IAF has done the very same to Syria on over 100 occasions since the beginning of the revolt against President Assad is getting lost in the media coverage.  This brings up the larger picture of the opposition between the US/Israel block and the Axis of Resistance.  The Zionists insist that the IRGC is taking advantage of the generally distracted state of Syria to move arms shipments to Hezbollah through the country and into the forward areas of that group in southern Lebanon, concerned as they have become at a pending Israeli attack to wipe them out.  They have further accused the Islamic Republic of building missile factories in southwest Syria near to Hezbollah-controlled areas in order to considerably cut the supply route distance.  However, the larger arsenal which Hezbollah possesses and which it continues to augment thanks to the IRGC only makes the Israelis that much more jittery over the existence of such a weapons cache just across their northern border.  Are both sides to blame here, or does the blame lay solely on one side?

Hezbollah formed in 1982 to oppose the secular Amal then engaged in the Lebanese Civil War.  Frustrated at the Shiite group’s refusal to seek an Islamic state and inspired by the recent revolution in Iran, a group of clerics actively sought the aid of the newly-established IRGC to form a military to pull away Shiite support from Amal and to organize a viable front to the South Lebanese Army, allied with the Israelis.  Though it has modified its militant stance considerably vis-à-vis internal Lebanese politics, Hezbollah continuously refuses to acknowledge the existence of the Zionist State and to stand against any compromise short of the full withdrawal of Israel to the 1948 borders (the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) and the return of the Palestinian exiles.  Since these objectives have not been met, Hezbollah continues to exist in opposition to both Israeli policy and the Israeli state.

The considerable missile arsenal which it possesses (thanks to the IRGC) is officially proclaimed to stand collectively as a defensive weapon against a potential Israeli strike, although Israel and its chief ally the United States refuses good faith to Hezbollah and as a consequence refuses this doctrine.  With their backs to the sea, it is entirely reasonable for the Israelis to face the southern Lebanese border with a strong military presence and to constantly plan and exercises for another war with the group.  Further, because the Zionist State was formed without the acceptance of most of the Arab world, its leadership cannot afford to abide by the ruling of any international body, particularly the UN and its refusal to acknowledge the legality of Israeli occupation of the three above-named territories.  The result, impossible for Western mainstream media comprehension, is the existence of Israel as a rogue state, not only occupying land foreign to it but also allowing and (depending upon the party in power) actively encouraging the creation of settlements in those territories by militant members of Israeli society who claim their right to do so based not upon international law, but upon a very worldly interpretation of the Old Mosaic Dispensation.

This may very well serve as the historical background to Hezbollah’s and the larger Muslim animosity against the Zionist State, but the immediate blame which Israel must shoulder is the continued violation of Syrian airspace to strike at targets they rightly or wrongly believe to directly aid Hezbollah’s military capabilities.  Even if their military intelligence is correct about the targets they hit, such strikes must only occur with the permission of the Syrian Government and, lacking this, constitute de facto acts of war.  This latest incident merely showed Syria responding in kind and the IAF suffering the loss of an aircraft, which perplexedly drove an additional IAF raid to destroy as much of the Syrian air defense system as possible, which was merely carrying out its duty in the first place.

What of the Hezbollah missile arsenal in Lebanon?  If it does indeed constitute a threat to Israel, does the latter have the right to invade another country to prevent its augmentation?  Certainly not.  Saying yes, as many apologists in the West do, is like agreeing that Russia, mutatis mutandis, has the right to send weapons to the forces of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics to oppose the Ukrainian armed forces bent on subduing them.  The Ukrainian means of waging war have been nothing short of savage and so it is reasonable for the rebels to wish to arm themselves as much as possible to prevent injustice against themselves, their families and their property.  Is Hezbollah’s arsenal likewise a reasonable precaution against a repeat of the 2006 Israeli aerial campaign that destroyed most of Lebanon’s infrastructure, or a primarily offensive weapon for use against Israeli population centers?  Even if it is the latter, Hezbollah will not risk fomenting a war against the Zionist state unless provoked by the latter, and so the Israelis have no choice but to allow this build up.  But with the military they possess – including the multi-layered missile defense system – what do they really have to fear?  The fact that they are seeking to prevent it only adds fuel to the regional fire and further ostracizes them diplomatically.

As for Iran, if it is establishing missile manufacturing bases in Syria with that country’s permission explicitly to supply Hezbollah and to create a deterrent to another possible massive Israeli military action against Lebanon, or the West Bank or Gaza for that matter, what of it?  As is admitted by all the world save themselves, the Israelis possess a nuclear arsenal in addition to technology and a military far superior to any of its neighbors.  Distrusting the Zionist state as it does, how can Hezbollah be blamed for seeking to acquire the only deterrent to give the Israelis pause?  Israel seeks the destruction of that group and vice versa so how can the one be blamed any more than the other?  If the Israelis continue to act as they do, this will only prove to Hezbollah as well as to Syria and Iran that the former cannot be trusted and to the further build up an arsenal to be ready as a counter to any Israeli attacks.  Iran is free to choose its regional partners and for religious, ideological and strategic reasons, it has chosen Hezbollah.

Western commentators, especially those who espouse the right of NATO to move troops right up to Russia’s border and to conduct military exercises in the teeth of Putin’s veterans, should take pause before leveling charges against the Axis of Resistance.

Advertisements

It’s Nato that’s Empire-building, not Putin

Source

By Peter Hitchins and True Publica,

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. In Britain, the spreading of false information via the mainstream press and national broadcast media is universally accepted on topics such as bringing down the NHS for privatisation purposes, trashing foreign so-called enemy nation states such as Iraq, Libya et al and of course the really big foe of our time – Russia.

Unlike many so-called experts and commentators on Russia, Peter Hitchins was a former foreign correspondent in Moscow and Washington and understands the tension strings of the geo-political power plays being made against it.

Peppered with obligatory obeisances to western official narratives about Nato empire-building since 1990, Peter Hitchins – the self confessed reformed Thatcherite, deconstructs official state propaganda and gives clear personal insight into the realities and truth of these power plays.

The article below was originally published in March 2015 and as you will read, nothing for the better has changed but at least you get a sense that what you are being told officially – is a deception.


It’s Nato that’s empire-building, not Putin

by Peter Hitchins

The Spectator

March 2015

Just for once, let us try this argument with an open mind, employing arithmetic and geography and going easy on the adjectives. Two great land powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these powers is expanding?

There remain 300,000 neutral square miles between the two, mostly in Ukraine. From Moscow’s point of view, this is already a grievous, irretrievable loss. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the canniest of the old Cold Warriors, wrote back in 1997,

‘Ukraine… is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’

This diminished Russia feels the spread of the EU and its armed wing, NATO, like a blow on an unhealed bruise. In February 2007, for instance, Vladimir Putin asked sulkily,

“Against whom is this expansion intended?”

I have never heard a clear answer to that question. The USSR, which NATO was founded to fight, expired in August 1991. So what is Nato’s purpose now? Why does it even still exist?

There is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe. Even if Russia wanted to reconquer its lost empire, as some believe (a belief for which there is no serious evidence), it is too weak and too poor to do this. So why not invite Russia to join the great western alliances? Alas, it is obvious to everyone, but never stated, that Russia cannot ever join either NATO or the EU, for if it did so it would unbalance them both by its sheer size. There are many possible ways of dealing with this. One would be an adult recognition of the limits of human power, combined with an understanding of Russia’s repeated experience of invasions and its lack of defensible borders.

But we do not do this. Instead we have a noisy pseudo-moral crusade, which would not withstand five minutes of serious consideration. Mr Putin’s state is, beyond doubt, a sinister tyranny. But so is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey, which locks up far more journalists than does Russia. Turkey is an officially respectable Nato member, 40 years after seizing northern Cyprus, which it still occupies, in an almost exact precedent for Russia’s seizure of Crimea. If Putin disgusts us so much, then why are we and the USA happy to do business with Erdogan, and also to fawn upon Saudi Arabia and China?

Contrary to myth, the expansion of the EU into the former communist world has not magically brought universal peace, love and prosperity. Croatia’s economy has actually gone backwards since it joined. Corruption still exists in large parts of the EU’s new south-eastern territories, and I am not sure that the rule of law could be said to have been properly established there. So the idea that the recruitment of Ukraine to the ‘West’ will magically turn that troubled nation into a sunny paradise of freedom, probity and wealth is perhaps a little idealistic, not to say mistaken.

It is all so much clearer if we realise that this quarrel is about power and land, not virtue. In truth, much of the eastward expansion of Nato was caused by the EU’s initial unwillingness to take in backward, bankrupt and corrupt refugee states from the old Warsaw Pact. The policy could be summed up as ‘We won’t buy your tomatoes, but if it makes you happy you can shelter under our nuclear umbrella’. The promise was an empty assurance against a nonexistent threat. But an accidental arrangement hardened into a real confrontation. The less supine Russia was, the more its actions were interpreted as aggression in the West. Boris Yeltsin permitted western interests to rape his country, and did little to assert Russian power. So though he bombarded his own parliament, conducted a grisly war in Chechnya, raised corruption to Olympic levels and shamelessly rigged his own re-election, he yet remained a popular guest in western capitals and summits. Vladimir Putin’s similar sins, by contrast, provide a pretext for ostracism and historically illiterate comparisons between him and Hitler.

This is because of his increasing avowal of Russian sovereignty, and of an independent foreign policy. There have been many East-West squabbles and scrimmages, not all of them Russia’s fault. But the New Cold War really began in 2011, after Mr Putin dared to frustrate western — and Saudi — policy in Syria. George Friedman, the noted US intelligence and security expert, thinks Russia badly underestimated the level of American fury this would provoke. As Mr Friedman recently told the Moscow newspaper Kommersant, ‘It was in this situation that the United States took a look at Russia and thought about what it [Russia] wants to see happen least of all: instability in Ukraine.’

Mr Friedman (no Putin stooge) also rather engagingly agrees with Moscow that overthrow last February (2014) of Viktor Yanukovych was ‘the most blatant coup in history’. He is of course correct, as anyone unclouded by passion can see. The test of any action by your own side is to ask what you would think of it if the other side did it.

If Russia didn’t grasp how angry Washington would get over Syria, did the West realise how furiously Russia would respond to the EU Association Agreement and to the fall of Yanukovych? Perhaps not. Fearing above all the irrecoverable loss to NATO of its treasured naval station in Sevastopol, Russia reacted. After 23 years of sullenly appeasing the West, Moscow finally said ‘enough’. Since we’re all supposed to be against appeasement, shouldn’t we find this action understandable in a sovereign nation, even if we cannot actually praise it? And can anyone explain to me precisely why Britain, of all countries, should be siding with the expansion of the European Union and NATO into this dangerous and unstable part of the world?

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

Stop Saying, “Putin Invaded Ukraine and Annexed Crimea” , it’s nonsense

Stop Saying, “Putin Invaded Ukraine and Annexed Crimea”

By Chris Kanthan

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it” – Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister. This is perfectly applicable to the accusations about Russia and Putin regarding Ukraine. Every pundit and politician keeps repeating the mantra that Putin invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. However, like many big lies, this narrative quickly falls apart under objective scrutiny.

Putin did not “invade” Crimea in 2014. Russia has a naval base in Sevastopol, Crimea, and thus it’s normal for Russian soldiers to be in Crimea.

Crimea wasn’t even truly a part of Ukraine. It was known as the “Autonomous Republic of Crimea” after the dissolution of the USSR.

Putin did not “annex” Crimea. Crimea had a referendum and the people overwhelmingly (>95%) chose to go with Russia.

Why the referendum was not “rigged”: More than 75% of Crimeans speak Russian as their native language. Obviously they would choose to join Russia. There’s also intense and overt anti-Russian racism in Ukraine. For example, since 2014, Ukraine has banned Russian TV stations, Russian social media, websites, etc.

Even without the ethnic factor, deciding whether to join Russia or Ukraine is a no-brainer – it’s similar to asking a region if they want to be a part of the U.S. or Mexico.

Nobody protested after or since the referendum. In fact, Crimeans called the outcome “going back home.”

Historical link between Russia-Ukraine-Crimea: It’s important to remember that Crimea has belonged to Russia for 200+ years (since 1783). In 1954, Russian leader Khrushchev – a Ukrainian by birth – transferred Crimea to Ukraine. He did it as a goodwill gesture to celebrate the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming a part of Russia. Nobody in Russia at that time could foresee the fall of the USSR.

Ukraine borders Russia, and Kiev was the birthplace of Russia more than 1000 years ago.

Half of all Ukrainians speak Russian. The eastern half of Ukraine is predominantly made up of ethnic Russians and would gladly secede and join Russia any time. In fact, Ukraine has been virtually split in half for the last three years.

Crimea’s Strategic Importance: Black Sea – where Crimea is located – is strategically important to Russia, since it’s the only gateway to the Mediterranean, Africa, etc. Thus it’s important for shipping, oil/gas pipelines, as well as for military operations. It’s not an exaggeration to say that it would be suicidal for Russia to give up Crimea and control of Black Sea.

Globalists Coveting Ukraine/Crimea: Going back 170 years, the British and the French attacked and stole Crimea from Russia. Thus the West attacking Russia has been a constant theme for two centuries (add in Napoleon, Bolshevik revolution funded by Wall Street, Germany during WWI, Japan funded by Wall Street, and then Hitler).

The US has also been planning on “stealing” Ukraine from Russia for a long time. Right after WW II, the CIA allied with Nazi and guerrilla groups within Ukraine to stir up trouble for the USSR. After the fall of the USSR, geopolitical strategist Brzezinski laid out the plan in his book, The Grand Chessboard, where he suggests that Ukraine should become a part of EU and NATO by 2010.

If Ukraine becomes a part of NATO, the US will place missile systems there, just 400 miles from Moscow. Moreover, Ukraine can start a war with Russia, and then US/EU will be obligated to join the fight. Hello, World War III.

Neocon Schemes: As Asst. Sec. of State Victoria Nuland admitted, since 1991, the US has spent more than $5 billion to lure Ukraine away from Russia. This was spent on propaganda, bribes, NGOs, recruitment of activists etc.

What happened in 2014 was a simple and illegal coup d’état. George Soros, John McCain, Neocons and EU leaders openly intervened in a sovereign nation’s democracy and manipulated the system.

Rather than waiting for a new election, Western elites staged violent protests in Ukraine’s capital and simply overthrew the government. (Neo-Nazi groups such as Svoboda played a major role in the riots.) Then new unelected President and Prime Minister were hand-chosen by the West and installed as puppets.

Horrific Results: Just like they destroyed Libya and Syria in “humanitarian wars” and then moved on with no guilt, the Neocons have done the same in Ukraine. For three years, a civil war has been raging on in Ukraine.

Its debt-to-GDP ratio has doubled and close to 60% of the people live below the poverty line. Its industries are crumbling, and pensions/social welfare have been deeply slashed. Neo-Nazi groups are on the rise, and 80% of young people are desperate to leave the country. One group estimates that one in four prostitutes in Europe are now from Ukraine.

Basically, the country is ruined and has no future. Congrats to Neocons and warmongers who keep repeating like robots, “Putin invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.” Still bitter at Putin, the Pentagon has included $350 million of military aid to Ukraine for the coming fiscal year. More Ukrainians will keep dying for the globalist agenda.

Chris Kanthan is the author of a new book, Syria – War of Deception. It’s available in a condensed as well as a longer version. Chris lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, has traveled to 35 countries, and writes about world affairs, politics, economy and health. His other book is Deconstructing Monsanto.

In Ukraine a Political Struggle Between the Crooks, the Clowns, and the Nazis

Source

So far the crooks are in power but they’re terrified of the nazis and constantly making concessions to them

The latest big news out of the Ukraine

Have you heard what the latest big news out of the Ukraine is? No? There is a mini-Maidan under way and Ukrainian nationalists seem to hope that Poroshenko will be kicked out before the end of the week. You did not know? Well, that is the real big news, the fact that you did not hear about this.

Truthfully, what is going on is kind of interesting. Let me sum it up: the former President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili (who was stripped of his Georgian citizenship and of this Ukrainian citizenship) recently crossed the border (through Poland, of course) and proceeded to travel to Kiev to demand Poroshenko’s resignation.

You think that I am kidding? Check the Wikipedia article about him, it has all the details. It gets better.

 There is a consensus amongst analysts that Saakashvili is being used as a battering ram by somebody far more influential – Iulia Timoshenko, of course.

But what is really new is that many well informed analysts and commentators seem to think that the USA and EU are not the main driving force behind these latest developments (though they are involved, of course).

What is going on here?

Well, as I said, the big news is that you did not hear about it. You did not hear about it because fundamentally nobody cares, least of all the Trump Administration. True, the Trump Administration is so busy self-destructing that it does not really care about Kurdistan either and that implies that it does not even really care about the Holy of Holies : Israel (cry me a river Bibi!).

So never mind the Trump administration, even the Ziomedia mostly seems not to care anymore what happens in the Ukraine (of course, some hardcore hardliners still continue to hallucinate). Hence the (relative) silence on this issue. What this tells the Ukrainian politicians is that they are pretty much on their own. And that is why they are taking matters in their own hands.

I don’t think that it is worthwhile to plunge into all the personalities and factions which are currently involved in the political struggle. I can summarize it by saying that there are four main group currently identifiable: bad, worse, even worse and the silent majority. Let’s begin by the last one, the silent majority.

By all accounts (and from all my personal contacts) it is pretty obvious that the vast majority of those who could not leave the Ukraine are now depressed, silent and in a “survival mode”.

The Ukrainians, like the Russians, are extremely good at this survival mode which a very painful history has taught them: they could survive in conditions where everybody else would perish.

Their history has also taught them that there are times when you want to stay low, shut up and focus on making it through the day. I also think that most Ukrainians fully realize that there is no faction/force out there representing their interest and that means that they have absolutely no reason at all to get involved.

This has nothing to do with passivity or political ignorance: that is common sense. Getting involved is what gets you killed. Hunkering down until the worst of the storm passes is the only correct survival technique in times of very ugly political struggles.

The Crooks, the Clown and the Nazis:

Right now, the Crooks are still in power but they are struggling. Worse, the Crooks are terrified of the Nazis, so they constantly have to engage into a stream of concessions to try to appease them which, of course, fails, and only emboldens the Nazis (sounds exactly like Trump’s never-ending stream of concessions to the Neocons, doesn’t it?).

As for the Clowns, they can be bought by both sides, sometimes at the same time, and they keep the people entertained by their antics.

The Clowns are really a byproduct of the terminally lunatic Ukrainian nationalist ideology, but they don’t really represent a powerful constituency: the Crooks and the Nazis are far more powerful. Still, don’t dismiss the Clowns too soon, because they could suddenly switch to the Crooks or the Nazis depending who offers them a better deal (or scares them most).

The Crooks are barely holding on to power, and they might have to start a war to deflect the mounting political pressure against them in another direction. Wars are good for circling the wagons and crushing the opposition.

The Clowns, due to their ideology, would have to approve of a new war. They simply could not say anything against it. If a war is launched, they would have to give it a standing ovation. Besides, if they tried any form of disagreement they would be easily crushed by the Crooks and Nazis. So the Clowns will always support whatever the other two factions agree upon.

As for for Nazis, well, war against Russia and anything Russian is their raison d’être, the very core of their identity and the purpose of their lives.

The Ukronazis have a profoundly revanchist worldview and agenda and if defeating Russia is not an option (although some of them won’t even accept that as a fact of life) then killing or expelling all the non-Ukronazis from the Ukraine is an acceptable substitute for them.

Polandball: A ball representing Neo-Nazi group Right Sector saying “Those who don’t jump are Moskal”. Moskal is a derogatory term for Russians. The so called nationalists are destroying their nation.


Yup, they even have some convoluted racial purity theories (Ukie Aryans versus Finno-Ugric Russian Mongols). True, bona fide Nazis are a minority in the Ukraine, but the compensate for that by having guns, lots of guns.

What has kept the Ukronazis from attacking since their last attempt is the painful memory of the crushing defeat they suffered at the hands of the Novorussians. But herein also lies a very real risk: defeats often make armies better, victories often makes them complacent. When I hear the Novorussians speaking of “next time we go to Kiev” I hope that their confidence is warranted, but I am afraid that they might be underestimating the opponent.

Are the sides really ready for a resumption of warfare?

In truth it is very hard to assess the chances of another Ukronazi attack. On one hand, the Ukronazi forces have had two years to regroup, lick their wounds, reorganize, rearm, retrain, etc.

Most importantly, it appears that they have built defensive positions in depth, possibly including 2 or even 3 defensive echelons. Why does defense matter? Because if your defensive positions are strong, then the risk of counter-attack by the enemy’s forces are much lower and that, in turn, means that your offensive is far less likely to end up surrounded in a “cauldron” (I simplify here, in reality this is a little more complicated as it depends on the depth of your attack, but never mind that).

A couple of years is a lot of time to dig in and prepare for defense and without access to classified data it is hard to gauge how effective these efforts have been. In terms of new equipment (whether Ukrainian or new deliveries from the Empire), this will make no difference at all, that’s just political talk.

My advice is that as soon as you hear or read anything about the delivery of “lethal weapons” you ignore everything that comes after that. Ditto for training by Polish or US experts. That is just propaganda.

What is not propaganda is the intelligence support offered by the Empire overtly (satellites) or covertly (EU ‘observers’ etc.). That and the fact that the Ukronazis have a 2-2.5:1 numerical advantage over the Novorussians.

Much of the same could be said about the Novorussians: they also have had 2 years to dig in, by all reports they have now integrated their forces into a regular army capable of operational-depth counter-offensives, their morale and training is probably much higher than on the Ukronazi side and they can count on Russian support (intelligence, logistics, training, etc.). Also, they would have the home turf advantage.

Finally, and Putin very clearly stated that recently, Russia will not allow the military reconquest of Novorussia, which means that even if the Ukronazis somehow succeed in breaking through the Novorussian defenses they will be engaged by the Russian armed forces, primarily by missile/bombing strikes at which point the war will stop in less than 24 hours.

The big conceptual mistake, however, would be to assume that the Ukronazi really want to reconquer Novorussia (or Crimea, for that matter).

In reality, everybody knows that these territories are gone forever and that Kiev simply has no means to control them even without Russian assistance.

Let me repeat this: even if by some magical effect the Russians were to let the Ukronazis invade the Donbass this would result in a fantastically nasty guerrilla war by the locals which the Ukronazis would have no chance at all to defeat.

Yes, it would be a bloodbath, but it would never end with a workable pacification of the Donbass my the Ukronazis.

I would therefore say that the role of Russia is not to prevent Kiev from regaining the control of the Donbass, but to prevent a bloodbath in the Donbass.

The real goal: not to win, but to trigger a Russian intervention (same old, same old)

Now I have been saying for years that the real goal of the junta is to force Russia to openly intervene in the Donbass. As soon as the Russians overtly get involved that would kill the Minsk 1 and 2 agreements, it would turn the current disaster in the Nazi occupied Ukraine into a war of national liberation against the hated Moskals,

NATO would immediately put an end to all that recent cozying-up of various EU political parties towards Russia and the AngloZionst Empire’s wet dream would finally come true: such a Russian intervention would usher a new Cold, possibly even Tepid, War in Europe thereby giving a meaning to NATO (finally!) and crushing any kind of anti-imperial feelings in Europe.

The Balts and the Poles would finally be secure in their mission to “protect Europe from a resurgent Russia” and the US Neocons would have a big victory party.

True, Russia would liberate all of Novorussia in 24 hours or less and, yes, with Russian help the Novorussians could push the line of contact (well, at this point, the frontline) pretty much as far West as they would want to. But that would be a small victory in the context of a global political catastrophe (along with an ugly bloodbath).

This is why the Russians have made a huge effort not to intervene, even if that has costs them a lot of political capital (there are still those out there who speak of a Russian “sell-out” of the Donbass).

 The goal of the Ukraine Conflict is to divide the East Slavic people.

Unlike their western counterparts, who still don’t understand that the purpose of warfare is to achieve a political objective, the Russians fully realize that an (easy) military victory against the Ukronazis would come at a cost of an immense political disaster.

The last thing the Kremlin wants is to copy what the US Americans did in Iraq and Afghanistan: begin by an easy victory, declare victory, and then end up with an absolute disaster on their hands from which they sill are unable to extricate themselves.

In this respect, the Crimea was a totally different and unique case: a vitally important piece of land, which historically was Russian, populated by people who were overwhelmingly pro-Russian (or, simply, Russian), with easy to control choke-points connecting with the Nazi occupied Ukraine and fantastic economic prospects. And yet, even in these ideal condition, the Russian economy is struggling to rebuild this relatively small territory.

It is pretty clear that at the end of the day, Russia will also have to pay for most the reconstruction of the Donbass, however hard this will be. But as much as that is possible, Russia would much prefer to make the reconstruction of the Ukraine an international problem, yet another reason for her to try to avoid any real, overt, military intervention. Because once Russia occupies any territory, she owns it and she becomes responsible for it.

The bottom line is this: we don’t hear much about the Ukraine right now because at least the Americans seem to have given up on this entire project and because they are busy with more important issues (self-destructing, mostly). But that does not mean that the situation in the Ukraine cannot suddenly reignite with very serious international consequences.

So when I speak of Crooks, Clowns and Nazis, I am not taking these issues lightly at all. Yes, they truly are crooks, clowns and Nazis, but they also very dangerous individuals, especially collectively.

A tiny ray of hope for “less bad”?

Rumor has it that the two big figures behind the scenes in the Ukraine are Igor Kolomoiskii (who now has a personal vendetta against Poroshenko and Saakashvili) and Iulia Timoshenko.

I honestly have no means to assess these claims, but I will say that while these two are truly profoundly evil and hateful people (Kolomoiskii was probably deeply involved in the MH-17 false flag), neither of them is stupid.

Furthermore, they are both Crooks, not Clowns or Nazis, which means that they can be negotiated with, however distasteful this maybe.

Last but not least, they both have a real power base in the Ukraine, money in Kolomoiskii’s case, true popularity in Timoshenko’s case. In this I see a tiny ray of hope.

With the Americans busy fighting each other internally, and with the Europeans slowly waking up to the total disaster “their” (it is not really “their’s” – but nevermind that) Ukrainian policy has been, maybe, just maybe, there is a tiny chance of, say, some EU leaders getting together with, say, Timoshenko (Kolomoiskii will never be a public official again, he will pull the strings in the back) to sit down with the Russians and the Novorussians and finally seriously negotiate some kind of end to this very dangerous situation.

Remember, Poroshenko is a pure US puppet, and he is weak. There is no way he could negotiate anything of substance any more. All he needs to do now is to prepare his flight to the US, UK or Israel. But Timoshenko is still “for real” and she is far more capable of dealing with the Nazis than Poroshenko, his billions, his chocolate factory and his Eltsin-like dependence on alcohol.

 Petro Poroshenko

Of course, there is “the devil you know” argument. And in many ways, Poroshenko being the greedy weak booze-soaked coward that he is looks like the lesser evil.

The problem with that is that he is terrified of the Nazis and that they are either paralyzing him or making him do stupid things (like the recent law making Ukrainian the sole language used in schools).

And for all the desperate window-dressing the fact remains is that the Ukraine is already a failed state which is going down the tubes with a momentum which nobody can stop, at least not with the current political deadlock in Kiev. Still, we should also remember that Eltsin was also a greedy weak booze-soaked coward, but that did not prevent him form triggering the bloodbath of the First Chechen war. Greedy weak booze-soaked cowards can be extremely dangerous.


Source: The Unz Review

Why Vladimir Putin Deserves a Nobel Peace Prize

Source

For many years, and despite all evidence to the contrary, the Western media has forwarded the inane idea that Vladimir Putin ranks in the same club with some of history’s most loathsome creatures, up to and including Hitler.

The reality is that the Russian leader has done more to promote the cause of global peace and security than any other Western leader in recent times. That explains why he is the object of such intense scorn

Putin’s rise as a statesman of the first magnitude began, oddly enough, with the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 on the United States. Since that day, Washington has taken advantage of that national tragedy to achieve specific geopolitical ends, the majority of them – coincidentally or not – diametrically opposed to Russia’s own national security. Moscow, for its part, was expected to serve as nothing more participatory than a captive audience to the US war machine as it began its destruction tour through the Middle East, most notably in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In late 2013, the tide began to turn, as the violence began to roost on Russia’s doorstep. Kiev had suddenly erupted in protests against the government of then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, whose only crime had been to suspend the implementation of an association agreement with the European Union.

This was the moment when Washington’s long-term investment in Ukraine started to pay off handsome dividends (Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs, shamelessly admitted at the time that Washington had invested more than $5 billion since 1991 to help Ukraine achieve “the future it deserves”).

With the blessing of myriad US-backed NGOs and think tanks, protesters took to the streets in the so-called Maidan uprising, barricading themselves in the capital and attacking police, eventually forcing the democratically elected president to flee the country.

As John J. Mearsheimer observed in the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs, “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov echoed that frank assessment last month when he told the UN General Assembly: “The West constructed its policy on the basis of a principle, ‘If you are not with us, you are against us,’ having chosen the path of reckless eastward NATO expansion and provoking instability in the post-Soviet space…. This policy is precisely the root cause of the protracted conflict in Southeastern Ukraine.”

Does Putin deserve a Nobel Peace Prize just because it was the West, and not Russia, to blame for the Ukrainian crisis? No, but the story does not end there. Although Western media continue to regurgitate the delusional psycho-babble of a ‘Russian invasion’ of Ukrainian territory, such wild conspiracy theories have never been documented by a single legitimate photograph or satellite image. Or are we now expected to believe Russia owns invisible tanks and artillery, too? The reality is not so complicated: it was the Americans who launched their own Ukraine invasion in the early stages of the protests that only served to fan the flames of discontent. And yes, there is proof.

Victoria Nuland, for example, was photographed on the streets of Kiev, happily handing out cookies to anti-government participants, some of them outright fascists who eventually went on to fill top positions in the new government.

As Mearsheimer argued: “The new government in Kiev was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four high-ranking members who could legitimately be labeled neo-fascists.”

And the political intrigue went far beyond stale pastries. In a leaked phone call with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland mentioned Arseniy Yatsenyuk as a candidate to lead the Ukrainian government. Was anybody surprised when Yatsenyuk became prime minister on February 27? In the course of that famous phone call, Nuland also expressed some incredibly candid sentiments toward America’s foremost ally when she remarked, “F*ck the EU”. 

Meanwhile, US Senator John McCain, Washington’s preeminent hawk, also crashed the party in Kiev at the height of tension, agitating the anti-government protesters in Independence Square by telling them “the destiny you seek lies in Europe.”

It should be remembered that no Russian politician had the sheer audacity to show up anywhere in Ukraine to tell the people where their destiny was to be found.

As the Western media continued to spin the mythical yarn of a “Russian invasion”, the Kremlin was working assiduously to clean up the mess in Ukraine caused by many decades of behind-the-scenes horseplay, much of it seeded by foreign-backed NGOs and assorted think tanks. Putin played a significant role in mediating and bringing together the leaders of Ukraine, Germany, and France to ratify the Minsk Agreements (Feb. 11, 2015) designed to end the violence in the Donbass region of Ukraine.

Despite international recognition of the demands set down by Minsk (which include the “immediate and full ceasefire in particular districts of Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts of Ukraine and… Pullout of all heavy weapons by both sides to equal distance with the aim of the creation of a security zone on minimum 50 kilometers (31 miles)…”), there have been numerous reports of gross violations.

Last month, Putin called for a UN peacekeeping mission to be sent to the war-torn eastern regions of Ukraine. The peacekeepers would be deployed on the demarcation line to protect the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] mission, which monitors the ceasefire between the government forces and rebels.

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel embraced the idea, urging member states to “openly discuss with the Russian Federation the conditions of a UN mission.” Washington and Kiev, however, flat out rejected the proposal.

In the context of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis, there is one major footnote that cannot be overlooked, and that involves the Crimea Referendum, which eventually brought the peninsula into the Russian Federation.

Although Western pundits regularly speak of a Russian “Crimean invasion” as loosely as they talk of a Ukrainian one, nothing could be further from reality. The Supreme Council of Crimea considered the ousting of President Yanukovich as a coup and the new government in Kiev as illegitimate, stating that the referendum was a response to these developments, as well as to the breakdown of civil order that was sweeping the country.

In Crimea, a largely Russian-speaking republic that was an integral part of Russia until it was gifted to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954, the official results of the referendum were impossible to dispute: 96.77 percent of Crimeans voted in favor of integration of the region into the Russian Federation.

The Russian State Duma ratified the reunification with the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on March 20, 2014. Western condemnation came fast and furious, but Putin reminded the critics the situation mirrored that of the Kosovo referendum for independence.

“In a situation entirely the same as the one in Crimea they recognized Kosovo’s secession from Serbia legitimate while arguing that ‘no permission from a country’s central authority for a unilateral declaration of independence is necessary,’” Putin said, adding that the UN International Court of Justice agreed with those arguments.

“That’s what they wrote, that’s what they trumpeted all over the world, coerced everyone into it – and now they are complaining. Why is that?” he asked.

Although few would admit it, Vladimir Putin’s peacekeeping efforts in Ukraine brought about a drastic reduction in violence at a time when many Western observers were predicting that Russia would launch a full-scale invasion of Ukrainian territory. Image their disappointment when just the opposite occurred?

Vladimir Putin’s peacekeeping efforts, however, did not stop at Russia’s borders.

Syria Intervention

Many people have probably already forgotten Russia’s immense contribution to securing peace in the Arab Republic of Syria, which has been suffering internal strife since 2011. And no, I am not talking about Putin’s decision to assist President Bashar Assad from eradicating ISIS terrorists in the country, although that is certainly a momentous event.

I am speaking about that day, almost exactly fours ago, when then-US President Barack Obama – a Nobel Peace Prize winner, mind you – was just about to give the signal to launch an all-out military assault against the sovereign state of Syria. The reason? Washington said the Assad government had used chemical weapons to attack a Damascus suburb just weeks earlier. Never mind that Assad would have known full well that to carry out such an attack would mean political and national suicide, and that the use of chemical weapons would only have assisted the cause of the anti-government rebels, who were praying for American airstrikes on Assad. But I digress.

When the British House of Commons refused to give then-PM David Cameron permission to join the Americans in their latest war game, Obama suddenly got very cold feet. In a bid to save face, then Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly ‘misspoke’ when he said the US would call off an attack on Syria if Assad agreed to surrender all of his chemical weapons within a week.

Enter Russian diplomacy at its finest hour. What followed was a marathon series of meetings in Geneva, Switzerland between Foreign Ministers John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov that eventually resulted in an agreement that not only deterred the threat of war, but removed chemical weapons from Syria.

Lavrov said the agreement removed any potential use of force against Syria, while underscoring that deviations from the plan, including attacks on UN inspectors, would be brought to the UN Security Council, which would decide on further action.

At the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, then Secretary General, gave a glowing account of the US-Russia-Syria agreement, which also made Syria a signatory to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

This premier example of diplomacy on the part of Vladimir Putin and his administration shows that war can always be diverted so long as their exists the will between men and nations. Sadly, the United States has gone on to demonstrate an insatiable determination to interfere – illegally – in the internal affairs of Syria, going so far as to even launch brazen attacks on the Syrian military (perhaps most disturbingly, the US media actually praised Donald Trump following such attacks). Although Russia has also become involved militarily in Syria, it has only done so at the expressed invitation of Damascus to help President Assad rid his country of terrorist forces that the US-led Western forces failed to destroy.

In summary, given Vladimir Putin’s extraordinary efforts to bring about the conditions of peace both in Ukraine and in Syria, it would seem that he is the most fitting candidate to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, the Western capitals would never see things that way, which only highlights the great schism that now separates Russia from the West, which has lost its ability to judge right from wrong, truth from deception.

The Nobel Peace Prize is presented by the King of Norway on December 10 each year

War criminal Mikhail Saakashvili officially back in Ukraine

War criminal Mikhail Saakashvili officially back in Ukraine

SEE ALSO

On the run fugitive Saakashvili in Charge of Ukraine’s Odessa

Ukraine: Crackpot McCain and fugitive Saakashvili to advise Poroshenko

Saakashvili wanted over fraud case in Georgia becomes Ukraine Foreign Affairs Advisor

US puppet, Georgia’s Saakashvili, invaded South Ossetia to appease NATO

 

Source: The Duran

Mikhail Saakashvili has spent the better part of the day attempting to go back to Ukraine after Petro Poroshenko the leader of the Kiev regime stripped him of his Ukrainian citizenship in a power-play against the former Georgian leader who has incidentally also been stripped of his Georgian citizenship after numerous fraud allegations.

Saakashvili is probably best remembered for instigating a war of aggression against the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008. Both Russia and the European Union found that Saakashvili was an aggressor in the short conflict.

After fleeing prosecutors in Georgia, the weakened strongman was appointed the Governor of the multi-cultural and traditionally Russian city of Odessa in 2015. This however did not last long as he left office in 2016, before being stripped of Ukrainian citizenship in the summer of 2017.

At the time, I described the power-play between Saakashvili and Poroshenko in the following way,

“If the Ukrainian regime was not engaged in a war of aggression that has included the use of chemical weapons against civilians , there would in fact be much to laugh at in respect of the situation in the country. Instead, the regime is a human tragedy but one that is solidly built atop a shaky farce. One of the more farsical elements of the Ukrainian regime has been the fact that its leader Petro Poroshenko recently stripped former Georgian President turned former Odessa Governor of his recently acquired Ukrainian citizenship.

In may of 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko appointed disgraced former Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili Governor of Odessa Obslat. The appointment was immediately viewed as an insult to the people of the multi-cultural though overall historically and spiritually Russian city and region of Odessa, not least because this was the place where on 2 May 2014, young people were massacred by an armed mod while peacefully demonstrating against fascism.

It was doubly an insult because Saakashvili was a foreigner with no connection to the region. Finally, the fact that Saakashvili is wanted in Georgia on charges of high corruption including embezzlement, actions he was alleged to have committed after he started a war of aggression against the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, ought to make Saakashvili disqualified for any political position, anywhere.

When it comes to war criminality and domestic corruption, Poroshenko and Saakashvilli would both be competing for the gold if such things were Olympic events. That hasn’t stopped both men from accusing one another of being corrupt, a rare instance of both being correct, albeit it for the wrong reasons.

But one should not rely on habitual liars like Saakashvili and Poroshenko as reliable sources for the true nature of events. For this one is best understood by the fact that Poroshenko recently visited Georgia while Saakashvili would likely be arrested the minute he set foot in Georgia again.

On the 17th of July Poroshenko visited Georgia for talks with the country’s current political leaders. Georgia is currently governed by the Georgian Dream party, a kind of catch-all political movement that has somewhat toned down the Russophobic fanaticism of the Saakashvili years while still marching the country in a direction that sees it striving to join both NATO and the EU, in spite of being located closer to Iran than to the EU.

Poroshanko was clearly looking for an ally in Tbilisi, but as Georgia under its current leadership can barely save itself, he largely came back with nothing tangible. That being said, as Saakashvilli already resigned from his position in Odessa in November of 2016, stripping a wanted man in Georgia of Ukrainian citizenship, thus technically leaving him stateless, can be seen as a concession to the current Georgian authorities. Prior to this Georgia viewed Poroshenko as the Ecuador to the would-be Assange that was Saakashvilli, only whereas Assange filled the world with much needed truth, Saakashvilli filled his pockets with much sought after state cash.

Furthermore, shortly after leaving his post in Odessa, Saakashvilli registered a new party in Ukraine. While it is difficult to see how such a party could be a real political threat to Poroshenko’s power base which is already under threat from Ukrainian parties with an even more far-right ideology than Poroshenko’s, it seemed that Poroshenko did not want to take any chances. Thus, Poroshenko stripped Saakashvilli of his Ukrainian citizenship shortly after returning from Saakashvilli’s native country.

In short, Saakashvilli is a corrupt opportunist who ran to the power base of a second corrupt opportunist, Poroshenko. Then that second corrupt opportunist fired and deprived citizenship of the first corrupt opportunist under the guise that the first corrupt opportunist was a corrupt opportunist, who then took to calling the second corrupt opportunist a corrupt opportunist.

This literally is the farce that is post-coup Ukrainian politics”.

Initially, Saakashvili planned to enter Ukraine via train from Poland, but his train was stopped by the authorities, thought it is not clear if it was stopped by the Polish or Ukrainian authorities.

While forced to exit his train, Saakashvili was comically hounded by a protester in the midst of a striptease.

 

Now, Saakashvili has reportedly pushed through the Ukrainian border with his entourage in an open mockery of the waning power of the corrupt Kiev regime.

Reports indicate that while Polish authorities were happy to let him leave, Ukrainian regime authorities attempted to block his entry unsuccessfully.

The lawless nature of modern Ukraine, combined with Saakashvili’s famous persistence now means that a man who was once barely on the radar in Ukrainian ‘politics’ may now be able to attempted to rally support against the unpopular far-right leader Poroshenko. Already, the far-right former Prime Minister in Kiev, Yulia Tymoshenko has thrown her weight behind Saakashvili, ostensibly because Poroshenko has not offered her any position in the ruling elite of post-2014 Kiev.

While Saakashvili’s politics are not entirely different from that of Poroshenko, in a regime where power is built more on blackmail, bribes and undulating personal loyalties than on ideas or experience, Saakashvili may now be a threat, assuming he can find someone in the regime to reinstate his citizenship, something which is now entirely possible

Accelerated variables متغيّرات متسارعة

Accelerated variables

أغسطس 18, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

In a few days and despite the noise of the battles and the powerful statements there are accelerated indicators for the presence of comprehensive framework to calm the wars and to solve the crises, these indicators transcend their existential and regional borders. In the Korean crisis and after two days of exchanging powerful American and north-Korean statements that talk about overwhelming blows, the US Defense Secretary announced the intention of Washington to negotiate through third parties. It is known that it is an outcome of authorizing Russia and China for managing the negotiating of the crisis. The southern Korea announced its desire to negotiate directly with the northern Korea.

Regarding the Gulf crisis, the backgrounds which talk about decisive steps of the countries that boycott Qatar led by Saudi Arabia have declined and were replaced by the talk about negotiating review of the crisis; the talk about a dialogue has become the vocabulary that was repeated in the international and regional statements that concerned with the issue of the crisis, after the opportunities of the fatal blows which Saudi Arabia have betted on for more than two months have been exhausted. While in the war on Yemen the talks of the UN envoy are revolving around identifying a third agreed party that will take over the responsibility of Al Hodeida port and Sanaa airport as a preliminary step to raise the marine and the air blockade which was imposed by Saudi Arabia and which was its means to subdue the Yemenis. Now there is a talk about suggested international force, or Omani force, or joint Omani-Kuwaiti force for this purpose.

In Syria, the Syrian army is dashing with a military force eastward in Badia towards Deir Al Zour, but it is driven militarily by political accompaniment  in the south on the rhythm of the Russian-American understanding after the armed groups  have refused the voluntary handing over of their areas to the Syrian especially the borders with Jordan, so the Syrian army resolved the crossings in the province of Sweida away from the US aircraft which ambushed of its units as has happened on the Syrian-Iraqi borders. The militants have withdrawn after they got severe blows. At the political level, it seems that the formation of the opposition delegation for the next Geneva until the end of the year is the title of the dialogues which are taking place under the title of unified delegation of the opposition in parallel with the disintegration and alienating leaderships that have no place in the new equation. This new equation is based on forming Syrian government that includes a representation of the opposition under the Syrian presidency and the Syrian constitution, and the recognition of the fall of the project of overthrowing and the priority of the war on terrorism.

Regarding the Ukrainian crisis and despite all the differences about how to solve it and what has resulted on the diplomatic crisis between Russia and America after imposing US sanctions on Russia and the decision of Moscow to alienate the US diplomats, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced after Manila meetings with his US counterpart Rex Tillerson the ensuring of the understandings of the Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Therefore the American and Russian officials will soon meet to discuss revitalizing the solution efforts in Ukraine.

These accelerated developments and variables grant high credibility to what was leaked about an understanding between the Russian and the American Presidents on the sideline of Hamburg Summit about the seeking to make the international arena free of the tension elements by the end of the year, and the attempt to make the most prominent image of the international policy is the cooperation in the war on terrorism. This means extinguishing the spark that ignites fire or preventing its ignition. As a result we will gradually witness the loss of the incentives and resources of wars which they cannot last without them. This ensures that they are wars that have been broken out and continued by an external decision whatever were the local and the internal reasons, since no war lasts without the international incubator as what is presented by Washington or what it suggested to its allies that it is presenting, so when it decides then those who were contending stubbornly yesterday will obey today.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

متغيّرات متسارعة

أغسطس 11, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– خلال أيّام قليلة ورغم ضجيج المعارك والتصريحات النارية تظهر مؤشرات متسارعة على وجود إطار شامل لتهدئة الحروب وحلحلة الأزمات يتخطّى حدودها الكيانية والإقليمية. ففي الأزمة الكورية وبعد يومين من تبادل تصريحات نارية أميركية وكورية شمالية تتحدّث عن ضربات ساحقة، يعلن وزير الدفاع الأميركي عزم واشنطن على التفاوض بواسطة أطراف ثالثة، ومعلوم أنه نتاج تفويض لروسيا والصين للإدارة التفاوضية للأزمة، وتعلن كوريا الجنوبية رغبتها بالتفاوض المباشر مع كوريا الشمالية.

– في الأزمة الخليجية تراجعت المناخات التي تتحدّث عن خطوات حاسمة لدول المقاطعة لقطر بقيادة السعودية، وحلّ مكانها الحديث عن مراجعة تفاوضية للأزمة، وصار الحديث عن الحوار مفردة تتكرّر في التصريحات الدولية والإقليمية المعنية بملفّ الأزمة، بعدما استنفدت فرص الضربات القاضية التي راهنت عليها السعودية منذ أكثر من شهرين، بينما في الحرب على اليمن تدور محادثات المبعوث الأممي على تحديد هوية طرف ثالث مقبول من الفريقين يتولى مرفأ الحديدة ومطار صنعاء كخطوة تمهيدية لفك الحصار البحري والجوي الذي فرضته السعودية على اليمن والذي كان سلاحها الأمضى رهاناً على تركيع اليمنيين، ويجري التداول بقوة دولية أو بقوة عُمانية أو قوة عُمانية كويتية مشتركة لهذا الغرض.

– في سورية يندفع الجيش السوري بقوة عسكرية شرقاً في البادية ونحو دير الزور، لكنه يندفع عسكرياً بمواكبة سياسية في الجنوب على إيقاع التفاهم الروسي الأميركي، بعدما فقدت الجماعات المسلحة التي رفضت التسليم الطوعي للجيش السوري لمناطق سيطرتها، خصوصاً على الحدود مع الأردن، فيحسم الجيش السوري المعابر في محافظة السويداء من دون أن تكون الطائرات الأميركية تتربّص بوحداته، كما جرى على الحدود السورية العراقية، وينهزم المسلحون بعدما تلقوا ضربات قاسية.

 وعلى المستوى السياسي تبدو عملية تركيب وفد للمعارضة بمقاسٍ مناسب لمهمة جنيف المقبلة حتى نهاية العام، عنواناً للحوارات التي تدور تحت عنوان وفد موحّد للمعارضة، بالتوازي مع عملية فك وتركيب وإبعاد وتقاعد وتمارض لقيادات لا مكان لها في المعادلة الجديدة، التي تقوم على تشكيل حكومة سورية تضمّ تمثيلاً للمعارضة في ظلّ الرئاسة السورية والدستور السوري، والتسليم بسقوط مشروع الإسقاط وبأولوية الحرب على الإرهاب.

– في الأزمة الأوكرانية، ورغم كلّ مظاهر الخلاف حول حلها وكيفياته وما ترتب على الأزمة الدبلوماسية الأميركية الروسية مع العقوبات الأميركية على روسيا، وقرار موسكو إبعاد الدبلوماسيين الأميركيين، يعلن وزير الخارجية الروسي سيرغي لافروف أنه بنتيجة لقاءات مانيلا مع نظيره الأميركي ريكس تيلرسون وتأكيد تفاهمات الرئيسين دونالد ترامب وفلاديمير بوتين، فإنّ مسؤولين أميركيين وروساً سيلتقون قريباً للتداول في تنشيط مساعي الحلّ في أوكرانيا.

– هذه التطورات والمتغيّرات المتسارعة تمنح قدراً عالياً من المصداقية لما تسرّب عن تفاهم بين الرئيسين الروسي والأميركي على هامش قمة هامبورغ، على السعي لتنقية المشهد على الساحة الدولية من عناصر التوتر مع نهاية العام، وجعل الصورة الأبرز للسياسة الدولية هي التعاون في الحرب على الإرهاب. وهذا يعني إطفاء النيران التي تشعل الحرائق، أو منع ضخّ الوقود عنها لتنطفئ نارها، وبذلك نشهد تدريجاً فقدان محفزات وموارد الحروب التي لا تستطيع الاستمرار بدونها، ما يؤكد أنها حروب أشعلت واستمرت بقرار خارجي، مهما بدت أسبابها المحلية والداخلية وجيهة، وأن لا حرب تملك أسباب الاستمرار بلا حاضنة دولية بحجم ما تقدّمه واشنطن، أو توحي لحلفائها بتقديمه، أو تغضّ النظر عنهم عند تقديمه، وعندما تقرّر فإنّ من كانوا يكابرون بالأمس ينصاعون اليوم.

Related Articles

Related Articles

مقالات مشابهة

%d bloggers like this: