Russia’s top diplomat, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, talks with RT’s editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan in an exclusive interview about the challenges Russia faces amid the Ukraine conflict

July 20, 2022

Highlights as seen by Pepe Escobar:

🇷🇺The highlights of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Sputnik and RT:

🔹The EU is forced to make amendments to sanctions against Russia as they have exceeded their potential;

🔹Russia is not happy about energy issues that Europe is currently facing, but “will not worry about it too much”;

🔹Western countries are trying to drag UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres into their “games” around Ukrainian grain;

🔹Moscow has sent a signal to Guterres about the need to include a clause on Russian grain in the Istanbul agreements;

🔹It can hardly be in Europe’s interests to fully cut off ties with Russia and switch to liquefied natural gas supplies from the US;

🔹If the EU suddenly changes its position and proposes Russia to restore relations, Moscow needs to decide if this is beneficial to the country;

🔹The geographical area of the special operation has changed and expanded beyond Donbas due to Kiev receiving the US-made HIMARS and other weapons.

Full Transcript now available

Question: You just returned from a trip and are about to leave again soon. This “international isolation” is so tight that you are almost never home.

Here’s a question from our subscribers. At different levels, from the deputies to public officials, our talks with Ukraine are on and off. We say it’s impossible to hold talks now, but the next thing you know someone is saying it would be good to start them. Does it make sense or is it just a diplomatic ritual?

Sergey Lavrov: It doesn’t make any sense given the circumstances. Yesterday, the President touched on this while speaking at the news conference following talks with the leaders of Iran and Türkiye in Tehran.

Vladimir Putin once again made it clear that the Ukrainian leadership asked for talks early on during the special military operation. We didn’t say no. We approached this process honestly, but the first rounds of talks held in Belarus showed that the Ukrainian side didn’t really want to seriously discuss anything. Then, we passed our assessment of the situation over to them noting that if Kiev was serious about the talks, they should give us something “on paper” so we could understand what kind of agreements they had in mind. The Ukrainian side gave us a document that we found agreeable (yesterday the President again cited this fact) and were ready to conclude a treaty based on the principles outlined in it. Building on their logic, we drafted a corresponding document, which we made available to the Ukrainian side on April 15. Since then, we’ve heard nothing from them, but we hear other people such as Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Olaf Scholz, Boris Johnson (though, not now for obvious reasons), President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Chief Diplomat Josep Borrell say that Ukraine must “win on the battlefield” and should not engage in talks, because it has a weak position on the front. First, they need to improve the situation and start dominating the Russian armed forces and the Donetsk and Lugansk militias, and only then start talks “from a position of strength.” I don’t think this approach holds water.

Question: It doesn’t hold water because Ukraine will fail to do so?

Sergey Lavrov: It won’t work. They will never be able to formulate “things” that really deserve people’s time. We understood this. It is no secret that Kiev is being held back from taking any constructive steps, and they are not just flooding it with weapons, but making it use those weapons in an increasingly risky manner. Foreign instructors and specialists are there servicing these systems (HIMARS and others).

With strong support from the Germans, Poles, and Balts, our US and British (Anglo-Saxon) “colleagues” want to make this an actual war and pit Russia against the European countries. Washington and London are sitting far away, across oceans and straits, but will benefit from this. The European economy is impacted more than anything else. The stats show that 40 percent of the damage caused by sanctions is borne by the EU whereas the damage to the United States is less than 1 percent, if you look at the cumulative negative impact of the restrictions.

I do not doubt that the Ukrainians will not be allowed to hold talks until the Americans decide they have created enough destruction and chaos. Then, they will leave Ukraine alone and watch it get out of this mess.

Question: Do you think this plan is actionable? A big war, a clash between Russia and the European countries? In fact, it’s about a nuclear war.

Sergey Lavrov: The Americans are not thinking about this. Ambitious people who want to reach new heights in their careers have come to the White House. I’m not sure how they will try to fulfill these goals as part of this administration. They are acting irresponsibly and building plans and schemes that are fraught with major risk. We are talking about this publicly. We could have told them, but the Americans don’t want to talk to us, and we will not chase them.

The dialogue we had before was not meaningless if only because we could look into each other’s eyes and lay out our approaches. As soon as the special military operation started, the United States tore this dialogue down. I think that Washington hasn’t yet understood that it is playing a dangerous game, but many people in Europe are beginning to realise this.

Question: Is a Russia-US clash, a nuclear war possible in our view?

Sergey Lavrov: We have initiated several statements (Russian-American statement and statement by the leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council) to the effect that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and that it cannot ever be unleashed. This is our position and we will firmly stick to it.

Moreover, we have an endorsed doctrine that clearly explains in what cases Russia will be compelled to use nuclear arms. Our partners, colleagues, rivals or enemies (I don’t know how they refer themselves with regard to us) know this very well.

Question:  We consider Vladimir Zelensky the legitimate representative of Ukraine. Why is that? We say with good reason that everything happening in that country is a result of the coup, a forced change of power. This did not happen under Zelensky, but he became president because of these events. Why did we acknowledge this initially?

Sergey Lavrov: Guided by his own ethical considerations, President of France Emmanuel Macron recently let everyone listen to a recording of his February telephone conversation with President of Russia Vladimir Putin in which the  Russian leader expressed himself clearly. President Macron tried to persuade him not to bother too much with implementing the Minsk Agreements. He said that Donetsk and Lugansk were illegal entities and that it was necessary to work in the context of the suggested interpretations – allegedly Zelensky wanted this. Vladimir Putin replied that Vladimir Zelensky was the product of a state coup and that the established regime hadn’t gone anywhere.

Do you remember how events developed after the coup? The putschists spat in the face of Germany, France and Poland that were the guarantors of the agreement with Viktor Yanukovych. It was trampled underfoot the next morning. These European countries didn’t make a peep – they reconciled themselves to this. A couple of years ago I asked the Germans and French what they thought about the coup. What was it all about if they didn’t demand that the putschists fulfil the agreements? They replied: “This is the cost of the democratic process.” I am not kidding. Amazing – these were adults holding the post of foreign ministers.

Crimeans and the east of Ukraine refused to recognize the results of the coup. In Crimea, this led to the holding of a referendum on reuniting with Russia and in Donbass to a refusal to deal with the new, illegitimate central authorities that started a war. Then Pyotr Poroshenko began a presidential campaign. The election took place in late May, 2014. President of France François Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders tried to persuade the President of Russia to say nothing in advance about his refusal to recognise the results of the Ukrainian elections. Vladimir Putin replied: since Poroshenko is holding the election with the slogans of peace, promises to restore the rights of all Ukrainians, including the residents of Donbass, we will not question the legitimacy of this process.

It turned out that Poroshenko quickly forgot his election promises. He cheated his voters, lied to them and his Western sponsors, and unleashed another round of war that was stopped with great difficulty in February 2015. Later the Minsk Agreements were signed. He recently admitted that he had no intention of fulfilling the agreements and signed them only because Ukraine had to build up its strength economically and militarily to “win back its land,” including Crimea. This is why he concluded these agreements.

Question: We did not realise this, did we?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, I still hoped that some conscience was left there. Poroshenko revealed his true attitude towards the Minsk Agreements: he would not fulfil a document endorsed by the UN Security Council. Thus, he confirmed once again, this time in public, that he was not a legitimate president, one that relies on the foundations of international law.

Vladimir Zelensky came to power with slogans of peace as well. He promised to return peace to Ukraine. He said all citizens of the country who wanted to speak Russian would be able to and nobody would harass them or discriminate against them. Listen to what he is saying now.

In the role of Servant of the People Zelensky played a democrat, a glad-hander, a teacher, one of the people, who defeated the oligarchs and paid off the IMF. The people became free. He dissolved the corrupt parliament and the government. There are video recordings that cannot be hidden. They show how Zelensky upheld the rights of the Russian language and Russian culture…

Question: He is an actor, Mr Lavrov!

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, an actor under the Stanislavsky system – quickly turns coat. He was recently asked about his attitude towards the people of Donbass. Mr Zelensky replied that there are people and there are species. He also said that if people feel Russian, let them go to Russia “for the sake of the future of their children and grandchildren.” This is exactly what Dmitry Yarosh said the first day after the coup in February 2014: “A Russian will never think like a Ukrainian, will not speak Ukrainian and will not glorify Ukrainian heroes. Russians need to leave Crimea.”

The elite that came to power after the coup have already established their national genetic code. Arseny Yatsenyuk “in between” Dmitry Yarosh, Petr Poroshenko and Vladimir Zelensky called the residents of Donbass “subhuman.”

Question: Do you remember Petr Poroshenko saying that Ukrainian children would go to school, while Russian children would sit in basements? He said this to the people he considered to be their own.

Sergey Lavrov: Now they say that they will liberate their lands…

Question: Without any people?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t know how Kiev is planning to treat these people. They would start an uprising.

Question: What people? They will try to wipe them out in HIMARS strikes. You mentioned conscience, but you can’t judge others by your own standards. If you have a conscience, this doesn’t mean that your “partners” have it as well.

Before you entered the room, we talked with Maria Zakharova about those whom you have described as seemingly serious people. Of course, we poked fun at them, which was bound to happen. Take the recent comment by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who has replaced our beloved Jen Psaki. When asked what President Joe Biden was doing the previous two days, she replied that he was thinking about the American people.

I mean that Western leaders are crumbling. Many of them have symptoms of “limited adequacy” and sometimes even “limited sanity.” They are going to be replaced. Are there grounds to believe that those who will replace them will display fewer symptoms of “limited adequacy”?

Sergey Lavrov: I would put it differently. The current political establishment that has been raised in the West can be said to have “adequate limitations.” They consider themselves to be adequate, but they have limited competence in terms of political experience and knowledge.

Question: Why is that?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t know, but many people have taken note of this. Henry Kissinger mentioned this recently when speaking about Gerhardt Schroeder and Jacques Chirac. He didn’t put it bluntly, but he clearly hinted at the stark contrast.

There is a tendency towards the average in political processes. You should elect people who are easy to understand and who will focus on simple, banal subjects. They invented the green transition, shouting that everyone will have no air to breathe soon and will die, and that dolphins and fish will disappear, leaving human beings alone in a desert. They have to deal with the effects of the green transition now. President Vladimir Putin explained the details of this mechanism in Western politics and how it has led to a painful flop because of the lack of proper calculations.

I don’t know the reason for their inadequacy. Maybe the absence of strong leaders is convenient for someone?

Question: For whom exactly?

Sergey Lavrov: For the bureaucrats in the European Commission. There are 60,000 of them, which is a lot. They have become a thing-in-itself. It is no coincidence that Poland, Hungary and other countries have asked why they should listen to these people, in particular in the areas where they have no competence. This is really so.

Question: In other words, it is a kind of a “deep state” in Europe, isn’t it?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, it seems so. But it is not quite a “deep state” but the elite, the European Commission.

Question: Is it a “shallow state” then?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, and the pendulum is moving away from the side that was associated with rapid integration. The requirements that are being enforced by Brussels, which are not always based on formal arrangements, are becoming annoying and are preventing countries from living in accordance with their own traditions and religious beliefs. Today they are pestering Budapest with their propaganda of non-traditional values, but Hungarians don’t want this, just as we don’t want this and many other nations. The European Commission demands that Budapest must revise its position, or it will not receive the approved funding.  I believe that this is bad for the EU.

Question: But good for us?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t think so. I believe that we should stay aloof. We cannot be happy that people in Europe will suffer from the cold and lower living standards.

Question: I agree about suffering from the cold. But maybe the Europeans will finally have enough of being forced? Maybe pro-nation politicians will come to power, those who will care about their own people and therefore will not quarrel with Russia? No country can benefit from quarrelling with Russia.

Sergey Lavrov: This is true. It is a proper process of recovery. People are abandoning the illusion that Brussels should decide everything for them, that everything will be the same every day with cheap energy and food, that everything will be fine. This would be in the interests of Europe and European nations, but I don’t know how it will happen.

We will not be happy, but we won’t feel overly concerned either. I believe we should stay aloof. They have created these problems for themselves; they have opted for living in these conditions and for abandoning the natural and beneficial ties, which have been created over decades in energy, logistics and transport links. This is their choice. Love cannot be forced. This process, when they complete it, if at all, because it is incompatible with unilateral profiteering, will cost the subsequent economic development in Europe dearly. They should not ask us to revive agreements. They have been proved unreliable. We cannot rely on such “partners” when planning long-term strategic investment in the development of our country and its foreign ties. We will work with other partners who are predictable. They have always been there for us in the East, in the South and on other continents. Now that the share of the West in our foreign economic ties has been reduced dramatically, the share of our other partners will increase commensurately.

As for trends in Europe, there is also total lack of responsibility when it comes to explaining the reasons for the current crisis to their own people. Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz says he has no doubt that there are political rather than technical reasons for Russia’s intention to limit gas deliveries via Nord Stream. He has no doubt! As if the facts, which we have made public on numerous occasions and which President Putin has mentioned, do not prove that Europe has been systematically and consistently reducing the capabilities of Nord Stream 1 and has  suspended Nord Stream 2, and how it retrospectively adopted restrictions on the operation of Nord Stream after all the investments had been made and the financing rules could not be changed. Nevertheless, the European Commission insisted on its decision, and it was adopted. Instead of using the pipeline to its full capacity, we have halved the transit of gas through it.

We are being accused of using hunger as a weapon. Ursula von der Leyen has said this.

Question: Cold and hunger. Do you remember General Frost? Now we have General Grain and General Heating.

Sergey Lavrov: US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen has made a pompous statement that the United States would not allow Russia, China or anyone else to break the international economic order, which has allegedly been approved by the international community. She said that economic integration has been weaponised by Russia. This is going much further than the other rubbish we have been hearing and looks like an agony. They don’t know how else to explain their own failure.

Question: You mentioned the green transition and how they are trying to force the LGBT agenda on some East European countries for which, like for us, it is completely alien. For you, an experienced person who has observed many processes for decades, it must be clearer than for us, the ordinary people. This agenda includes green transition, LGBT, MeToo, BLM, cancelling ballet at Britain’s biggest dance school, the ban on math exams in some schools because the minorities would not be able to learn it, the ban on using the words “breast milk” and “mother”. People are contemplating but cannot understand what the idea is and who benefits from it. Who do you think is behind it?

Sergey Lavrov: We cannot step in their shoes and see why they are doing what they are doing. It is incomprehensible. If a person has some inclinations, why shouldn’t they be left with that? Let them have these inclinations. Why is it necessary to make a movement banner out of it?

Question: Why did the new White House Press Secretary openly declare that she is gay and black?

Sergey Lavrov: I am also interested to see how and where the Western political thought has been evolving. Some progressive philosophers, from the point of view of imperialism and colonialism, believe that the gold billion, or those who lead it and make political decisions, want to reduce the population of the planet because the resources are limited. Too many people, too few resources. As Mikhail Zhvanetsky joked, there should be fewer of us. He said it in Soviet times, when there was not enough food and goods. And now I read this explanation in some Western publications. It is horrifying.

Question: Which is not very logical, because the golden billion is reducing its own ranks this way, while the population in Africa is increasing. In Nigeria, which now wants to be friends with us, there are seven children per woman.

Sergey Lavrov: No, all these ways are constantly promoted there.

Question: It will take some time for them to get there… Look at the Hollywood elite: every second child is transgender or something, or non-binary, and they will have no grandchildren. Yes, it seems that they have started with themselves.

Sergey Lavrov: Maybe it is part of the plan, to reproduce less. I said that I cannot explain this, and shared with you one of the conspiracy theories.

Question: Both before the special military operation and today, people have believed that the West cannot manage without Russia. This is true in many respects, as the fact that they have lifted some of the sanctions clearly shows. What is less clear is whether the new package of sanctions passed this week contains new restrictions or lifts the sanctions adopted earlier. But what if they can manage without Russia after all? What prospects do you see? Can the West do completely without Russian energy carriers in the future, if not during the upcoming winter but in 2023 or 2024? Will it refuse to launch Nord Stream 2 and stop using the resources of Nord Stream 1? Is it possible? What do you think about this?

Sergey Lavrov: The new package of restrictions includes both the sanctions and various exceptions from them because the West has already run out of spheres where it can inflict damage on Russia. Now they have to think about what they have done and how it affects them. As far as I know, the West has now introduced some clarifications, and this will help facilitate Russian food exports. For many months, they told us that Russia was to blame for the food crisis because the sanctions don’t cover food and fertiliser. Therefore, Russia doesn’t need to find ways to avoid the sanctions and so it should trade because nobody stands in its way. It took us a lot of time to explain to them that, although food and fertiliser are not subject to sanctions, the first and second packages of Western restrictions affected freight costs, insurance premiums, permissions for Russian ships carrying these goods to dock at foreign ports and those for foreign ships taking on the same consignments at Russian harbours. They are openly lying to us that this is not true, and that it is up to Russia alone. This is foul play.

Unfortunately, the West has been trying to involve UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in these games. He became concerned about the food crisis and visited Russia, and he advocated a package deal at a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. It is necessary to lift the artificial and illegitimate restrictions on Russian grain, and action should be taken to clear mines at Ukrainian ports where Ukrainian grain is stored. Antonio Guterres said that he would persuade Europe and the United States to remove all obstacles hampering Russian grain deliveries, and that Russia would cooperate with them, Türkiye and Ukraine in clearing mines at Black Sea ports, to facilitate grain shipments.  We replied that, in principle, it was possible to demine Black Sea ports without Russia, but that we would be ready to cooperate if they asked us. The UN Secretary-General actively promoted this package.

Last week, our colleagues visited Istanbul in order to coordinate this mechanism. We agreed on the basic principles for exporting Ukrainian grain. However, when members of the Russian delegation reminded those present about the second part of the package deal, the Ukrainian side flatly refused, and the UN delegation simply blushed and kept quiet.

Yesterday, we indicated to the UN Secretary-General that this was his initiative to begin with. In reply, Antonio Guterres proposed first resolving the issue of Ukrainian grain shipments, and said that Russian grain deliveries were next in line. This is foul play. People engaged in big politics should not behave in such a way. This means only one thing: I am convinced that the UN Secretary-General has come under tremendous pressure, first of all, from representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom who have settled in around him in the UN Secretariat in the posts of undersecretary-generals and who are actively using this “privatised” structure in their own interests. This is highly regrettable.

Question: How are they putting pressure on him, exactly? Technically, how do we explain this to people? Do as you’re told, or… what? Go to jail?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t think they are using any personal methods of blackmail. Just, when the UN General Assembly is voting, they come up to the ambassadors, inform them that an anti-Russia resolution has been put to the vote while reminding them, for example, about their account in Chase Manhattan Bank or their daughter at Stanford. Things like that.

Question: But it’s kind of the same thing.

Sergey Lavrov: It happens. Well, of course, they don’t act with such arrogance here. Members of the UN Secretariat (the majority of them are from Western countries because the number of delegated secretariat seats depends on each state’s contribution) aren’t always neutral, as required by the UN Charter and the Regulations on the Secretariat. That’s life. I can assure you, it has always been like this.

Regarding the second part of your question, I think that Western politicians are now making every effort to avoid showing they have been mistaken. The ruling parties will try to do this by hook or by crook – they have no other way. But the opposition – in Austria, voices are increasingly heard (there’s the Austrian Freedom Party, which Brussels does not favour very much, but it’s a legitimate party). In other countries, the opposition is rising their heads: why are we doing this? Why can’t we just look at things and reach agreement? Many people have questions.

Developing countries don’t view the situation as Russia having crossed some “red line.” They remember what the Americans did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yugoslavia in 1999. With no notice, no warning that American interests were being infringed on, no calls to do something about it…

Question: No eight years of trying to reach agreement…

Sergey Lavrov: The United States bombed countries located 10,000 kilometres away from its coastline and razed cities to the ground. Europe never even dared to make a sound.

Question: No need to protect large communities of American compatriots living there…

Sergey Lavrov: That’s right. Our situation is totally different. There is a real threat, not something invented in order to spread our imperialist tentacles across the ocean – there’s a threat on our borders. For many years, we have been cautioning the West against turning Ukraine into an anti-Russia, with NATO infiltrating that country, against creating direct military threats to our security. Everyone is perfectly aware of this.

Returning to Europe, I don’t think that it is in European interests to completely cut off all ties with us and switch to LNG, which the Americans are trying to…

Question: …foist on them.

Sergey Lavrov: I wanted to use a less polite term, but foist will do. It will be their choice. Serious scientists write that Germany’s entire economic activity, its prosperity of the past decades was due primarily to Russian energy resources they bought at affordable, reasonable and predictable prices. True, LNG is a more flexible commodity. Gas has to be bought at the “end” of the pipeline, while LNG can be redirected. But this is also a disadvantage. When demand rose in Asia, the Americans sent their LNG there, because it was a better deal. This can lead not only to higher prices, but also to a shortage of supplies at a certain stage. But if they do this, we won’t have any particular problems.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that, given what they are doing with Nord Stream 2 (we’re ready to launch it, it is under operating pressure), in the current situation, 50 percent of the volume intended for that pipeline are already reserved for internal consumption: for heating purposes, for the chemical industry and for other industrial projects.

We will redirect supplies without any serious losses. I do not doubt it. We have buyers, we have demand; after all, there are applications within the country too – connecting households and facilities and developing the chemical industry.

Question: And thousands of villages without gas…

Sergey Lavrov: That’s why I mentioned connecting them.

So it will be their choice. I would like to say again: we should not (and, thank God, no one is trying to) invent any solutions implying the possibility, the probability, or even desirability of returning to the situation we had six months ago, where it was possible to restore the old supply chains. I think that they need to be discarded and new ones should be built that will be more reliable. This is what we are doing now, including the North-South corridor from St Petersburg to the Indian Ocean, and from India to Vladivostok. Several projects are already halfway through implementation. If and when, at some stage, Europe suddenly says that they have overreacted and are interested in restoring our economic relations and trade, we shouldn’t push them away. We will see how good the offer is, and only then react.

Question: We say if they duped you once, they’ll do it again. You mentioned the diversification of our areas of cooperation. We have covered the East (China, India) extensively. This time, you are going to Africa, which is south. What are you going to do there? What are your expectations? What should we expect?

Sergey Lavrov: We have long-standing good relations with Africa since the days of the Soviet Union which pioneered and led a movement that culminated in decolonisation. We provided assistance to the national liberation movement and then to the restoration of independent states and the rise of their economies. Hundreds of enterprises were built, which now form the basis of many African economies. At the UN, we led the movement to have decolonisation formalised as an integral part of international law and everyday life.

Then, there was the period when the Soviet Union disappeared and the Russian Federation emerged. We were confronted with major problems, not in Africa, but much closer, in our country.

We have been rebuilding our positions for many years now. The Africans are reciprocating. They are interested in having us. We never engaged in teaching them anything, but helped them overcome their problems so that they could live in their country the way they wanted to.

Question: They think we did teach them something, but in a good sense.

Sergei Lavrov: No. We helped them fulfil their goals. That’s how it was. We never told them not to be friends with America or anyone else. To this day, we are not lecturing them, unlike the Americans who go around Africa telling everyone “do not talk with the Chinese or the Russians. All they care about is their selfish interests, even when they trade with you.”

We visit each other every year. Once a year or every two years, the Foreign Minister visits African countries. We’re trying to cover as many countries as possible in a period of two to three years. This year, it will be Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda and the Republic of the Congo. We have good traditions and economic foundations in these countries.

Egypt is our number one trade and economic partner in Africa with trade just under $5 billion. The first nuclear power plant is being built. The construction of a Russian industrial area on the banks of the Suez Canal is nearing completion. Our relations with Africa have even brighter prospects now that the African Union decided last year to establish the African Continental Free Trade Area. Specific criteria and tariffs for this area are being agreed upon, which will take some time. This will benefit Russia as Africa’s rising partner in terms of boosting our trade and investment which are quite modest compared to the United States, China and the EU. We must work hard, with our colleagues, to prepare for the second Russia-Africa summit. The first one took place in Sochi in 2019. The second one is planned to be held next year.

Question: Maybe in Odessa?

Sergey Lavrov: No, probably not in Odessa. We will announce the venue later. An economic forum will be held concurrently with the summit with round table discussions on trade, energy, cybersecurity, agriculture, outer space and nuclear energy.

It is important to step up our efforts. Africa has a population of 1.4 billion people, which is comparable to China and India. This is a great portion of the modern world and probably the most promising market. That is why companies and countries with good vision are building long-term strategies with regard to Africa, which is the continent of the future. We have an excellent political foundation underlying our relations and a good mutual understanding based on the fact that thousands of Africans who hold positions in their respective governments have studied in Russia and continue to do so. We need to use this human and political capital to achieve economic advancement.

Question: What kind of relations do we have with our “exes?” (I understand exes are rarely friends, but it still happens occasionally.) Do we have real friends among our exes, including Belarus? What is going on in Kazakhstan with mixed signals coming from there?  Is there a sense that we ourselves are a little to blame for some things, that we let them go and gave them away to Europe, America, and even Türkiye? What do you think?

Sergey Lavrov: There was such a period. The Soviet Union ceased to exist. We signed the Belovezh Accords. Of course, the countries that were not invited to Belovezhskaya Pushcha were hurt. No doubt about it. I understand them. Then, some efforts were made to improve this situation (to make amends, so to speak). A special meeting was held in Alma-Ata in late 1991. But it still left a bad taste in the mouth. Most importantly, it was an event followed by some processes.

Our leadership did little to prevent the cooling of relations with our neighbours, closest allies, and comrades-in-arms during the first years of independence and sovereignty. We have lived together for many hundreds, even thousands of years. I remember that time. I was Deputy Foreign Minister in 1992-1994 before I left for work in New York. My scope of duties included international organisations, but at some point Andrey Kozyrev asked me to take up the CIS matters. I didn’t do it for long, though. The situation did not look too good (clearly, the Foreign Ministry was not the one to decide on building policies in this area, the Presidential Executive Office was). Back then, everyone thought they had no place to go. We lived together all that time and shared the language, the universities and the tastes. So, we thought we’ll just keep on living like that. Of course, over the long decades and centuries, the economy had become intertwined to the point where breaking ties was impossible.

True, the West wasn’t sitting on its hands. And not only the West. If you look at Central Asia now, you’ll see multiple “Central Asia plus partner” formats there, such as Central Asia plus the United States, or “plus the European Union,” or “plus Japan,” “plus China,” “plus Türkiye,” or “plus India.” “Plus Russia” is there as well. Despite the fact that we have the CIS, the EAEU, the SCO, the CSTO, there was no association where all five Central Asian countries and Russia were together. Now there is.

This is how things are, not only in foreign ministries, but in our economic agencies as well. It’s an important process. Water and energy were shared. Our Western “partners” are now trying to infiltrate these particular areas. The EU and the United States are coming up with their own programmes which will tailor the ongoing water and energy use processes that rely on the Soviet legacy to their needs, the needs of external players. Clearly, it makes sense to join efforts in this department which is what we are encouraging our partners to do. They agree, but the West is trying in every possible way to disrupt this natural process and meddle in our dealings with our “exes,” as you put it. Poet Andrey Voznesensky once famously said, “Don’t return to those you once loved.” This is the opening line. However, the poem ends with “Anyway, you have nowhere else to go.”

Question:  A trendy modern poetess Vera Polozkova has the following line, “She is friends with all her exes as if they had never let her down.”

You, and the Foreign Ministry, said that you knew nothing about the special military operation before it began. At least, you knew nothing about it long before it started. Perhaps, this is not true, but that was the impression. May I ask you how you found out about it? What did you feel? I remember well what Tigran Keosayan and I felt at home at night, when we learned about it. I wonder what you felt back then. What do you think about the people who are now called “frightened patriots” who were frightened and left, those who are “ashamed” etc.?

Sergey Lavrov: The time and date of when I found out about it is not my secret.

Question: So, this is not a state secret?

Sergey Lavrov: This is not a state secret, but it is not my secret, either. If I may, I would like to leave it at that.

The sense of inevitability is what I felt when this announcement was made. Not joy. Imminent hostilities, with the citizens of your country going to defend justice and risk their lives, are not a reason for joy. It was a sense of inevitability and even relief. For many years we were unable to answer the question posed by the people of Donbass and many of our citizens as to how much longer we would allow them to mock common sense, the people, the UN Security Council resolution and every other aspect of it that was brazenly sabotaged.

Question: What do you think of those who are ashamed of being Russian?

Sergey Lavrov: We are now having a big discussion about foreign agents, and whether it was the right thing to do to draft a new law, which some people consider an extension to the old one and ask if it was right or wrong.

I watch talk shows, including those that you host, where issues are debated that everyone can relate to: so they left, what do we do about them now? How do we feel about them if they return? Or should they even be allowed to return? I don’t have an opinion. Each person is the master of their own destiny. That’s the way it is. But everyone must have a conscience. And everyone has to deal with their own conscience. This is how I see it. But there is something I cannot accept, and that’s people publishing things – I have a duty to read some resources designated as foreign agents in my line of work, and they describe with such lustful pleasure those insurmountable (from their point of view) problems that the Russian Federation is facing. They…

Question: Gloat.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes. They predict collapse. One of them wrote that Russia was threatened with death in terms of high technologies, because it has neither brains nor institutions. It is your country you are writing this about!

There are others. When Roscosmos, in response to the sanctions, told the Americans that, since they did not want our engines anymore, we would discontinue supplies to both the US and the UK, they imposed sanctions on our corporation, making any further contact impossible. A foreign agent site launched into a story about how our corporation had violated every conceivable obligation, and was now irreparably tainted as a dishonest partner that no one would ever deal with. We say double standards. That’s how they work, plain and simple.

My opinion is that these people should be left alone with themselves and realise what they have done. How to treat them is another matter. Will their former acquaintances stay in touch with them? How will the state go about renewing relations with them? That is another question. What is important is to leave them alone with their own conscience.

Question: Your trust that every person has a conscience has already done you a disservice with Petr Poroshenko and the Minsk agreements. Maybe you should just stop believing this. Not everyone has a conscience, unfortunately.

We all wonder, and every person in the country wants to know when “this” will end. We all want the special military operation to end as soon as possible, so that people stop dying – our soldiers, and the civilians that their former Ukraine is hitting every day. Ukraine still considers them its citizens de jure, but this isn’t stopping it, as we know. When will it end? We do not know. I won’t ask you about it. Obviously you don’t have an answer.

But where do you think it should end? I am not asking about the goals that Vladimir Putin announced at the start – the goals, and hence the potential results of this operation – the demilitarisation and denazification. This much is clear. Where should it end geographically? Where would it be reasonable, right and good for us?

Sergey Lavrov: As regards any projections or timeframe, I have just recalled an amusing fact. Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmitry Kuleba recently said that Vladimir Zelensky had set a deadline for joining the European Union, but he wouldn’t reveal that deadline, because many in the European Union might get scared and try to slow down their accession to the EU.

We don’t have any deadlines. As for the special military operation and geographic goals, President Vladimir Putin said clearly (as you quoted him): denazification and demilitarisation, which means no threats to our security, no military threats from the territory of Ukraine. This goal remains. Geography-wise, the situation was different when the negotiators met in Istanbul. Our readiness to accept the Ukrainian proposal was based on the situation as of the end of March 2022.

Question: That was the DPR and the LPR?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, more or less. Now the geography is different. It is more than the DPR, the LPR, but also the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions and a number of other areas. This process continues, consistently and persistently. It will continue as long as the West, in its impotent rage, desperate to aggravate the situation as much as possible, continues to flood Ukraine with more and more long-range weapons. Take the HIMARS. Defence Minister Alexey Reznikov boasts that they have already received 300-kilometre ammunition. This means our geographic objectives will move even further from the current line. We cannot allow the part of Ukraine that Vladimir Zelensky, or whoever replaces him, will control to have weapons that pose a direct threat to our territory or to the republics that have declared their independence and want to determine their own future.

Question: How can this be arranged, technically? This is our territory. Then there are the republics that will accede to us. In fact they already have – the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. You are diplomats, so you cannot say this. I’m a journalist, and I call a spade a spade. Further west, there is the territory controlled by Vladimir Zelensky. They have a common border. So either there should be a 300 kilometre buffer zone or something between them, or we need to march all the way to Lvov inclusive.

Sergey Lavrov: There is a solution to this problem. The military know this.

Question: A secret one? Do you think there is a chance that we will leave half-way? This is something our subscribers and viewers are fearing.

Sergey Lavrov: I see no reason to question what President Vladimir Putin announced on February 24, 2022, and reaffirmed a few days ago – our goals remain the same. And they will be met.

Western media and politicians prefer to ignore the truth about civilians killed in Donetsk shelling

16 Jun, 2022

Remnants of the Uragan MLRS rocket which struck the Donetsk maternity hospital June 13. ©  Eva Bartlett / RT

When Kiev’s guilt in attacks on a maternity hospital cannot be denied, it’s simply brushed under the carpet

Eva Bartlett

@evakbartlett

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years). 

Following intense Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk on June 13, some Western media sources, in tandem with outlets in Kiev, unsurprisingly claimed that the attack – which killed at least five civilians and struck a busy maternity hospital – was perpetrated by Russian forces.

Why Moscow would launch rockets at its own allies wasn’t explained, nor would it make much sense. 

The Donetsk People’s Republic’s foreign ministry reported“Such an unprecedented. in terms of power, density and duration of fire, raid on the DPR capital was not recorded during the entire period of the armed conflict [since 2014]. In two hours, almost 300 MLRS rockets and artillery shells were fired.”

The Ukrainian shelling began late morning, resumed in the afternoon, and continued for another two hours in the evening, a deafening series of blasts throughout the city, terrorizing residents and targeting apartment buildings, civilian infrastructure, the aforementioned hospital, and industrial buildings.

Locals say this was some of the heaviest bombing of Donetsk since 2014, when the eponymous region declared its independence from post-Maidan Kiev.

In the Budyonnovsky district in the south of the city, Ukrainian shelling of a market killed five civilians including one child. Just two months ago, Kiev’s forces hit another Donetsk market, leaving five civilians dead.

In the hard-hit Kievskiy district, to the north, the shelling caused fires at a water bottling plant and a warehouse for stationery, destroying it. The building was still in flames when journalist Roman Kosarev and I arrived about an hour after the attack. Apartment buildings in the area also came under firer, leaving doors and windows blown out and cars destroyed.

The destroyed gas station was on a street where I stayed in April, which is completely residential.

DPR head Denis Pushilin said“The enemy literally crossed all the lines. Prohibited methods of warfare are being used, residential and central districts of Donetsk are being shelled, other cities and settlements of the DPR are also under fire now.”

Hypocritical silence after maternity hospital shelling

In a world where media reported honestly instead of manufacturing its own reality, there would be outrage over Ukraine’s attack on the Donetsk maternity hospital. But history shows that is not a world we live in.

As I wrote last year, Western media and talking heads also diligently avoided condemnation when terrorists attacked or destroyed Syrian hospitals, including the shelling of a maternity hospital in Aleppo, which killed three women.

At the damaged Donetsk hospital, I saw the gaping hole in the roof and remnants of the Uragan MLRS rocket which struck it. Most of the windows of both buildings were blown out.

Images shared on Twitter noted, “Both gynecology and intensive care have been bombed.”  Other footage, taken by Donetsk war correspondent Dmitri Ashtrakhan, showed dozens of women, some heavily pregnant, taking shelter in the basement of the shelled maternity hospital.

Were these women and this hospital in Kiev, you can bet Western media would be loudly reporting it 24/7 for weeks. Instead, just as the West has steadfastly ignored Ukraine’s eight years of war on Donbass, they also omit reporting on the hospital.

Grotesquely, some Ukrainian and Western media instead disingenuously reported that it was a Russian attack, not Ukrainian, which terrorized, injured and killed civilians on June 13.

Just as Western media’s lack of reporting, or twisting of the narrative, on Ukraine’s shelling was to be expected, so too was the UN’s weak-worded condemnation, with the Spokesman for the Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, calling it “extremely troubling.” You can bet that were the situation reversed and Russia responsible for bombing a Ukrainian maternity hospital, his words would have been far stronger.

In fact, they already have been: Three months ago, when Kiev accused Russia of an attack on a maternity hospital, in Mariupol.

Back then, the Guterres emphatically tweeted, “Today’s attack on a hospital in Mariupol, Ukraine, where maternity & children’s wards are located, is horrific. Civilians are paying the highest price for a war that has nothing to do with them. This senseless violence must stop. End the bloodshed now.”

RT

RT drone footage shows hole in Donetsk maternity hospital roof where Ukrainian-fired Uragan MLRS rocket struck. ©  Eva Bartlett / RT

A strong reaction to what later emerged to be a hoax claim, when the UN itself even admitted it could not verify the story. But a mild reaction to a documented reality in Donetsk.

The UN did, at least, rightly note the attack on the Donetsk maternity hospital was, “an obvious breach of the international humanitarian law.” So there’s that.

The thing is, Ukraine has violated international law for its eight years of waging war on the Donbass republics, using prohibited heavy weapons and targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. This is only the latest incident.

Tears flow for hoax hospital bombing

In March, Western corporate-owned media supported Kiev’s claim that Russia had launched air strikes on a Mariupol maternity hospital, claiming three civilians had been killed. At the time, as reported“The White House condemned the ‘barbaric’ use of force against innocent civilians, and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted that ‘there are few things more depraved than targeting the vulnerable and defenceless’.”

As it turned out, witnesses reported there hadn’t been any air strike. There were explosions: just as terrorists bombed an Aleppo home in 2016 and used a mildly injured boy for their propaganda against Syria and Russia, so too did Ukrainian forces in Mariupol, setting the stage to incriminate Moscow.

Russia called the accusations “a completely staged provocation,” analyzing photos from the area and noting “evidence of two separate staged explosions near the hospital: An underground explosion and another of minor power, aimed at the hospital building,” and further noting that a “high-explosive aviation bomb would destroy the outer walls of the building.”

Russia also pointed out that the facility had stopped working when Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion expelled staff in late February and militarized the hospital, as Ukrainian forces did elsewhere in Donbass.

Marianna Vyshemirskaya, one of the women featured in the Western propaganda around the hospital, later spoke out and said there was no air strike, and that prior to the alleged event, Ukrainian soldiers expelled all the doctors and moved pregnant women to another building.

She also maintained that she and other women were filmed without warning by an Associated Press journalist dressed in a military uniform and wearing a helmet.

RT

Fires still raging in Donetsk warehouse after Ukrainian bombing June 13. ©  Eva Bartlett / RT

Even now, two days after Ukraine’s intense bombardment of Donetsk and targeting of the maternity hospital, when still more testimonies have emerged, Western media and politicians remain silent.

The suffering, and deaths, of the people of Donetsk doesn’t fit the Western narrative, so they misreport it or simply just don’t reference it at all, enabling Ukraine to continue to commit war crimes.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Riyadh Court Upholds Death Sentence of Two Bahraini Youths

May 21, 2022

By Staff, Agencies

A top Saudi court upheld death sentences of two young Bahraini nationals over trumped-up terror charges.

The Supreme Court of Saudi Arabia issues a final ruling to execute Bahraini prisoners of conscience, Sadiq Thamer and Jaafar Sultan

The Riyadh-based supreme court of appeals sentenced Sadiq Majid Thamer and Jaafar Mohammed Sultan to death after alleging that they have been found guilty of “smuggling explosives” into the kingdom and “involved in terrorist activities.”

Human rights organizations and an opposition protest movement described the rulings as “unfair and arbitrary,” saying they were issued based on confessions extracted under torture.

This come as social media activists have launched campaigns in solidarity with the two Bahraini youths, with human rights organizations and campaigners calling for an end to the “unjust” ruling and their immediate release.

Bahrain’s February 14 Revolution Youth Coalition held the Saudi regime fully responsible for the youths’ safety, calling on the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to take on his duties and intervene urgently to stop the crime.

The Bahraini opposition movement also called on the international community to stand up against Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and prevent the death sentences from being carried out.

The Coalition demanded swift action to save the lives of the two young Bahraini nationals before it gets too late, considering Bahrain’s ruling Khalifah regime as a partner in any criminal action against the Arab nation.

Sultan and Thamer were arrested in May 2015 along the King Fahd Causeway, which connects Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

They were held incommunicado for months after their arrest. The Bahraini youths were subjected to systematic and fatal torture with the aim of extracting false confessions from them.

Ever since bin Salman became Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader in 2017, the kingdom has arrested dozens of activists, bloggers, intellectuals and others perceived as political opponents, showing almost zero tolerance for dissent even in the face of international condemnations of the crackdown.

Muslim scholars have been executed and women’s rights campaigners have been put behind bars and tortured as freedom of expression, association, and belief continue to be denied.

Over the past years, Riyadh has also redefined its anti-terrorism laws to target activism.

Bahrain’s most prominent cleric Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim has said that drawing up a new constitution is the only way out of the political crisis in the protest-hit tiny Gulf kingdom, urging the regime in Manama to pursue an agreement with the Bahraini opposition instead of increasingly suppressing dissent.

Demonstrations have been held in Bahrain on a regular basis ever since a popular uprising began in mid-February 2011.

The participants demand that the Al Khalifah regime relinquish power and allow a just system representing all Bahrainis to be established.

Manama, however, has gone to great lengths to clamp down on any sign of dissent.

Palestinians mourn slain Al Jazeera journalist as calls grow for independent investigation

May 12 2022

Palestinians refused calls for a joint investigation of Shireen Abu Aqla’s murder, citing Tel Aviv’s track record of inaccurate investigations of their soldiers’ crimes

(Photo credit: The Times UK)

ByNews Desk 

Thousands of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank joined the funeral procession of murdered Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Aqla Nasri on 12 May, one day after she was shot in the head by Israeli soldiers.

Her funeral procession started from the Istishari Hospital in Ramallah, before arriving at the presidential compound of the Palestinian Authority (PA), where President Mahmoud Abbas bid her farewell.

During the ceremony, Abbas said Israel was “fully responsible” for Abu Aqla’s death.

Her body will make its way to Sheikh Jarrah in occupied East Jerusalem, where her family lives, before being laid to rest on 13 May.

The colleagues of Abu Aqla, who also came under fire on 11 May while covering Israeli raids on Jenin, said the occupation troops deliberately targeted the senior Al Jazeera correspondent, despite wearing a bulletproof vest clearly labeled PRESS.

“The [bullet] that killed Shireen was intended to kill her because the sniper fired the bullet at an area of her body that was not protected,” fellow journalist Shatha Hanaysha said.

Hanaysha also highlighted that the Israeli snipers who opened fire could clearly see that they were journalists.

In response to the accusations, Israeli officials initially tried to dodge the blame for the murder, blaming Palestinian factions instead.

“There is a good chance that armed Palestinians, who fired widely, are the ones who led to the unfortunate death of the journalist,” Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett told reporters hours after the murder.

However, later in the day, Lieutenant General Aviv Kochavi said it was “unclear” who fired the shot that killed the journalist.

“At this stage, we cannot determine by whose fire she was harmed and we regret her death,” the Israeli officer told Hebrew media.

Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz also struck a more cautious note, saying: “We are trying to figure out exactly what happened … I don’t have final conclusions.”

For their part, the PA has rejected a US-backed call for a joint investigation into the murder with Tel Aviv.

“Israel has requested a joint investigation and to be handed over the bullet that assassinated the journalist Shireen. We refused that, and we affirmed that our investigation would be completed independently,” Palestinian Civil Affairs Minister Hussein al-Sheikh said on 12 May.

The official also added that all evidence and witness statements confirm that the Palestinian-American journalist was assassinated by Israeli special units.

As international condemnation grows, the EU and UN have joined calls by right groups for an independent investigation into the murder of Abu Aqla.

The office of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres issued a statement saying he was “appalled by the killing of Shireen Abu Aqla, a Palestinian-American reporter for Al Jazeera TV.”

The lead spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the EU, Peter Stano, said that it is vital for a “thorough, independent investigation to clarify all the circumstances of this incident as soon as possible and for those responsible to be brought to justice.”

Rights groups, lawyers and Palestinian authorities, however, say they do not expect a credible investigation into the killing by Israel, which has a track record of not thoroughly investigating crimes committed by the Israeli army.

Last month, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate (PJS), and the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) submitted a formal complaint to the International Criminal Court (ICC) accusing Israel of systematically targeting journalists working in Palestine.

The IFJ has repeatedly condemned Israel’s deliberate targeting of journalists and media facilities in occupied Palestine.

According to WAFA, least 55 Palestinian journalists have been killed since 2000, with no one ever being held responsible.

Empire of Lies Eager to Receive Mr. Sarmat’s Business Card

April 29, 2022

Source

The only antidote to propaganda dementia is served by sparse voices of reason, which happen to be Russian, thus silenced and/or dismissed.

By Pepe Escobar, posted with the author’s permission and widely cross-posted

Especially since the onset of GWOT (Global War on Terror) at the start of the millennium, no one ever lost money betting against the toxic combo of hubris, arrogance and ignorance serially deployed by the Empire of Chaos and Lies.

What passes for “analysis” in the vast intellectual no-fly zone known as U.S. Think Tankland includes wishful thinking babble such as Beijing “believing” that Moscow would play a supporting role in the Chinese century just to see Russia, now, in the geopolitical driver’s seat.

This is a fitting example not only of outright Russophobic/Sinophobic paranoia about the emergence of peer competitors in Eurasia – the primeval Anglo-American nightmare – but also crass ignorance about the finer points of the complex Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership.

As Operation Z methodically hits Phase 2, the Americans – with a vengeance – have also embarked on their symmetrical Phase 2, which de facto translates as an outright escalation towards Totalen Krieg, from shades of hybrid to incandescent, everything of course by proxy. Notorious Raytheon weapons peddler reconverted into Pentagon head, Lloyd Austin, gave away the game in Kiev:

“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

So this is it: the Empire wants to annihilate Russia. Cue to War Inc.’s frenzy of limitless weapon cargos descending on Ukraine, the overwhelming majority on the road to be duly eviscerated by Russian precision strikes. The Americans are sharing intel 24/7 with Kiev not only on Donbass and Crimea but also Russian territory. Totalen Krieg proceeds in parallel to the engineered controlled demolition of the EU’s economy, with the European Commission merrily acting as a sort of P.R. arm of NATO.

Amidst the propaganda dementia cum acute cognitive dissonance overdrive across the whole NATOstan sphere, the only antidote is served by sparse voices of reason, which happen to be Russian, thus silenced and/or dismissed. The West ignores them at their own collective peril.

Patrushev goes Triple-X unplugged

Let’s start with President Putin’s speech to the Council of Legislators in St. Petersburg celebrating the Day of Russian Parliamentarism.

Putin demonstrated how a hardly new “geopolitical weapon” relying on “Russophobia and neo-Nazis”, coupled with efforts of “economic strangulation”, not only failed to smother Russia, but impregnated in the collective unconscious the feeling this an existential conflict: a “Second Great Patriotic War”.

With off the charts hysteria across the spectrum, a message for an Empire that still refuses to listen, and doesn’t even understand the meaning of “indivisibility of security”, had to be inevitable:

“I would like to emphasize once again that if someone intends to interfere in the events taking place from the outside and creates threats of a strategic nature unacceptable to Russia, they should know that our retaliatory strikes will be lightning fast. We have all the tools for this. Such as no one can boast of now. And we won’t brag. We will use them if necessary. And I want everyone to know about it – we have made all the decisions on this matter.”

Translation: non-stop provocations may lead Mr. Kinzhal, Mr. Zircon and Mr. Sarmat to be forced to present their business cards in select Western latitudes, even without an official invitation.

Arguably for the first time since the start of Operation Z, Putin made a distinction between military operations in Donbass and the rest of Ukraine. This directly relates to the integration in progress of Kherson, Zaporozhye and Kharkov, and implies the Russian Armed Forces will keep going and going, establishing sovereignty not only in the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics but also over Kherson, Zaporozhye, and further on down the road from the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea, all the way to establishing full control of Nikolaev and Odessa.

The formula is crystal clear: “Russia cannot allow the creation of anti-Russian territories around the country.”

Now let’s move to an extremely detailed interview by Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Patrushev to Rossiyskaya Gazeta, where Patrushev sort of went triple-X unplugged.

The key take away may be here: “The collapse of the American-centric world is a reality in which one must live and build an optimal line of behavior.” Russia’s “optimal line of behavior” – much to the wrath of the universalist and unilateralist hegemon – features “sovereignty, cultural and spiritual identity and historical memory.”

Patrushev shows how “tragic scenarios of world crises, both in past years and today, are imposed by Washington in its desire to consolidate its hegemony, resisting the collapse of the unipolar world.” The U.S. goes no holds barred “to ensure that other centers of the multipolar world do not even dare to raise their heads, and our country not only dared, but publicly declared that it would not play by the imposed rules.”

Patrushev could not but stress how War Inc. is literally making a killing in Ukraine: “The American and European military-industrial complex is jubilant, because thanks to the crisis in Ukraine, it has no respite from order. It is not surprising that, unlike Russia, which is interested in the speedy completion of a special military operation and minimizing losses on all sides, the West is determined to delay it at least to the last Ukrainian.”

And that mirrors the psyche of American elites: “You are talking about a country whose elite is not able to appreciate other people’s lives. Americans are used to walking on scorched earth. Since World War II, entire cities have been razed to the ground by bombing, including nuclear bombing. They flooded the Vietnamese jungle with poison, bombed the Serbs with radioactive munitions, burned Iraqis alive with white phosphorus, helped terrorists poison Syrians with chlorine (…) As history shows, NATO has also never been a defensive alliance, only an offensive one.”

Previously, in an interview with the delightfully named The Great Game show on Russian TV, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had once again detailed how the Americans “no longer insist on the implementation of international law, but on respect for the ‘rules-based world order’. These ‘rules’ are not deciphered in any way. They say that now there are few rules. For us, they don’t exist at all. There is international law. We respect it, as does the UN Charter. The key provision, the main principle is the sovereign equality of states. The U.S. flagrantly violates its obligations under the UN Charter when it promotes its ‘rules’”.

Lavrov had to stress, once again, that the current incandescent situation may be compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis: “In those years, there was a channel of communication that both leaders trusted. Now there is no such channel. No one is trying to create it.”

The Empire of Lies, in its current state, does not do diplomacy.

The pace of the game in the new chessboard

In a subtle reference to the work of Sergei Glazyev, as the Minister in Charge of Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasia Economic Union explained in our recent interview, Patrushev hit the heart of the current geoeconomic game, with Russia now actively moving towards a gold standard: “Experts are working on a project proposed by the scientific community to create a two-circuit monetary and financial system. In particular, it is proposed to determine the value of the ruble, which should be secured by both gold and a group of goods that are currency values, to put the ruble exchange rate in line with real purchasing power parity.”

That was inevitable after the outright theft of over $300 billion in Russian foreign reserves. It may have taken a few days for Moscow to be fully certified it was facing Totalen Krieg. The corollary is that the collective West has lost any power to influence Russian decisions. The pace of the game in the new chessboard is being set by Russia.

Earlier in the week, in his meeting with the UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres, Putin went as far as stating that he’d be more than willing to negotiate – with only a few conditions: Ukrainian neutrality and autonomy status for Donbass. Yet now everyone knows it’s too late. For a Washington in Totalen Krieg mode negotiation is anathema – and that has been the case since the aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine meeting in Istanbul in late March.

So far, on Operation Z, the Russian Armed forces have used only 12% of its soldiers,10% of its fighter jets, 7% of its tanks, 5% of its missiles, and 4% of its artillery. The pain dial is set to go substantially up – and with the total liberation of Mariupol and the resolution one way or another of the Donbass cauldron there is nothing the hysteria/propaganda/weaponizing combo deployed by the collective West can do to alter facts on the ground.

That includes desperate gambits such as the one uncovered by SVR – Russian foreign intel, which very rarely makes mistakes. SVR found out that the Empire of Lies/War Inc. axis is pushing not only for a de facto Polish invasion to annex Western Ukraine, under the banner of “historical reunification”, but also for a joint Romanian/Ukrainian invasion of Moldova/Transnistria, with Romanian “peacekeepers” already piling up near the Moldova border.

Washington, as the SVR maintains, has been plotting the Polish gambit for over a month now. It would “lead from behind” (remember Libya?), “encouraging” a “group of countries” to occupy Western Ukraine.

So partition is already on the cards. Were that ever to materialize, it will be fascinating to bet on which locations Mr. Sarmat would be inclined to distribute his business card.

President Putin and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: Meeting

April 27, 2022

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/68287

April 26, 2022

President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Mr Secretary-General,

I am very happy to see you.

As one of the founders of the United Nations and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia has always supported this universal organisation. We believe the UN is not simply universal but it is unique in a way – the international community does not have another organisation like it. We are doing all we can to support the principles on which it rests, and we intend to continue doing this in the future.

We find the expression of some of our colleagues about a world based on rules somewhat strange. We believe the main rule is the UN Charter and other documents adopted by this organisation rather than some papers written by their authors as they see fit or aimed at ensuring their own interests.

We are also surprised to hear statements by our colleagues that imply that some in the world have exceptional status or can claim exclusive rights because the Charter of the United Nations reads that all participants in international communication are equal regardless of their strength, size or geographical location. I think this is similar to what the Bible reads about all people being equal. I am sure we will find the same idea in both the Quran and the Torah. All people are equal before God. So, the idea that someone can claim a kind of exceptional status is very strange to us.

We are living in a complicated world, and, therefore, we proceed from reality and are willing to work with everyone.

No doubt, at one time the United Nations was established to resolve acute crises and went through different periods in its development. Quite recently, just several years ago, we heard it had become obsolete, and there was no need for it anymore. This happened whenever it prevented someone from reaching their goals in the international arena.

We have always said that there is no other universal organisation like the United Nations, and it is necessary to cherish the institutions that were created after WWII for the express purpose of settling disputes.

I know about your concern over Russia’s military operation in Donbass, in Ukraine. I think this will be the focus of our conversation today. I would just like to note in this context that the entire problem emerged after a coup d’état staged in Ukraine in 2014. This is an obvious fact. You can call it whatever name you like and have whatever bias in favour of those who did it, but this was really an anti-constitutional coup.

This was followed by the situation with the expression of their will by the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol. They acted in practically the same way as the people living in Kosovo – they made a decision on independence and then turned to us with a request to join the Russian Federation. The only difference between the two cases was that in Kosovo this decision on sovereignty was adopted by Parliament whereas Crimea and Sevastopol made it at a nationwide referendum.

A similar problem emerged in south-eastern Ukraine, where the residents of several territories, at least, two Ukrainian regions, did not accept the coup d’état and its results. But they were subjected to very strong pressure, in part, with the use of combat aviation and heavy military equipment. This is how the crisis in Donbass, in south-eastern Ukraine, emerged.

As you know, after another failed attempt by the Kiev authorities to resolve this problem by force, we arrived at the signing of agreements in the city of Minsk. This is what they were called – the Minsk Agreements. It was an attempt to settle the situation in Donbass peacefully.

To our regret, during the past eight years the people that lived there found themselves under a siege. The Kiev authorities announced in public that they were organising a siege of these territories. They were not embarrassed to call it a siege although initially they had renounced this idea and continued military pressure.

Under the circumstances, after the authorities in Kiev actually went on record as saying – I would like to emphasise that the top state officials announced this in public – that they did not intend to fulfil the Minsk Agreements, we were compelled to recognise these regions as independent and sovereign states to prevent the genocide of the people living there. I would like to reiterate: this was a forced measure to stop the suffering of the people living in those territories.

Unfortunately, our colleagues in the West preferred to ignore all this. After we recognised the independence of these states, they asked us to render them military aid because they were subjected to military actions, an armed aggression. In accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Chapter VII, we were forced to do this by launching a special military operation.

I would like to inform you that although the military operation is underway, we are still hoping to reach an agreement on the diplomatic track. We are conducting talks. We have not abandoned them.

Moreover, at the talks in Istanbul, and I know that you have just been there since I spoke with President Erdogan today, we managed to make an impressive breakthrough. Our Ukrainian colleagues did not link the requirements for Ukraine’s international security with such a notion as Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders, leaving aside Crimea, Sevastopol and the newly Russia-recognised Donbass republics, albeit with certain reservations.

But, unfortunately, after reaching these agreements and after we had, in my opinion, clearly demonstrated our intentions to create the conditions for continuing the talks, we faced a provocation in the town of Bucha, which the Russian Army had nothing to do with. We know who was responsible, who prepared this provocation, using what means, and we know who the people involved were.

After this, the position of our negotiators from Ukraine on a further settlement underwent a drastic change. They simply renounced their previous intentions to leave aside issues of security guarantees for the territories of Crimea, Sevastopol and the Donbass republics. They simply renounced this. In the relevant draft agreement presented to us, they simply stated in two articles that these issues must be resolved at a meeting of the heads of state.

It is clear to us that if we take these issues to the heads of state level without even resolving them in a preliminary draft agreement, they will never be resolved. In this case, we simply cannot sign a document on security guarantees without settling the territorial issues of Crimea, Sevastopol and the Donbass republics.

Nevertheless, the talks are going on. They are now being conducted online. I am still hoping that this will lead us to some positive result.

This is all I wanted to say in the beginning. I am sure we will have many questions linked with this situation. Maybe there will be other questions as well. We will talk.

I am very happy to see you. Welcome to Moscow.

(In his remarks, the UN Secretary General expressed concern over the situation in Ukraine, while emphasising the need for a multilateral world order based on the UN Charter and international law. Antonio Guterres also presented the two proposals he had put forward the same day during his meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. These proposals concern humanitarian matters, including humanitarian corridors, in particular, for Mariupol residents, as well as setting up a humanitarian contact group in which the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Russia, and Ukraine would work together to discuss the situation in order to make these corridors truly safe and effective.)

Vladimir Putin: Mr Secretary General,

Regarding the invasion, I am well-versed in the documents of the International Court on the situation in Kosovo. In fact, I have read them myself. I remember very well the decision by the International Court, which states that when fulfilling its right to self-determination a territory within any state does not have to seek permission from the country’s central government in order to proclaim its sovereignty. This was the ruling on Kosovo, and this is what the International Court decided, and everyone supported it. I personally read all the comments issued by the judicial, administrative and political bodies in the United States and Europe – everyone supported this decision.

If so, the Donbass republics, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, can enjoy the same right without seeking permission from Ukraine’s central government and declare their sovereignty, since the precedent has been created.

Is this so? Do you agree with this?

(Antonio Guterres noted that the United Nations did not recognise Kosovo).

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course, but the court did. Let me finish what I was saying.

If there is a precedent, the Donbass republics can do the same. This is what they did, while we, in turn, had the right to recognise them as independent states.

Many countries around the world did this, including our Western opponents, with Kosovo. Many states recognised Kosovo. It is a fact that many Western countries recognised Kosovo as an independent state. We did the same with the Donbass republics. After that, they asked us to provide them with military assistance to deal with the state that launched military operations against them. We had the right to do so in full compliance with Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Just a second, we will talk about this in a minute. But first I would like to address the second part of your question, Mariupol. The situation is difficult and possibly even tragic there. But in fact, it is very simple.

I had a conversation with President Erdogan today. He spoke about the ongoing fighting there. No, there is no fighting there; it is over. There is no fighting in Mariupol; it has stopped.

Part of the Ukrainian armed forces that were deployed in other industrial districts have surrendered. Nearly 1,300 of them have surrendered, but the actual figure is larger. Some of them were injured or wounded; they are being kept in absolutely normal conditions. The wounded have received medical assistance from our doctors, skilled and comprehensive assistance.

The Azovstal plant has been fully isolated. I have issued instructions, an order to stop the assault. There is no direct fighting there now. Yes, the Ukrainian authorities say that there are civilians at the plant. In this case, the Ukrainian military must release them, or otherwise they will be doing what terrorists in many countries have done, what ISIS did in Syria when they used civilians as human shields. The simplest thing they can do is release these people; it is as simple as that.

You say that Russia’s humanitarian corridors are ineffective. Mr Secretary-General, you have been misled: these corridors are effective. Over 100,000 people, 130,000–140,000, if I remember correctly, have left Mariupol with our assistance, and they are free to go where they want, to Russia or Ukraine. They can go anywhere they want; we are not detaining them, but we are providing assistance and support to them.

The civilians in Azovstal, if there are any, can do this as well. They can come out, just like that. This is an example of a civilised attitude to people, an obvious example. And anyone can see this; you only need to talk with the people who have left the city. The simplest thing for military personnel or members of the nationalist battalions is to release the civilians. It is a crime to keep civilians, if there are any there, as human shields.

We maintain contact with them, with those who are hiding underground at the Azovstal plant. They have an example they can follow: their comrades-in-arms have surrendered, over a thousand of them, 1,300. Nothing bad has happened to them. Moreover, Mr Secretary-General, if you wish, if representatives of the Red Cross and the UN want to inspect their detainment conditions and see for themselves where and how medical assistance is being provided to them, we are ready to organise this. It is the simplest solution to a seemingly complex issue.

Let us discuss this.

‘Israel’ Fears Hundreds of Hezbollah’s Drones, Thousands of Precision Missiles

March 18, 2022

By Staff, Agencies

In the course of posing itself as the victim instead of the aggressor and the occupier, a Zionist regime’s mouthpiece claimed that Hezbollah’s efforts to obtain drones and precision-guided missiles heighten the threat along the ‘Israeli’ occupation regime’s already sensitive northern border with Lebanon.

‘Israeli’ regime’s Ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan claimed in a letter to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres that there are “troubling developments which threaten the ‘peace’ and ‘security’ of ‘Israel’ and Lebanon, as well as the region as a whole.”

The letter, presented in advance of a Security Council discussion scheduled for Thursday on the secretary-general’s periodic report on adherence to Resolution 1701, which set the ceasefire terms that ended the ‘Israeli’ war on Lebanon in July 2006, added that the developments include “efforts by Hezbollah to obtain advanced weapon systems, including UAVs and Precision-Guided Missiles, underline a troubling reality on the ground.”

Erdan referenced Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s February 16 speech in which he spoke of the Resistance movement’s “advanced capabilities in self-production of drones, and its acquired ability to convert rockets into Precision-Guided Missiles [PGM].”

“Nasrallah once again referred to the expertise in transforming Hezbollah’s arsenal of rockets into PGM’s,” Erdan said.

‘Israel’s’ ALMA Research Center claims that Hezbollah has a minimum of “2,000 unmanned aerial vehicles, many of them advanced UAVs from Iran and others manufactured independently.”

In the same regard, the ‘Israeli’ occupation regime’s military Air Force, considered the strongest air force in the Middle East, has admitted that identifying and intercepting drones – whether belonging to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, or Iranian ones – is challenging, and considers drones to be one of the top five threats facing Tel Aviv.

Last month, Hezbollah flew a small, remotely piloted aircraft into the ‘Israeli’-occupied Palestinian airspace. Hezbollah announced that the drone was able to fly inside the occupied territories for 40 minutes and returned unharmed. The Zionist regime’s Air Force dispatched several fighter jets but failed to take it down.

Although the Zionist military has various ways to intercept drones – like electronic warfare, the ‘Iron Dome’ and fighter jets like the F-35 – Hezbollah’s drone platforms pose a serious challenge to identify and shoot down since they are small, fast and fly low to the ground, making it hard for ‘Israeli’ radar to detect them.

In addition to its drones, Hezbollah has an arsenal of an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles.

Meeting of the Joint Coordination Headquarters for Humanitarian Response in Ukraine (March 8, 2022)

March 08, 2022

Channel: https://t.me/mod_russia_en : First post link of various: https://t.me/mod_russia_en/73

 Taking into account the rapid deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the settlements of Ukraine, where nationalists continue to forcibly detain thousands of civilians, including foreigners, yesterday the Russian side, despite repeated failures of all agreements by Kiev authorities, came up with another initiative to conduct a humanitarian operation. At the same time, we have completed all preparation for the evacuation of civilians and foreign citizens through safe corridors.

 Unfortunately, out of the ten routes suggested to the Ukrainian side – two from Kiev, Chernigov, Sumy, Kharkov and Mariupol – including one from each city to the Russian Federation, as well as one through the territories controlled by the Kiev authorities to Poland, Moldova, Romania, official Kiev confirmed only one route – from Sumy through Poltava further to the border with Poland.

 At present, thanks to the unprecedented security measures taken by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, 723 people have been evacuated along this route (among them: 576 are citizens of India, 115 of China, 20 of Jordan, 12 of Tunisia).

 In addition, Russia, without the participation of the Ukrainian side, evacuated 5,334 people from dangerous zones in various regions of Ukraine, as well as the Lugansk and Donetsk people’s republics, including 781 children. Since the beginning of the special military operation more than 174,000 people have been evacuated including 44,250 children. The state border of the Russian Federation was crossed by 20,033 personal vehicles including 777 per day.

 At present, also without the participation of the Ukrainian side, a humanitarian operation is being completed to evacuate 223 foreign citizens from dangerous areas of Kherson region, through Crimea to Novorossiysk, including 188 people from Turkey, 15 from Egypt, 8 from Italy, 6 from Pakistan and 5 from India, as well as 1 from Brazil. But these figures will increase as the operation is still ongoing.

 At the same time, the official Kiev authorities continue to reject all the main evacuation routes from Kiev, Chernigov, Sumy, Kharkov and Mariupol to the territory of the Russian Federation. I would like to remind the Ukrainian side that in our database, 2,541,367 appeals have already been recorded through various communication channels from citizens of Ukraine, as well as foreigners, with requests to rescue and evacuate them from 1,917 settlements of Ukraine.

This database contains the names, surnames and addresses of these people, heartbreaking stories about the difficult humanitarian situation, about the horrors and atrocities perpetrated by nationalists, murders, physical violence and illegal arrests.

If we had basic confidence in the Ukrainian authorities, then we could give them this database in order to dispel the speculation that no one wants to go to the Russian Federation. But for obvious reasons, we cannot do this. As soon as the database is in the hands of the nationalists, all Ukrainian citizens who have applied for help will face persecution, humiliation, torture and execution.

For the same reason, we are afraid to give this information on to representatives of the United Nations, since detailed information about the citizens of Ukraine may also fall into the hands of nationalists.

 Official representatives of the Kiev authorities and mayors of cities received the strictest instructions to prevent any attempt to evacuate to the Russian Federation. Citizens simply do not receive information about a possible evacuation to Russia and the creation of humanitarian corridors.

Any attempts to exit through humanitarian corridors to the Russian Federation are suppressed by the nationalists. We have already told you about this. Any additional comments here are unnecessary.

But no matter how the situation develops, no matter what measures are taken by the Kiev regime, including with the assistance of short-sighted, unscrupulous UN employees, as well as other international organizations to conceal their monstrous crimes, sooner or later, the civilized world will learn about all the atrocities against its people.

This database will become direct evidence of lawlessness and crimes of the Kiev authorities against the citizens of Ukraine.

 The Kiev regime, as a result of the loss of civil law administration in cities and towns, with its helpless actions, in practice, supports the chaos reigning in the territories controlled by Bandera gangs, does not notice the numerous facts of looting, which have already assumed catastrophic proportions.

This says that official Kiev does not control the state of affairs in its own country and cannot ensure the fulfillment of its obligations. All fundamental decisions are essentially taken by the nationalists and their accomplices.

Radical gangs continue to intimidate civilians, threatening them with murder when they try to evacuate towards Russia.

At the same time, the checkpoints in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Moldova and Romania unprepared to receive Ukrainian refugees trying to find protection from the terror organized by the territorial defence battalions. Traffic jams at border crossings. People are forced to abandon vehicles and walk with heavy bags. The queues stretched up to 40 kilometers, and the passage time exceeded two days.

At the same time, there are no toilets, no water, no food at the checkpoints, there are no heating points and medical care. People are forced to stay outside for days at sub-zero temperatures. Numerous cases of physical violence, robberies, looting against Ukrainian refugees and foreign citizens were recorded by local criminals, who, in addition, demand a bribe of up to one and a half thousand US dollars for organizing unimpeded passage.

Various restrictions on admission have been introduced. In particular, male persons aged 18 to 60 years are not allowed to enter the territory of Poland without permission from Ukrainian military enlistment offices. But corrupt border guards offer a bribe of up to $5,000 to cross the border without hindrance.

After crossing the border, refugees face numerous problems related to the lack of basic conditions for accommodation and recreation.  In neighboring states, tent camps without any amenities are provided for their accommodation.

Despite the inconsistency of the actions of the Kiev authorities, we are ready to patiently wait for constructive work on humanitarian issues from them and hope for close cooperation with the relevant structures of the UN, the OSCE and other international organizations. Now, more than ever, it is important to get away from the political engagement of the humanitarian component, as a high-level official did immorally from the rostrum of the United Nations. This is extremely important for every person who finds himself in the most difficult humanitarian conditions in the settlements of Ukraine.

Since yesterday, the Joint Coordination Headquarters of the Russian Federation for Humanitarian Response in Ukraine has organized effective interaction with UN representatives, who, after the appeal of UN Secretary General António Guterres to the Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation, officially arrived in Moscow and are in contact with us around the clock.

 Militants of the territorial defence battalions continue to hold hostage as a human shield more than four and a half million civilians, as well as about two thousand foreigners who have already expressed a desire to evacuate to safe places. Information about cases of discrimination against human rights on racial grounds by neo-Nazis continues to come in.

At the same time, the Russian side is creating the necessary conditions for a peaceful and safe life in all the liberated territories, ensuring unimpeded access of the population to any humanitarian aid.

 More than 9,000 temporary accommodation centers continue to function normally in almost all regions of the Russian Federation. Strictly individual work is organized with each person arriving in Russia.

 The accumulation of humanitarian aid at points continues, more than 15,500 tons have already been accumulated.

946 tons of humanitarian cargo have already been delivered to Ukraine, 132 humanitarian actions have been carried out in the settlements of Zaporozhye, Kiev, Kharkov, Kherson and Chernigov regions, as well as in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. Over the past day 22 humanitarian actions were carried out in Kiev and Chernigov regions, as well as in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, during which 325 tons of basic necessities were handed over to the civilian population of the liberated regions, medicines and food.

To date, 33 humanitarian actions have been planned and are currently being carried out in Kharkov and Kherson regions, in Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, during which 341 tons of basic necessities, medicine and food will be distributed.

غوتيريش واليونيفيل: فشل في تغيير قواعد الاشتباك؟ ماذا عن الحدود؟

 العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط*

عندما تحققت أميركا في العام 2006 من أن «إسرائيل» لن تحقق أهداف عدوانها على لبنان، وتأكدت أن المقاومة صمدت واستعصت على جيش العدوان «الإسرائيلي» الذي شنّ ما أسماه «حرب لبنان الثانية» التي هدف منها إلى تفكيك المقاومة وتجريدها من سلاحها وفرض علاقة مع لبنان، وفقاً لأحكام تشبه اتفاقية 17 أيار للعام 1983، أقول عندما تأكدت أميركا من استحالة تحقق شيء في الميدان مما أرادته «إسرائيل»، سارعت مع فرنسا لوضع مشروع قرار قدّمته إلى مجلس الأمن، توخت بموجبه إعطاء «إسرائيل» في السياسة ما عجزت عن أخذه بالسلاح في الميدان. ولذلك تضمّنت مسودة مشروع القرار بنداً (البند 10) تنشأ بموجبه قوات متعددة الجنسيات للعمل في الجنوب تحت الفصل السابع، بما يشكل سياجاً يحمي «إسرائيل» ويعطل أو يمنع أيّ عمل مقاوم ضدّ احتلالها.

كانت أميركا متيقنة يومها من أن الضغوط المتعددة الأشكال، سياسياً واقتصادياً واجتماعياً، التي تمارس على المقاومة وجمهورها في الداخل ومن الخارج سترغم قيادتها على القبول بوقف الحرب، وفقاً للشروط الأميركية «الإسرائيلية»، التي تعطي المهزوم ما يشاء وتحرم المنتصر ما حقق من مكاسب، وكانت مرتاحة جداً لأداء الحكومة اللبنانية يومها التي اجترح رئيسها السنيورة بدعة ما أسمي «النقاط السبع»، التي تضمّنت في نقطتها الرابعة نزع سلاح المقاومة، ولذلك لم تتردّد أميركا ومعها فرنسا من تقديم مشروع القرار الذي يتضمّن كلّ ذلك إلى مجلس الأمن، الذي رأى أن يستحصل على موافقة الحكومة اللبنانية «وهي مضمونة كما قيل لهم» قبل إقرار القرار.

وهنا كانت الصدمة لأميركا ومن معها من أوروبيين وعرب، ولحكومة السنيورة برئيسها وأغلبية وزرائها، صدمة أحدثها رفض رئيس الجمهورية العماد إميل لحود لهذا التنازل الفظيع، رفض عّبر عنه بقوله في مجلس الوزراء «لا يُعقل أن نعطي «إسرائيل» في السياسة ما عجزت عن أخذه في الميدان»، ومنع الرئيس لحود مجلس الوزراء من الموافقة على العرض، وتمسكت المقاومة بمكتسباتها رافضة أيّ قرار يمسّ سلاحها، ما أدى إلى تعديل مشروع القرار والتحوّل إلى صيغة أقلّ عدائية ضد المقاومة، فكان القرار 1701، الذي صدر تحت الفصل السادس واحتفظ بقوات اليونيفيل بعد أن زاد من عديدها وأدخل عليها قوات بحرية وحدّد مهمتها بـ: «مؤازرة الجيش اللبناني لبسط سيادة الدولة على أراضيها في الجنوب»، بعد أن تتحقق من «إخلاء «إسرائيل» لكلّ أرضٍ لبنانية دخلتها»، كما أناط بالأمين العام للأمم المتحدة مهمة «السعي لإيجاد حلّ لمسالة مزارع شبعا اللبنانية التي تحتلها «إسرائيل»».

وهكذا ولد القرار 1701 الذي، على رغم ما تضمّنه من ثغرات لمصلحة «إسرائيل» ومن عدم توازن، وعلى رغم ميله الفاضح لتحقيق مكاسب «إسرائيلية» على حساب لبنان، لم يعط قوات يونيفيل الحق بالقيام بمهمات أساسية تريدها «إسرائيل»، لم يعطها الحق بالعمل منفردة استقلالاً عن الجيش اللبناني، ولم يعطها حق التفتيش والتعقب داخل وخارج بقعة العمليات المحددة في جنوب الليطاني، ولم يعطها الحق بممارسة أي نوع من الأنواع القتالية وحفظ الأمن، وبالتالي قيّد لجوءها إلى اطلاق النار وحدّده بحالتين فقط: حالة الدفاع المشروع عن النفس، وفقاً لقاعدة التناسب والضرورة، وحالة مؤازرة الجيش اللبناني بناء لطلبه عند قيامه بمهمة عملانية داخل بقعة العمليات.

هذه القيود منعت تحوّل قوات يونيفيل إلى قوات قتالية في مواجهة المقاومة وجمهورها والشعب اللبناني في الجنوب، وفقاً لما تريد «إسرائيل»، ما جعل أميركا غير راضية على الصيغة النهائية للقرار 1701، ولكنها قبلت به وهي تضمر تطويرها بالأمر الواقع الميداني المستتبع لاحقاً بتعديل للنص في مجلس الأمن، وبالفعل حاولت الوحدات العسكرية الجديدة التي التحقت باليونيفيل لتعززها، حاولت فرض الأمر الواقع المطلوب، فاصطدمت بالأهالي وجمهور المقاومة وبالقوى والشخصيات الوطنية، فتراجعت، لكن أميركا بقيت على اصرارها للتعديل الذي تطمح إليه في كلّ مرة يعرض فيها أمر التجديد لليونيفيل. اصرار كان ولا يزال يصطدم برفض لبناني وعدم تأييد دولي كاف لتمريره في مجلس الأمن فيسقط.

لكن أميركا لم تيأس واستمرت منذ العام 2006 قائمة على محاولة التعديل، وعلى رغم الفشل فأنها تكرّر المحاولة، وأخيراً حاولت استغلال الوضع اللبناني الواهن والمتردّي سياسياً ومالياً واقتصادياً، وأوحت للأمين العام للأمم المتحدة بزيارة لبنان حاملاً مطالب ورسائل ظاهرة، وأخرى باطنة وهي الأهم، أما الأولى فتتعلق بالاصلاحات وضرورتها والانتخابات وحتميتها، وبالوضع الاقتصادي ومدى الإلحاح في معالجته لتوفير احتياجات المواطن، وكانت هذه المسائل القناع الذي يخفي الطلبات الحقيقة لأميركا و»إسرائيل»، التي حملها غوتيريش إلى لبنان وتتضمّن:

تعديل قواعد الاشتباك لليونيفيل بما يحقق رغبة إسرائيلية أميركية عمرها 15 عاماً، وقد عبّر غوتيريش عن الأمر بقوله «وجوب أن تتمتع اليونيفيل بحرية الوصول والعمل الكامل ومن دون عوائق في جميع أنحاء منطقة عملياتها بموجب القرار 1701»، وهو يقصد تمكين اليونيفيل من القيام بالمهام الثلاث التي حجبت عنها بموجب القرار 1701، كما سبق وذكرنا أعلاه «العمل المنفرد المستقل عن الجيش، التفتيش والتعقب، اللجوء إلى القوة لمعالجة ما ترى ضرورة التدخل فيه وفقاً لاستنسابها».

القفز فوق مزارع شبعا التي قصّر الأمين العام في إيجاد حل لها حتى الآن، وفصلها عن الحدود اللبنانية ومعالجة الوضع على الحدود البرية في شكل يسقط حدود بوليه نيوكمب، ويتمسك بالخط الوهمي المسمّى «الخط الأزرق»، وهو الخط الذي تعمل به الأمم المتحدة خلافاً لقواعد القانون الدولي، من دون أن يقدم أيّ ضمانات حول انسحاب «إسرائيل» من المناطق الـ13 التي تعتدي عليها شمال هذا الخط والحدود.

معالجة ملف الحدود البحرية بما يلبّي الإملاء الأميركي والمطالب «الإسرائيلية»، وذلك بتراجع لبنان عن خط الـ29 والتفاوض حول الخط 23 مع الإيحاء بامكانية إعطاء لبنان بعض المساحات جنوبي هذا الخط، ليضمن له حقل قانا مقابل ضمان كامل حقل كاريش لـ»إسرائيل».

وقد سرّبت أوساط قريبة من الأمم المتحدة أن غوتيريش سمع إجابات ايجابية من بعض المسؤولين اللبنانيين حول عروضه، من دون أن تصل تلك الاجابات إلى حدّ التزام موثق ومكتوب، بسبب الوضع السياسي المعقد الذي يمرّ به لبنان، لكنه تلقى نوعاً من ضمان أو التزام هذا البعض بتسهيلات ما مستقبلاً.

ويبدو أن غوتيريش أراد أن يختبر جدية ما سمع، أو أراد أن تفرض اليونيفيل وبوجوده في لبنان أمراً واقعاً يحاكي ما تتمناه في النقطة الأولى أعلاه، فأطلقت دورية عملانية إلى شقرا إحدى بلدات الجنوب من دون تنسيق مع الجيش، في مهمة تثير الريبة، ما حمل سكان البلدة على التصدي لها ومنعها من إكمال المهمة، فاضطر الجيش اللبناني للتدخل لإخراج الدورية الإيرلندية من أزقة البلدة وتأمين سلامتها، في مشهد أفهم غوتيريش أن ما ظنه أو ما قد سمعه من بعض المسؤولين لن يصرف في الميدان، حيث أكد الأهالي أن ما لم تستطع مناورات أميركا أن تفرضه في عقد ونصف لن يحققه غوتيريش في يوم ونصف.

أما عن الحدود بشقيها البري والبحري فإنني أعتقد أنّ أحداً من المسؤولين لا يثق بأنه يملك «القدرة أو الامكانية أو حتى النية»، لتلبية مطلب أميركا الذي حمله غوتيريش، وأن حالها عندما يحين وقت التنفيذ الجدي، لن يكون أفضل من حال محاولة تغيير قواعد الاشتباك، إذ أنه على رغم كل ما هو قائم من سوء في لبنان على الصعد الاقتصادية والسياسية والمالية، يبقى هناك عناصر ثلاثة تشكل ضمان الحقوق اللبنانية، في طليعتها الجيش والمقاومة والقوي الوطنية من هذا الشعب، الذي على رغم الجوع والفقر والإذلال لا يزال يحتضن تلك القوى التي تحتضن حقوقه، ما يقود إلى القول إن مهمة غوتيريش في دوافعها ومقاصدها الأصلية لم ولن تتوصل إلى إعطاء «إسرائيل» ما تريد، ولكن يبقى الحذر واجبا فمحاولاتهم لن تتوقف.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

أستاذ جامعي – باحث استراتيجي

Al-Mashat: UN in Yemen Covered Political Crimes of the Coalition

24.10.2021

Source: Al Mayadeen

By Al Mayadeen

Mahdi Al-Mashat says the UN Security Council’s positions in Yemen absolve the perpetrators of responsibility.

Visual search query image
Head of the Supreme Political Council in Yemen Mahdi Al-Mashat

In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Yemen’s Supreme Political Council President, Mahdi Al-Mashat, stated that “the role of the United Nations in Yemen was negative via political cover for crimes of Saudi aggression.”

“We are surprised by the Security Council’s and the Secretary- General’s positions that hold accountable the victim and absolve the perpetrator of responsibility,” he added, noting that “the recent Security Council statement, which was accompanied by coalition raids on civilians, is clear evidence of the council’s bias.”

Al-Mashat emphasized that the UN’s continued adoption of a biased policy renders its role “worthless to the people of the world,” noting that the failure to renew the UN group of experts is evidence that proves the reality of a continued bias against Yemen.

The suffering of Yemen, according to Al-Mashat, comes from the rejection of international laws and covenants that consider the aggression from the coalition as “war crimes and genocide.”

Days ago, the head of the Sanaa negotiation delegation, Mohammed Abdulsalam, stated that the “blind bias” of the Security Council has contributed to the prolongation of the conflict in Yemen. 

Abdulsalam stressed that Yemen, in a position of self-defense, “continues to repel the aggression with every possible defense.” 

Last Wednesday, the UN Security Council denounced “the Yemeni Army and Popular Committees’ armed strikes on the Saudi-led coalition”, urging an end to the military escalation in the Marib Governorate in Yemen.

The members of the Security Council demanded an “immediate nationwide ceasefire” in Yemen, citing Resolution 2565. 

Zarif: Netanyahu Meets Same Fate of Anti-Iran Co-Conspirators in History’s Dustbin

June 3, 2021

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif

Zarif made the remarks in a Thursday tweet, comparing Netanyahu’s fate to that of other major anti-Iran figures in the US, who were the Israeli PM’s close allies in his plots against Tehran, including former US President Donald Trump, his former national security advisor John Bolton, and his secretary of state Mike Pompeo.

“Netanyahu has joined the disgraceful journey of his anti-Iran co-conspirators—Bolton, Trump and Pompeo—into the dustbin of history,” Iran’s foreign minister said.

Zarif asserted that Iran continues to stand tall, pointing out that the same fate has been repeated for Iranians’ ill-wishers over several millennia, adding, “Time to change course.”

According to a statement by the UN General Assembly, as of January 13, 2021, ten member states were subject to the provisions of Article 19 of the Charter, namely Iran, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Libya, Niger, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, South Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Under Article 19 of the Charter of the United Nations, members whose arrears equal or exceed the amount of their contributions due for two preceding full years lose their voting rights.

The Charter also gives the General Assembly the authority to decide “that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the member,” and in that case a country can continue to vote.

The top Iranian diplomat also published his previous letter to Guterres, in which he conveyed Iran’s “strong dismay” over his announcement, saying the decision is “fundamentally flawed, entirely unacceptable and completely unjustified” due to Washington’s illegal sanctions on Iran.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran is fully committed to fulfill[ing] its financial obligations to the United Nations and will continue to make every effort to settle the arrears in the payment of its financial contribution to the UN and other international organizations as soon as the underlying imposed conditions, i.e. the US unlawful unilateral coercive measures, is removed,” Zarif’s letter read.

Zarif’s tweet came after earlier in the day, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said the country’s payment of its UN membership dues has been made possible through a South Korean bank and the debt will be paid soon.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has always promptly acted to pay its membership dues to the United Nations, and the problem that arose last year was due to the blocking of the payment route by the United States,” Khatibzadeh told IRNA.

He said the United Nations Secretariat is completely aware of the details of the issue, which he said was not Iran’s fault whatsoever.

According to Khatibzadeh, in negotiations with the UN Treasury, Iran had proposed to transfer the money from its financial resources in South Korea, and it was decided that the Treasury try to remove barriers to the money transfer and pursue acquiring a permit from OFAC (the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control) for the transfer.

“The permit was recently issued and the way for withdrawing the membership dues from Iran’s account in the [South] Korean bank and transferring it to the UN account in Seoul has been paved, and this payment will be made soon,” he added.

Source: Iranian Agencies

Gaza Fails to Get UNSC Humanitarian Corridors Reserved for al Qaeda in Idlib

 MIRI WOOD 

Israel Jewish terrorist settlers lynch Palestinians in Palestine

Gaza was at the center of the special United Nations Security Council VTC meeting on Sunday, 16 May, to debate the “senseless cycle of bloodshed” [in a vacuum] and other forms of “destruction between Israel, Palestinians in Gaza.” The NATO junta controlling that bastion of peace and security engaged in collective shedding of its infamous crocodile tears, expectedly reaffirmed support for Israel’s ‘right to self defense,’ and made a few sotto voce sounds about humanitarian access. This junta has again shown that its double standards are part of its imperial geopolitical goals, as the klan has never been reserved in its demands for al Qaeda to have such corridors in Idlib.

The arrogant false equivalency of a country with a full army, air force, and navy, and an occupied peoples struggling against what Professor Francis Boyle once described as “slow genocide,” was not unexpected; nor was the mealy-mouthed humanitarian concerns voiced at the UN Forum on the Question of Palestine, two days later.

UNSC held special meeting on false equivalency of Israel and Palestinians.

As is the tendency of the NATO junta to use asymmetrical language to cover obvious bias, virtually all members of the debate team called for an immediate ceasefire, in lieu of the accurate cessation of hostilities.

His Excellency, UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres addressed the “open debate” quite somberly, found the both sides “senseless cycle of bloodshed, destruction between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza” “utterly appalling,” and demanded — with somber face –they immediately stop, lest there be a humanitarian crisis and destabilization of the region, and an end to the [non-existent] negotiation for a two-state solution.

Tor Wennesland is the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process. He stated that: Unnamed “military operations” (IDF bombing of civilian areas) had caused the “humanitarian and security situation in the densely populated Gaza Strip” to become increasingly dire every day; that 34,000 have been internally displaced; that forty UNRWA supported schools have been turned into shelters for the displaced (who have been bombed out of their homes); that “As a result of the [Israeli] military [bombing] operations, seven factories40 schools, and at least four hospitals sustained complete or partial damage;” that “At least 18 buildings including 4 high rise towers [apartment homes?] including one housing international media outlets, have been destroyed, and over 350 buildings damaged [by Israeli bombings] [emphases added].” As part of the NATO junta, Wennesland dutifully reported that “[a]ccording to the IDF, these buildings contained Hamas military installations.”

He did not mention that forced displacement, including bombing people’s homes, that destroying schools, and that destroying hospitals are war crimes. Wennesland’s blase census of bombed schools, forced displacement, and the obliteration of actual hospitals in Gaza, might be compared to the countless, war criminally lying, anti-Syria NATO klan-led meetings before the Security Council, particularly those involving fake hospitals, unhospitals, staged hospitals where kidnapped Syrian children have been painted by moulage trauma artists, alleged hospitals where the unlicensed Mengele’s brag about performing surgeries without anesthesia.

Truly utterly appalling was SG Gutteres’ ongoing false equivalency as he shed his hypocritical and crocodile tears over the phony “both sides” narrative, utilizing his western supremacy to ignore Israel’s blatant war crimes, and also his acute amnesia over his obsessive demand for various borders to be opened against Syria’s will, in order to ensure humanitarian corridors for al Qaeda in Idlib, a convenient amnesia that caused him to negligently state that such corridors be opened for the suffering, newly homeless, internally displaced, and hospital-less civilians of Gaza.

Only al Qaeda counts, not homeless and hungry and displaced people of Gaza.

Border crossings for al Qaeda in Idlib a frequent demand by Gutteres — via UNSCR 2165 (2014) — who did not mention humanitarian corridors should be opened for people in Gaza.

Utterly appalled, but not enough to demand humanitarian corridors be opened for Gaza, as the SG has many times demanded they be opened for al Qaeda in Idlib.
“Utterly appalling” “[F]ighting must stop.”
Though he did not use the words, SG Guterres appeared ‘utterly appalled’ when he arrived at the impoverished Caribbean island to lecture St. Lucians about cyclical sargassum and climate.
His Excellency SG Guterres has never mentioned being ‘utterly appalled’ that Tony Blair has never been indicted for war crimes.
Appalment likely assuaged when ‘former’ Portuguese colony with Portuguese name, East Timor, separated from Indonesia.
Bat Yam, not Gaza, but Guterres didn't speak of being utterly appalled by the rabid mob
SG Guterres did not voice being utterly appalled by the brutalization by rabid mob of Palestinian man in Bat Yam.

Syria News will also take a short look at other NATO klan members and their various House Servants, but given that the ridiculous collective script that the new round of war crimes perpetrated by Israel against Palestinians, with special focus on death, forced displacement, destruction of schools and hospitals in Gaza, and that — somehow — deadly hostilities magically erupted, from a vacuum, possibly related to an emotion called hate, we shall first share a few videos to demonstrate actual causation.

On 2 May, Eastern Orthodox Palestinian Christians attempting to celebrate Easter at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, were not only turned away by IDF, mishtara, and assorted other Israeli police, but were brutally beaten, knocked to the ground, hit with batons.

Such an immoral and brutal attack — missed by the NATO junta at the UN — was followed by a series of home evictions with phony religious, true psychopaths in blasphemous breach of the mitzvot of Torah seen throwing Palestinians out of their homes in Sheikh Jarrah (with the help of Israeli police, in many cases), and bragging about stealing these homes, then followed by Netanyahu unleashing rabid savages to invade more homes, beat and murder the people living there, mobs of psychotics beating a Palestinian man nearly to death — all of which Antonio Gutteres and his gang completely missed.

Then there was the inconsequential incident of the attempt to torch Al Aqsa Mosque, while Israeli men watched and danced and cheered in the nearby Kotel. Israeli media actually claimed that it was a tree that somehow caught fire, and that the degenerates looking in the direction of the flames did so by pure coincidence, as they were actually there honestly celebrating Shavuot.

Let us not omit the following video — that SG Gutteres should have found “utterly appalling,” were he not part of the NATO klan of the UN. It contains the Israeli killer wannabe who sped up his car to run over Palestinians, jumping the concrete Jersey barrier to hit them, and who was then protected by the IDF or militarized police; the zaftig gentleman with the NYC accent who graciously explains to the Palestinian woman why he has the right to have stolen her home; a Palestinian George Floyd dragged from his home; a group of women being battered by the Israeli cops who learned the wrong things from the Nazis (slight paraphrase from a comment in a petition of Jews to the then Mayor of Jerusalem, condemning the massive demolition of Palestinian homes. One signatory commented he was a child of the shoa, then added: “Natzi schmatzi! You learned the wrong thing!”); IDF’ers shooting tear gas, shock grenades, and other deadly projectiles into al Aqsa mosque, filled with worshippers.

Civilized human beings are horrified at the brutality, the home invasions and thefts, the military storming of a house of worship, and the firing of weapons by an armed military inside such a sacred place (who, in his or her right mind would consider sending the military to fire shock grenades and other weapons into St. Peter’s Basilica because of large numbers of worshippers on Christmas Eve?)

Along with the other NATO junta members who have taken over the United Nations, Wennesland ignored all of the above videos of various forms of atrocity, ethnic cleansing, indecency, and prattled on about phony equivalency. He gave perfunctory lip service regarding the deaths of generic “Palestinian families stuck inside their homes,” while bringing us emotionally closer to “a five-year-old Israeli boy in Sderot, and a father and daughter in Lod.” He normalized IDF wounding and murdering of flag-waving demonstrators in Lebanon as somehow a legitimate response to rockets allegedly fired from Lebanon into the sea.

UN NATO klansman normalized atrocities as “clashes,” normalized Israeli military storming a house of worship because of Ramadan.
Spec. UN NATO klansman Wennesland normalized IDF wounding and killing flag wavers in Lebanon.
Not Gaza, nor the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Imagine a military firing weapons into St. Peter’s Basilica because of extra worshippers revering Christmas Eve services.

One after the other, the ruling tripartite aggressors of the P3 ruling junta of the United Nations, feigned concern over Gaza again being bombed to rubble, ignored all of the evidence seen in the above videos, and demonstrated their double-standards which condemn Syria for defending its citizenry, laud Israel’s right to self-defense (which every country inherently and per Geneva Agreement of 1949, has), and inferred that persons living under brutal occupation have the same military ability as the occupier.

In addition to France’s overflowing crocodile tears, French media subsequently made an absurd claim that the US ”vetoed” its draft resolution, kept hidden from all, despite the fact that UNSC resolutions must be submitted to the Security Council, and afforded a vote, before any resolution can be vetoed (this author has no idea what kind of geopolitical shade France may attempt to throw).

None demanded that a humanitarian corridor be opened by Israel, to bring in medical supplies, and foodstuffs to the besieged people of Gaza, though the unsubstantiated claim was made that Israel was ‘forced’ to close such a corridor because of ‘sniper fire.’

The US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield — who practically brought in MGM casts of thousands to lie about fraudulent hospitals in Syria and wail about humanitarian corridors to feed al Qaeda in Idlib, while ignoring America’s criminal sanctions, including the phony Caesar Psyop Act, finally passed by stuffing it into the renewal of the fascist NDAA, in March and in April — showed her concern over bombed hospitals and hungry people in Gaza, via her singular tweet on the UN “debate.”

The UN NATO klansmen “open debate” was followed two days later by the imperialist-named UN Forum on the Question of Palestine, led by former US ambassador to the UN, Rosemary DiCarlo, and the diplomat notorious for “hearing voices” and being caught in outright lies at anti-Syria meetings, Mark Lowcock (those interested in knowing exactly what Lowcock said may follow the hyperlink, below. Those interested in his war propaganda history against Syria can follow the tag in the Syria News search engine.).

DiCarlo has addressed the UN during previous anti-Syria meetings, and has always been forceful in her demands for foreign entities to forcefully open humanitarian corridors for al Qaeda in Idlib, forceful in her support of hospitals that do not exist in terrorist-controlled areas of the SAR, forceful in her demands for the imposition of a new Constitution on Syria. In her imperial address on 18 May, she burped up some useless words such as “regrettably,” “both sides,” “tragic reminder,” “unprecedented,” and barely found the energy to cluck that “humanitarian needs are bound to rise considerably, particularly in Gaza, where the situation was already desperate…”.

Not surprisingly, she did not mention the cause of the desperation, nor did she demand Israel open ”humanitarian corridors,” nor did she demand a constitution (despite the creation of Israel being contingent upon a constitution — among other trivialities — 70 years later, it still does not have one).

Macron’s unsuccessful attempt to censor protesters against the attacks on Gaza , the theft of homes in Sheikh Jarrah, and criminal invasion of al Aqsa.
Thomas-Greenfield tweets undisturbed by Israel’s bombing of Gaza.
Rosemary DeCarlo’s 18 May statement of concern was a bit rote.
Touching symbol of UN hypocrisy

After intentionally failing Gaza, will the UNSC klan dare again to demand humanitarian corridors to al Qaeda, in Idlib?

— Miri Wood

APPENDIX

The tripartite aggressors ruling the UN — France, US, UK, the world’s leaders in war crimes and genocide — along with their House Servants, have a very long history of ignoring the crimes of their welfare queen whose job is to destabilize the Levant, and surrounding areas of the African continent. They have ignored every atrocity perpetrated by their apartheid regime.

Baseem Abu Rahme was a pro two-state Palestinian living in the other open air prison, Bilin. He was at every weekly demonstration against the encroaching apartheid wall. On 17 April 2009, the IDF shot him in the chest with a tear gas cannister used as a projectile, and he died immediately from the physiological shock.

Chava Keller lost all of her family to the Nazi camps. At the age of 14, she spent a night in frigid water, hiding from the Nazis, before making her way to then-Palestine, where she subsequently lost her “Zionist dream.” At the age of 77, the IDF shot her in the arm while she attended a demonstration against the occupation. The photograph taken in June 2006 was outside the Defense Ministry, in Tel Aviv, where hundreds gathered to condemn the massive bombing campaign against the people of Gaza.

Roni Bornat had attended a demonstration in Ramallah, where the IDF shot him in the neck with a live bullet, which made him a permanent quadriplegic. He also attended the weekly Bilin demonstrations, joined by various Israeli activists. In the third photo, Israelis Michaela and Limor Goldstein walk with him to fence ‘protected’ by the IDF and mishtara.

These two Israelis assisted this writer who was protected from physical injury of a shock grenade, by the huge boulder seen in the fifth photograph; assistance was mostly in helping to reorient temporarily scrambled brains from the shock.

Less than two months later, the IDF entered deep into Bilin, threatening both Palestinians and their Israeli supporters, and shooting into the crowd of unarmed demonstrators. The IDF shot Limor in the head with a rubber ball, on 8 August 2006. Video included, here. Michaela is seen pouring water on Limor’s head, and is heard screaming for an ambulance.

The UN klan also ignore various rabbis opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestinians, and to the very apartheid wall.

Baseem Abu Rahme was killed when IDF used a tear gas cannister as projectile and fired it into his chest, Friday 17 April 2009, Bilin.
Chava Keller at a hundreds-strong demonstration at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, June 2006.
Israelis joined Palestinians in Bilin against the apartheid wall.
Rani Bornat.
IDF occupiers fire tear gas at unarmed demonstrators. Bilin, June 2006
Israeli apartheid inflicted on Palestinians of Gaza and the ‘West Bank.’

PLEASE SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR SYRIA NEWS:

To help us continue please visit the Donate page to donate or learn how you can help us with no cost on you.
Follow us on Telegram: http://t.me/syupdates link will open the Telegram app.

Abbas Statements are Complicit with Israeli Settler-Colonialism

April 22, 2021

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. (Photo: Kremlin, via Wikimedia Commons)

By Ramona Wadi

Known for belatedly spouting known truths, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas was true to form in his address to the J Street conference recently, which revealed the extent of his collaboration with the international community over Palestine’s loss, and his complicity with Israeli settler-colonialism.

Mentioning “apartheid” as he did cannot gloss over the fact that Abbas is still championing a paradigm that has facilitated Israel’s colonial expansion and de-facto annexation of Palestinian land.

US President Joe Biden’s two-state policy is still unclear. The strategy has worked well for Israel, while advocates of the internationally-imposed paradigm can once again make themselves useful. But the two-state “solution” has already been declared dead in the water and pressuring the US administration to heed a matter of international consensus that still harms Palestinians should not be deemed “the only solution”, as Abbas is fond of claiming. In doing so, he is on the same page as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who insists that “There is no Plan B.”

If Abbas thought that by mentioning the A word he would be doing a service to the Palestinians, he is wrong. Not only has the Israeli NGO B’Tselem beaten him to it declaring that the colonial state has already passed the apartheid threshold, but Palestinians have also been trying to raise awareness regarding Israel’s apartheid policies for years. The PA, meanwhile, was busying itself with the international community’s state-building illusions and tacitly approving Israel’s settlement expansion.

“Moving away from the two-state solution will eventually lead to a de facto one-state solution, an apartheid state, and this is something neither, we nor the entire world would accept,” Abbas said. “A one-state solution will only perpetuate the conflict.”

This is not necessarily true. Moving away from moribund two-state politics can give a chance to the Palestinian people, but only if they have a leadership worthy of the name and cause. The two-state solution, remember, came back into vogue with the announcement of the so-called Abraham Accords, which saw some Arab countries normalize relations with Israel in return, they claimed, to halt Israel’s annexation plans.

Annexation, as Israel has made clear, was simply “postponed”. Nevertheless, the UN had no qualms about endorsing the diplomatic game that facilitated the de-facto annexation of the occupied West Bank.

The Trump administration’s “deal of the century” shifted focus on what would happen if Abbas and the international community keep insisting upon the two-state compromise. Saying that the one-state solution would entrench apartheid is valid only because Palestinians have not been given the political freedom to construct their own independence and liberation process.

Israel has leverage over the one-state concept because it has secured its narrative within the international community. The Palestinian people, though, are burdened with a leadership whose main interest is to impose the international paradigm and call it a “solution”.

So what is the use of the PA participating in such seminars, if it only serves to strengthen the Israeli narrative and colonial expansion? Abbas had the opportunity to speak to J Street — a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” liberal US advocacy group — about the Palestinian concept of a single, democratic state, but he did not take it. It is possible, of course, that his invitation to address the group was conditional upon his promotion of the two-state compromise because there is purportedly no other option for the Palestinian people.

To speak where the funding lies is to maintain two-state politics, now defunct in terms of implementation yet favorable for Israel and its de-facto annexation — aka theft — of Palestinian land. The Palestinian leadership embarked yet again upon another spectacle that revealed its allegiance to external entities over and above the people of occupied Palestine.

– Ramona Wadi is a staff writer for Middle East Monitor, where this article was originally published. She contributed this article to the Palestine Chronicle.

Iran Warns of Consequences of Any Miscalculated ‘Israeli’ Move Over Ship Incident

Iran Warns of Consequences of Any Miscalculated ‘Israeli’ Move Over Ship Incident

By Staff, Agencies

Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht Ravanchi warned of consequences of any possible miscalculated measure by the ‘Israeli’ entity over an explosion that damaged an ‘Israeli’-owned ship in the Sea of Oman last week.

Takht Ravanchi made the remarks in a letter addressed to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres on Friday.

The letter came a week after an ‘Israeli’-owned cargo ship said it had been crippled by a suspected blast while it was in the Sea of Oman, claiming that it suffered holes in both sides of its hull.

Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hastily accused Iran of attacking the ship, but Iran categorically rejected the charge.

“The incident has all the characteristic of a complicated false flag operation carried out by actors in order to pursue their malign policies and to advance their illegitimate objectives,” wrote Takht Ravanchi in his letter to the UN.

The giant MV Helios Ray, a Bahamian-flagged roll-on, roll-off vehicle cargo ship, which sat at dry dock facilities at Dubai’s Port Rashid on Sunday for repairs following the alleged blast, left the port on Wednesday, sailing along the Omani coast toward the Arabian Sea.  

“The ‘Israeli’ regime that threatens Iran on an almost daily basis, desperately attempts, through accusing Iran as well as playing victim to distract attention away from all its destabilizing acts and malign practices across the region,” Iran’s UN envoy further said.

Takht Ravanchi also called on the international community not to lose sight of the “crimes, brutalities and threats” committed by the Tel Aviv regime, particularly “its occupation of Palestine and parts of other countries.”

He also warned the global community of the Zionist entity’s “persistent military adventurism” in a region as volatile as the Middle East.

In conclusion, Takht Ravanchi stressed that Tel Aviv must “be held accountable for all such unlawful and reckless activities and also be reminded that it will bear all consequences as a result of any possible miscalculation.”

We Are The Terrorists

By Caitlin Johnstone

Source

Yemeni children 49c1e

The Trump administration is reportedly close to moving the Houthi rebels in Yemen onto its official list of designated terrorist organizations with the goal of choking them off from money and resources. The head of the UN’s World Food Program along with many other experts caution that this designation will prolong the horrific war which has claimed over a quarter million lives and create an impenetrable barrier of red tape stopping humanitarian aid from getting to the Yemeni people.

The United Nations conservatively estimates that some 233,000 Yemenis have been killed in the war between the Houthis and the US-backed Saudi-led coalition, mostly from what it calls “indirect causes”. Those indirect causes would be disease and starvation resulting from what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calls “the worst famine the world has seen for decades”.

When people hear the word “famine” they usually think of mass hunger caused by droughts or other naturally occurring phenomena, but in reality the starvation deaths we are seeing in Yemen (a huge percentage of which are children under the age of five) are caused by something that is no more natural than the starvation deaths you’d see in a medieval siege. They are the result of the Saudi coalition’s use of blockades and its deliberate targeting of farms, fishing boats, marketplaces, food storage sites, and cholera treatment centers with airstrikes aimed at making the Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen so weak and miserable that they break.

In other words, the US and its allies have been helping Saudi Arabia deliberately kill children and other civilians on mass scale in order to achieve a political goal. Which would of course be a perfect example of any standard definition of terrorism.

We are the terrorists. Saudi Arabia, the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, France and every other nation which has facilitated the horrific mass atrocity in Yemen–this tight globe-spanning power alliance is a terrorist organization the likes of which the world has never seen before. The unfathomably savage and bloodthirsty US empire designating the Houthis as a terrorist organization is the least funny joke that has ever been told.

We are the terrorists. I say “we” instead of our governments because if we are honest with ourselves, we as a civilian population are complicit in this slaughter. The horrors in Yemen are without question the worst thing that is happening in the world right now, yet they comprise barely a blip in our social consciousness. The overwhelming majority of us have seen the pictures and videos of starving Yemeni children, thought something along the lines of “Oh a famine, that’s so sad” and gone back to thinking about sports or whatever other insipid nonsense occupies most of our attention.

We are the terrorists. Yes it is true that we have been propagandized into our complicity with this terrorism and if the news media were doing its purported job Yemen would be front and center in our attention, but we are still complicit. We are still participating in it, still living in a society that is woven of the fabric of slaughter and brutality without rising up and using the power of our numbers to force a change. Just because you are unaware that you sleep on a bed of butchered children doesn’t mean you’re not lying in it.

We are the terrorists. But we don’t need to be.

We can begin waking up together. Waking up our friends and neighbors, spreading consciousness of what’s going on, raising awareness of the horrors our governments are perpetrating in Yemen and in other nations in the name of imperialist domination, helping each other see through the veils of propaganda to how much life and how many resources are being spent on inflicting unspeakable acts of terror upon our world instead of benefiting humanity.

The US government could force an end to the horrors in Yemen almost immediately if it really wanted to. If maintaining unipolar hegemony were suddenly advanced by giving the Houthis victory in Yemen instead of fighting to ensure Washington-aligned rule, the Saudis would withdraw and the war would be over within days. We could make this happen if we could spread enough awareness of the reality of what’s happening in Yemen.

Break the silence on Yemen. Pressure Biden to fulfil his campaign pledge to end the war which was initiated under the Obama-Biden administration. Oppose US imperialism. Weaken public trust in the mass media which refuse to give us a clear picture of what’s going on in the world. Help people realize that their perception of reality is being continually warped and distorted by the powerful.

We end our role in the terrorism of the empire by awakening the citizens of that empire to its acts of terror.

Maduro: EU Demand to Delay Election in Venezuela ‘Impossible

Source

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has dismissed as “impossible” the EU’s suggestion to postpone the country’s December 6 election to meet the bloc’s conditions to dispatch an observer mission, blaming the idea on US pressure.

“It is impossible because there is a very clear constitutional mandate,” Maduro said Thursday in a nationally televised address. “We want to have a good relationship with the European Union, but Washington does not let them.”

Maduro has repeatedly maintained that the administration of hawkish US President Donald Trump is persistently plotting to topple his government in a coup to seize control of the oil-rich nation’s huge crude oil reserves.

Relations between Caracas and Washington have drastically deteriorated in recent years amid multiple efforts by the US government to impose sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company and other industries in its bid to destabilize the country.

Venezuela’s constitution requires a new poll every five years while US-backed opposition parties have vowed to boycott the election.

European and Latin American ministers in the International Contact Group (ICG) declared after their video conference on Thursday that conditions were not ripe to send observers to Venezuela’s parliamentary elections next December.

“ICG members concluded that conditions are not met, at the moment, for a transparent, inclusive, free and fair electoral process,” the group announced in a statement following the conference chaired by EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell.

The ICG groups European countries including Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Italy as well as a number of Latin American countries. Argentina is back in the group while Bolivia has left it.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza invited observers from the United Nations and the European Union, in letters addressed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Borrell early this month, to monitor the upcoming parliamentary elections in the country.

In the letters, Arreaza outlined “the broad electoral guarantees agreed for the upcoming parliamentary elections.”

Maduro pardoned over 100 legislators and associates of US-sponsored opposition figure Juan Guaido to promote national reconciliation ahead of the congressional elections in December.

Guaido pushed Venezuela into political turmoil by dismissing the results of the 2018 presidential election after Maduro won nearly 70 percent of the votes. The opposition figure declared himself “interim president” of Venezuela in January last year and later launched a US-backed abortive coup to oust Maduro’s elected government.

Source: Agecnies

UN Extends UNIFIL Mission by One Year But Reduces Troops

UN Extends UNIFIL Mission by One Year But Reduces Troops

By Staff, Agencies

The UN on Friday renewed its peace mission in Lebanon for a year but reduced its troop capacity and requested that Beirut grant access to tunnels under the border with Israel.

The France-drafted resolution to renew the UNIFIL peacekeeping force was adopted unanimously by the Security Council’s 15 members, according to diplomats.

The council will reduce the troop limit from 15,000 to 13,000, the resolution said, recognizing that the mission has “successfully implemented its mandate since 2006 and has allowed for maintaining peace and security.”

In practice, the decision does not change much because UNIFIL’s current strength is around 10,500 peacekeepers, a diplomat told AFP on condition of anonymity. During negotiations, Washington had asked for a limit of 11,000 peacekeepers.

The resolution urges Lebanon to give UNIFIL investigators access to areas north of the so-called Blue Line – the UN-demarcated border between occupied Palestine and Lebanon.

Backing the “Israeli” entity, which has accused UNIFIL of bias and ineffectiveness, the US has called since early summer for a troop reduction.

In the midst of an economic and political crisis, the Lebanese authorities demanded that the UN mission be extended without any change.

The resolution calls on UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres coordinate with Lebanon and troop-contributing countries within 60 days on a plan for implementing recommendations he made to improve UNIFIL’s performance.

In June, Guterres said the peacekeeping force needed to be “more agile and mobile,” and called for an improved surveillance capacity of the force, including thermal-imaging cameras, hi-tech binoculars and drones.

Set up in 1978, UNIFIL was beefed up after the 2006 war.

The force, in coordination with the Lebanese army, is tasked guaranteeing a ceasefire and “Israeli” withdrawal from a demilitarized zone on the border.

Al-Jaafari Calls on Guterres to Intervene and Stop Turkish Crimes Depriving Hasaka of Drinking Water

Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on 

21 August، 2020
New York, SANA

Syria’s Permanent Representative at the UN, Ambassador Bashar al-Jaafari, called on the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to intervene immediately and to exert all his efforts to stop the Turkish regime’s crime of cutting off drinking water for nearly one million Syrian citizens in Hasaka and its suburbs.

Al-Jaafari’s request came during a phone call with the UN Secretary- General on Friday to inform him about the catastrophic conditions in Hasaka city and its suburbs due to drinking water being cut off, stressing that the Turkish aggressive practice constitutes a war crime and a crime against the humanity.

Al-Jaafari pointed out to the Turkish occupation forces’ use of water as a weapon against civilians by depriving more than a million civilians in Hasaka city and its suburbs of potable water, as the Turkish occupation deliberately and repeatedly cut off water from Allouk station and the wells that feed them more than 15 times for several days, using this tactic to punish the people of Hasaka for their support of the Syrian government and their rejection of Turkish occupation.

He said that the situation caused by this crime is unbearable, particularly due to the hot weather and the threat of the Coronavirus pandemic, reminding Guterres of the official letters directed to him and to the Security Council in this regard, including the complaint dated 31/05/2020, as well as Syria’s statements at the Security Council on this matter, the most recent being made on August 19th, with al-Jaafari saying that Syria is hoping that the General Secretariat will react to these letters urgently.

For his part, Guterres said that he is aware of the situation in Hasaka and that he has tasked the UN team in Syria and his Special Envoy Geir Pedersen with taking the necessary steps to address this matter, resolve it urgently, and deliver humanitarian aid to affected people until Allouk station is operational again.

He said that he could imagine the situation in light of the intense heat and absence of potable water, adding that this situation must be resolved urgently, and that he will exert his best efforts by contacting the Turkish government and other sides to put pressure and resolve this matter as soon as possible.

Guterres also said he will task Pedersen with addressing this matter by meeting the representatives of the US, Russia, and Turkey in Geneva on Monday on the sideline of the meetings of the committee for discussing the constitution.

Baraa Ali / Hazem Sabbagh

Time is Not on Our Side in Libya

Photograph Source: Abdul-Jawad Elhusuni – CC BY-SA 3.0

by VIJAY PRASHAD

JULY 22, 2020

Ahmed, who lives in Tripoli, Libya, texts me that the city is quieter than before. The army of General Khalifa Haftar—who controls large parts of eastern Libya—has withdrawn from the southern part of the capital and is now holding fast in the city of Sirte and at the airbase of Jufra. Most of Libya’s population lives along the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea, which is where the cities of Tripoli, Sirte, Benghazi, and Tobruk are located.

Haftar, who was once an intimate of the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), is now prosecuting a seemingly endless and brutal war against the United Nation’s recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) based in Tripoli and led by President Fayez al-Sarraj. To make matters more confusing, Haftar takes his legitimacy from another government, which is based in Tobruk, and is formed out of the House of Representatives (HOR).

Ahmed says that the quiet is deceitful. Militias continue to patrol the streets along the Salah al-Din Road near where he lives; the rattle of gunfire is anticipated.

On July 8, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres made a statement that could have been delivered at any point over the last decade. “Time is not on our side in Libya,” he announced. He laid out a range of problems facing the country, including the military conflict, the political stalemate between the GNA and the HOR, the numbers of internally-displaced people (400,000 out of 7 million), the continued attempts of migrants to cross the Mediterranean Sea, the threat from COVID-19, and the “unprecedented levels” of “foreign interference.”

The UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution to send a Fact-Finding Mission to Libya to investigate human rights violations in this war, including the mass graves found in Tarhouna. The credibility of the Council is in doubt. An earlier Commission of Inquiry on Libya set up in 2012 to study war crimes in 2011-2012 was shut down largely because the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) refused to cooperate with the investigation. A second inquiry, set up in March 2015, closed its work in January 2016 with the political deal that created the Government of National Accord.

Guterres did not mention the NATO war in 2011. I am told that he wants to appoint a joint Special Representative with the African Union and he would like a full review of the UN mission. All that is well and good; but it is short of what is necessary: an honest look at the NATO war that broke the country, fomenting a conflict that seems without end.

Foreign Interference

Statements about Libya drip with evasion. These terms—“foreign interference” and “foreign-backed efforts”—are dropped into conversations and official statements without any clarification. But everyone knows what is going on.

I ask Rida, who lives in Benghazi (now under the control of General Haftar), what she makes of these phrases. “We all know what is going on,” she tells me via text. “The government in Tripoli is backed by Turkey and others; while Haftar is backed by Egypt and others,” she writes.

At the core, she says, this is a dispute between two regional powers (Turkey and Egypt) as well as a contest between the Muslim Brotherhood (Turkey) and its adversaries (Egypt and the United Arab Emirates). Wrapped up in all this are contracts for offshore drilling in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, which additionally involved Cyprus and Greece.

It is not enough that this is a regional conflict. There is accumulating evidence that General Haftar is being supported by armed mercenaries (from Russia and Sudan) and by arms shipments from France, while the United States seems to have hedged its bets with support to both sides in the conflict.

Last year, General Haftar’s forces moved swiftly toward Tripoli, but were eventually rebuffed by the intervention of Turkey (which provided the Tripoli government with military aid as well as Syrian and Turkish mercenaries).

In late December, Turkey formally signed a military and security agreement with the Tripoli-based GNA, which enabled Turkey to transfer military hardware. This agreement broke the terms of the UN resolution 2292 (2016), recently reaffirmed in UN resolution 2526 (2020). Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have openly been supplying Haftar.

Now, the forces of the Tripoli government have moved to the central coastline city of Sirte, which has emerged as the key hotspot in this contest.

The Tobruk government, which backs General Haftar, and a pro-Haftar tribes council urged Egypt’s General Abdul Fatah El Sisi to intervene with the full force of the Egyptian armed forces if Sirte falls to the Turkish-backed government. Egypt’s military drill—called Hasm 2020—came alongside the Turkish navy’s announcement of maneuvers off the Libyan coast—called Navtex.

This is a most dangerous situation, a war of words escalating between Turkey and Egypt; Egypt has now moved military hardware to its border with Libya.

Oil

Of course, oil is a major part of the equation. Libya has at least 46 billion barrels of sweet crude oil; this oil is highly valued for Europe because of the low costs to extract and transport it. Countries like the UAE, which are pushing the embargo of Libyan oil, benefit from the withdrawal of Libya, Iranian, and Venezuelan oil from already suppressed world oil markets. Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC) has stopped oil exports since January; from about 1.10 million barrels per day, Libyan oil production fell to nearly 70,000 barrels per day.

Neither Haftar nor the Government of National Accord in Tripoli can agree on the export of oil from the country. Oil has not left the country for the better part of the past six months, with a loss—according to the NOC—of about US$6.74 billion. General Haftar controls major oil ports in the east, including Es Sider, and several key oil fields, including Sharara.

Neither side wants the other to profit from oil sales. The United Nations has intervened to try and resolve the differences, but so far there has been limited progress. The entire conflict rests on the belief that either side has that it could win a military victory and therefore take the entire spoils; no one is willing to compromise, since any such agreement would mean a de jure partition of the country into its eastern and western halves with the oil crescent divided between the two.

Demilitarized Zone

UN Secretary-General Guterres has surrendered to reality. In his recent statement on Libya, he listed a series of “de-escalation efforts, including the creation of a possible demilitarized zone”; this “demilitarization zone” would likely be drawn somewhere near Sirte. It would effectively divide Libya into two parts.

Neither Ahmed nor Rida would like their country to be partitioned, its oil then siphoned off to Europe, and its wealth stolen by oligarchs on either side. They had misgivings about Muammar Qaddafi’s government in early 2011; but now both regret the war that has ripped their country to shreds.Join the debate on FacebookMore articles by:VIJAY PRASHAD

Vijay Prashad’s most recent book is No Free Left: The Futures of Indian Communism (New Delhi: LeftWord Books, 2015).

China and Russia Reject UN Secretary General Proposal on Open Borders for Al-Qaeda

Source

June 26, 2020 Arabi Souri

United Nations UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres

China and Russia are reported to have rejected a proposal presented in a communique by the UN Secretary-General presented to the current penholders, Belgium and Germany. The SG has on several occasions expressed his desire to extend the free border crossing from Turkey into Idlib for 12 months. The current mandate established in 2014 (UNSCR 2165) expires on 10 July.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for the opening of Syria’s borders for the free flow of ‘humanitarian aid’ for one year; Syria, China, and Russia object it and consider it a breach of Syria’s sovereignty offering a secure passage for terrorists to sneak into Syria with their weapons as proven in the past.

Per reports, Russia proposed to deliver the intended humanitarian aid through Damascus, the Syrian capital, a proposal the UN’s top diplomat considered ‘not a viable applicable solution’, he might be worried that the Syrian state will confiscate any weapons, gears, and advanced satellite communication devices ‘gifted by the generous western donors’ to al-Qaeda terrorists operating in Idlib.

Resolutions — passed by the P5 Security Council members — require aye votes or a combination of ”ayes” and abstentions. UNSCR 2165 was extended with UNSCR 2393 (2017), UNSCR 2449 (2018)Its likely final extension, UNSCR 2504 (2020) passed with the French “aye,” and abstensions by US, UK, Russia, & China.

There are up to three million Syrians living in the region under the control of a number of assorted al-Qaeda and other Muslim Brotherhood terrorist groups loyal to the Turkish madman Erdogan; the real humanitarian aid delivered to Idlib falls in the hands of those terrorists who then sell it at high prices to the needy Syrian families, whereas if the Russian proposal is accepted, convoys of the aid would be delivered under the supervision of the United Nations itself and not al-Qaeda commanders.

Furthermore, what about the 18 million Syrians not living in al-Qaeda’s safe haven in Idlib and suffering from the increased sanctions imposed on them by the same ‘generous donors’ sending the aid to al-Qaeda terrorist groups in Idlib? Don’t they deserve some help instead of renewing the sanctions against them by the European Union earlier this month and the Trump regime imposing its unprecedented regime of sanctions dubbed the Caesar Act on the 17th of the month? Can the United Nations Secretary-General explain this hypocrisy under the supervision of his organization?

We know there’s no comfortable answer to this question since the UN organization was essentially built under the control of the victors of the WWII to serve their interests not to actually implement its own Charter, otherwise, there are dozens of un-implemented United Nations Security Council resolutions and other resolutions by the United Nations General Assembly to solve the Palestinian problem, the core issue destabilizing most of the world for the past 7 decades.

There is also the UNSC Resolution 2253 issued to dry up the sources of terrorism funding and facilitating, it was issued a few hours before the infamous UNSC Resolution 2254 calling for a ‘political solution for the Syrian crisis’, to enable implementing 2254, the UNSC needs to implement 2253. The United States of America and its cronies never mention Resolution 2253 while never stop calling for the implementation of Resolution 2254, they want to include elements from terrorist groups in the political solution in Syria, ie ministers in a future Syrian government from al-Qaeda… Just naming another example of the ways the UN functions.

Postscript:

It is noteworthy that Antonio Guterres’ humanitarian concerns for the suffering of the Syrian people — by all evidence — is limited to support for NATO countries to impose a new Sykes-Picot in Syria (maps showing that increased, non-sovereign border openings are around areas illegally occupied by Madman Erdogan and Trump regime troops, here.)

SG Guterres did not dispatch communique in condemnation of Erdogan’s bombing the electrical grid of the Alouk Water & Power plant — twice — in October; surely Syrian people need water and electricity.

There has been no communique over Turkey’s occupation of the water plant in Alouk, either, an occupation which has seen Syrians deprived of essential water for days at a time. Surely, humanitarian concerns involve Syrians not having access to their own clean water supplies.

Erdogan War Crimes, SDF Atrocities, No Reconciliation

https://www.syrianews.cc/erdogan-war-crimes-sdf-atrocities-no-reconciliation/embed/#?secret=qdeIMcckxO

The Secretariat has been silent over Trump’s illegals in Syria firebombing wheat fields in Hasaka, last month, followed by ongoing arsonof surrounding Syrian farmlands, by NATO-supported terrorists.

Surely humanitarian concerns of the truly righteous would include concern for the rights of Syrians to have access to their water and their food.

NATO Allies Hold Emergency UNSC Meeting to Save al-Qaeda in Idlib

%d bloggers like this: