Munich-esque Davos

January 31, 2021

Munich-esque Davos

Rostislav Ishchenko – Crossposted with permission from Stalker Zone

Vladimir Putin’s speech, delivered in the format of remote participation in the annual Davos forum, is already being actively compared with his Munich speech of 2007.

Well, there is something in common. It is about the same general as between Stalin’s “Brothers and Sisters!” in 1941 and the toast “To the great Russian people!” in 1945.

The Munich Speech of 2007 stated Russia’s acceptance of the challenge posed by the west. We didn’t attack, we were attacked. We offered peace, but the enemy chose war. We are not going to capitulate, we will win the war. We suggest, before it’s too late, to come to your senses and stop the aggression. The Emperor Aleksandr the Blessed conveyed similar words to Napoleon through the Adjutant-General Balashov in June 1812, adding that if necessary, he would retreat to Kamchatka, but would not lay down his weapons as long as at least one enemy was on Russian soil.

So Putin’s Munich speech is evidence of Russia’s entry into a new (hybrid, informational) Patriotic War. And here is his Davos speech – summing up the results of this war. A kind of new Yalta (the Yalta Conference also took place before Germany finally capitulated).

The people who came up with this move and worked on organising the speech of the President of Russia at the Davos Forum in 2021 should be given the hero of Russia title in full force. It’s also possible to erect a monument. Thanks to their efforts, unlike Yalta in 1945, today Russia has found itself at the origins of a new post-war world in the singular, without any allies/competitors. At the same time, the same China can not be offended — no one has removed it. Somehow it just happened. And its interests are not being violated.

Let’s look at the Davos speech from the point of view of diplomatic art.

Everyone knows that the Davos Forum is a gathering of the global financial and industrial elite, people who have a significant, and sometimes decisive, influence on the policies of their (and sometimes neighboring) states. Politicians, even the most prominent ones, serve only as a condiment there. Their presence is evidence of the importance of the non-political part of the guests. Those who speak from the stage mean much less there than those who are silent and listen on the sidelines. In addition, in terms of information, any speech will be blocked by a dozen others, blocked in a panel discussion. The journalists present at the forum are more interested in showing their own importance by interviewing at least a minor oligarch (Ukrainian, for example, from year to year discuss the colour of dumplings and the size of portions at Pinchuk‘s “Ukrainian Breakfast”, without being distracted by anything else). In general, it is almost impossible to give a speech on this platform an appropriate political and informational sound.

That is why Putin did not go to Davos for 12 years — there was no need.

It was then that the coronavirus pandemic came, which forced the forum to be held remotely. As a result, a huge number of narcissistic peacocks, who previously proudly wore their shiny tails on the sidelines of the forum, remained at home. On Skype, you can’t take a picture against the background of someone from the powerful of this world and you can’t exchange a few words with anyone during a coffee break. The forum was almost forgotten.

But it didn’t die. Its organisers did not want to chop up the chicken that lays the golden eggs, because of some pandemic. If the motley retinue that gave the picture is cut off, and there are only a few dozen people who really make serious decisions, then the problem lies only behind the topic that would captivate everyone so much that it would put the forum held on Skype at the centre of the world information agenda.

Nothing could be better than Putin’s speech to solve this problem.

Firstly, as a result of the crisis in the US, it became obvious even to the deepest skeptics that Washington had lost its leadership in the modern world. Moreover, the Biden coup made the US a pillar of the liberal left and a threat to right-wing conservative forces around the world. The right-wing conservative traditionalist Trump, considered by western conservatives as a potential leader, has been knocked out of politics for a long time, if not forever. At best, he will be able to return to American politics after some time, but he is still far from returning to global politics.

Secondly, there is also no leader among European politicians capable of leading the right-conservative resistance to the left-liberal globalists. Merkel herself is a liberal (though pragmatic), and is also retiring. Macron is ambitious, but he works in the style of “both yours and ours”, he can not be trusted — at any time he can go to the other side. The rest neither came out in caliber, nor the countries they represent can claim to be a leader.

Thirdly, Xi Jinping in China is certainly a conservative leader in Asia, but due to the huge cultural and historical differences, he cannot claim leadership in Europe.

Putin in Davos came to a popular position in the conditions of a complete absence of competitors. It is designed for the world’s financial and industrial elite, was the only offer of a “bright future”, which should come after the final demolition of the American-centric system (and for this reason it turned out to be the number one information topic of the week that no one can ignore).

Putin elegantly demonstrated the inevitability of its final disintegration with a few figures, which showed that while over the past 15-20 years the number of poor people (living on less than $5 a day) in the US has increased by 1.5-fold, in China the number of such people has decreased by 4-fold, and in Russia – 12-fold. At the same time, in Russia today the number of people living on less than $5 a day is already less than in the US.

For people who are used to buying and selling, who know well what the purchasing power of the population is, who are able to calculate processes in dynamics, these figures are a verdict for the US. Moreover, they already know that in military terms, Russia has also overtaken the west forever. The US and Europe do not have the technology to catch up with Moscow in the field of weapons, and there are no resources to develop such technologies in the next decade.

I.e., on the computer screens of about 100 of the most influential people on the planet, the president of Russia appears and offers a model of a new post-American world without an alternative (in the absence of at least some competitor). Putin points out that the loose liberal leftists pose a threat to any statehood, and gently unobtrusively hints that Russia will not just fight this, but is also ready to lead an alliance of healthy conservative forces around the world, ensuring the protection of national statehood from the encroachments of TNCs.

To the natural question in return, without waiting for it to be asked, Putin explains that no one is going to demolish the system to the ground, just in the conditions of a severe systemic crisis, the role of the state in economic life should be strengthened. The state is not going to replace a private initiative. It only plans to smooth out the rough edges and make sure that the private pursuit of profit maximisation does not conflict with public interests and conservative values. What remains behind the scenes is that it is the Russian state that should become the guarantor and leader of this process.

Another unasked question, “How to defeat the left-liberal destroyers of the state in the interests of the transnational financial oligarchy?” was answered on January 23rd and in the following days on the streets of Russian cities. Without excessive violence, without totalitarian prohibitions, but also without liberalism with outright hooliganism. Those who can be negotiated with — an agreement will be made. And those leopards who will change their spots will be jailed (but alive). In general, against the background of what is happening in the world (from Belarus to the US), Russian protective measures are indeed the softest, but at the same time the most effective.

In general, for the global money that really wants to work within the framework of a classical market economy, which doesn’t want to wait for the “golden billion” to turn into a “golden million”, then into a “golden thousand”, and then into a gang of crazy bankers fighting on the ruins of the planet, Putin proposed a way out of the crisis, drew the outline of the “post-Yalta world” (guaranteed by Russian power) and suggested that we begin discussing its final format.

And look, 80 people from among the most influential people on the planet did not laugh in Putin’s face, as it was in 2007 in Munich, and without noise and dust immediately after his open speech signed up for a closed conference with him.

Honest liberals and ordinary urban lunatics can laugh quite sincerely and free of charge at the claims (and evidence) of Russian power and global authority. This queue of those who run the global economy for a private meeting with Putin is the best evidence that what seemed incredible yesterday has become obvious today. Russia has put the terms of a new world on the table. And the world reached out to discuss these conditions.

Finally, once again, I want to draw your attention to the inconspicuous feat of the people who prepared this speech of Putin. In terms of scale and impact on historical processes, this is steeper than the Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk combined. In addition, the victory was achieved with little blood and on foreign territory. The effect of the bomb explosion is achieved by surprise. This is already the corporate identity of Russia. Putin’s speech in Munich was sudden, and the crushing defeat of the presumptuous Saakashvili regime in August 2008 was sudden. The return of Crimea was sudden. And now the same sudden Davos.

The late Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin would have remarked with satisfaction: “This has never happened before, and here it is again!”

SADAT: Blackwater… with a Turkish-Islamic Flavor!

ARABI SOURI 

Turkish SADAT Mercenary and security company - Erdogan

The following is the English translation from Arabic of the latest article by Turkish career journalist Husni Mahali he published in the Lebanese Al-Mayadeen news site Al-Mayadeen Net:

All the opposition’s questions and inquiries remain unanswered as long as the ambiguity hangs over the entire activity and activities of the “SADAT” company.

Turkey has been witnessing for days, far from the interests of the global media, an exciting debate related to the defense philosophy that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan believes in, at least according to the opposition’s perception. The International Defense and Consulting Services Company, SADAT, announced a few days ago, on its official website: “Organizing special courses in the field of assassinations, bombings, raids, ambushes, and special operations.” This was preceded by a webinar in which some thinkers from Islamic countries participated, during which they discussed “the necessity for Islamic countries to have a joint force in order to rise to the level of superpowers in defending themselves.”

The discussion gained additional importance, because the founder and chairman of the company, Adnan Tanri Wardi, was until January of last year a personal advisor to President Erdogan, as well as a member of the Supreme Commission for Defense and Foreign Policy Affairs in the Republican Palace.

Before getting acquainted with the nature of this company and its various activities, it is necessary to introduce the man and his interesting personality, as he was the commander of the special units in the Chief of Staff before he was expelled from the army in 1996 because of his religious activities, and he was also, a friend of Erdogan, a lecturer at the War College about war gangs when the latter (Erdogan) was mayor of Istanbul in 1994, and the current defense minister, Hulusi Akar, was one of his students.

Retired General Tanry Wardi established his company, “SADAT” on February 28, 2012, after being acquainted with the activities of private American security companies, the most important of which was “Blackwater”, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, and before that, Africa and Latin America.

Turkish newspapers published more information about the activity of this company, but without any official response to these allegations and the inquiries and questions of members of parliament by the opposition parties, including Unal Cevikoz from the Republican people, and Aton Geray about the “Good Party”, who called on the government to reveal the secrets of the company’s activities and secrets inside Turkey, and in Syria, Libya and other places. The company announced after its founding in 2012 that among its goals is “to provide security services to the armies and security forces in countries friendly to Turkey.”

The head of the “Good Party”, Maral Akshanar, spoke about the secret training camps of the aforementioned company near the cities of Konya and Tokat in central Anatolia, “and appealed to President Erdogan” to reveal the reasons, objectives and activities of these camps. ” The press information talked more than once about the company’s officers training the various Syrian factions in guerrilla warfare and the various arts of war and fighting since its establishment, especially after the failure of the CIA project to train the militants of the moderate Syrian factions in camps for Turkey in the year 2013-2014.

Spokesmen for the opposition parties accused the company of secretly transferring weapons and combat equipment to the aforementioned factions, after they obtained them from various countries, including Serbia and Ukraine. Journalist Mehmet Ali Gular said in the Cumhuriyet newspaper that Adnan Tanri Wardi persuaded President Erdogan during Sochi’s discussions with President Putin in September 2018 to establish Turkish military observation points in the vicinity of Idlib, despite the objection of the military leadership.

Adnan Tanri Wardi rose to prominence after the failed coup attempt on July 15, 2016, after President Erdogan appointed him as his personal advisor, and it was said that he plays a major role in rearranging the affairs of the military establishment, after Erdogan canceled, by presidential decree, all military colleges and schools to replace them with The National Defense University which is headed now by a professor of Ottoman history close to him, and civilians close to Erdogan head the military colleges of the aforementioned university, which is joined according to criteria that will contribute in the medium and long term to the “Islamization of the military establishment.”

During the past period, opposition newspapers published a lot of news and articles about the company’s activities and the activities of its owner, who was said to have had a direct role in training members of the armed factions in Libya since 2013. He also played an important role in transporting Syrian mercenaries to Libya and supervising their movements there, which is the case also in Karabakh.

Member of Parliament for the Republican People Party, Unal Cevikoz, referred to the confessions of President Erdogan, who last year spoke about “sending various groups to fight in Libya,” and asked: “What are these various groups? What is the aforementioned company’s relationship with it? What is the number of its members? How much the Turkish state pays it? What are its special tasks in Libya or Syria or anywhere else if it exists?

This may explain the call of Aula Jalbka and Andre Hahn, members of parliament for the left party of the German government, to “follow up the activities of the mentioned company and its relations with the Turkish community and Islamic mosques in Germany,” and French President Macron did not hide his concern “about the Turkish secret activity among the Muslim communities in his country and in Europe in general. “

The sudden change in the internal system of the armed forces came at the end of last month, as the intelligence and internal security forces would be able to use whatever they want from the army’s weapons, to increase the suspicions of the opposition, which accused President Erdogan in the past of “working to form armed militias loyal to him directly to be used in emergency situations,” without the opposition parties and forces being able to confront Erdogan’s projects and plans as long as he controls the majority in parliament and controls all state facilities and apparatus, the most important of which are the army, intelligence, security, money, and the judiciary, and 95% of the state and private media.

Erdogan seeks to silence his opponents through financial fines imposed by government authorities on opposition newspapers, while the Supreme Council of Radio and Television decides to close television stations or impose heavy financial fines on them, under the pretext that they broadcast news that contradicts “the national interests of the nation and the Turkish state,” which means objection to his policies.

All of this explains President Erdogan’s attack on the leaders of the opposition parties and all those who oppose him, accusing them all of “terrorism, national treason, and espionage.” In turn, the security and judiciary will prosecute anyone who objects to this statement and charge him with insulting the President of the Republic, which carries a sentence of between one and three years in prison.

The opposition says that what the Turkish president aims to do is prevent his opponents on the right and left from talking about the secrets of Turkish activities, official and unofficial, in the military, security, and intelligence sectors abroad, especially in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, and in its neighboring countries, and now in Azerbaijan and Ukraine.

All the opposition’s questions and inquiries remain unanswered as long as the ambiguity hangs completely over the work and activities of the “SADAT” company. “There is no difference between it and the notorious American” Blackwater “company in Iraq and other Arab and African countries, said Ozkur Ozal, a spokesman for the CHP.

Aiton Girai, a member of parliament for the “Good Party”, expressed “his concern about the activities of the aforementioned secret company in Libya,” saying that it is there to achieve balance with the Russian “Wagner” company that supports General Haftar’s forces.

In all cases, and with the continued ambiguity that hangs over the activities of the aforementioned company, everyone knows that it has a very important role in serving the goals, plans, and projects of the Turkish President, both internally and externally, without anyone being able to go into the details, as long as the issue is related to the national security of Turkey, which only Erdogan defines its concepts and standards!

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 Telegram app.

“بلاك ووتر”.. بنكهة تركيّة إسلاميّة!

حسني محلي

حسني محلي
المصدر: الميادين نت
18 كانون الثاني 15:48

تبقى جميع أسئلة المعارضة واستفساراتها من دون جواب، ما دام الغموض يخيم بالكامل على نشاط شركة سادات وفعالياتها.

قام الجنرال المتقاعد تانري واردي بتأسيس شركته

تشهد تركيا منذ أيام، وبعيداً من اهتمامات الإعلام العالمي، نقاشاً مثيراً له علاقة بفلسفة الدفاع التي يؤمن بها الرئيس رجب طيب إردوغان، على الأقل بحسب تصوّر المعارضة، فقد أعلنت الشركة الدولية للدفاع والخدمات الاستشارية “سادات” قبل أيام، عبر موقعها الرسمي على الإنترنت، “عن تنظيم دورات خاصة في مجال الاغتيالات والتفجيرات والمداهمات والكمائن والعمليات الخاصة”. وسبق ذلك ندوة عبر الإنترنت شارك فيها بعض المفكّرين من دول إسلامية، تم خلالها مناقشة “ضرورة أن يكون للدول الاسلامية قوة مشتركة حتى ترتقي إلى مستوى الدول العظمى في الدفاع عن نفسها”. 

واكتسب النقاش أهميّة إضافيّة، لأنّ مؤسّس الشركة ورئيس مجلس إدارتها، عدنان تانري واردي، كان حتى كانون الثاني/يناير من العام الماضي مستشاراً شخصياً للرئيس إردوغان، كما كان عضواً في الهيئة العليا لشؤون الدفاع والسياسة الخارجية في القصر الجمهوري.

وقبل الاطّلاع على ماهية هذه الشّركة وأنشطتها المختلفة، لا بدَّ من التعريف بالرجل وبشخصيّته المثيرة، فقد كان قائداً للوحدات الخاصة في رئاسة الأركان قبل أن يطرد من الجيش في العام 1996 بسبب أنشطته الدينيّة، وكان أيضاً، وهو صديق لإردوغان، محاضراً في الكلية الحربية حول حرب العصابات عندما كان الأخير رئيساً لبلدية إسطنبول في العام 1994، وكان وزير الدفاع الحالي خلوصي أكار من تلامذته. 

وقد قام الجنرال المتقاعد تانري واردي بتأسيس شركته “سادات” في 28 شباط/فبراير 2012، بعد أن اطلع على نشاط الشركات الأمنية الأميركية الخاصة، وأهمها “بلاك ووتر”، في العراق وأفغانستان واليمن، وقبلها أفريقيا وأميركا اللاتينية. 

ونشرت الصحف التركية المزيد من المعلومات عن نشاط هذه الشركة، ولكن من دون أن يرد أي مسؤول رسمي على هذه الادعاءات وعلى استفسارات وأسئلة أعضاء البرلمان عن أحزاب المعارضة، ومنهم آونال جاويكوز عن الشعب الجمهوري، وآيتون جيراي عن الحزب “الجيد”، اللذان ناشدا الحكومة للكشف عن خفايا أنشطة الشركة وأسرارها داخل تركيا، وفي سوريا وليبيا وأماكن أخرى. وقد أعلنت الشركة بعد تأسيسها في العام 2012 أنَّ من بين أهدافها “تقديم خدمات أمنية لجيوش وقوى الأمن في الدول الصديقة لتركيا”.

وتحدَّثت رئيسة الحزب “الجيد” مارال أكشانار “عن مخيمات تدريب سرية تابعة للشركة المذكورة قرب مدينتي قونيا وتوكات وسط الأناضول”، وناشدت الرئيس إردوغان “للكشف عن أسباب هذه المخيمات وأهدافها وفعالياتها”. وتحدّثت المعلومات الصّحافية أكثر من مرة عن قيام ضباط الشركة بتدريب عناصر الفصائل السورية المختلفة على حرب العصابات ومختلف فنون الحرب والقتال منذ تأسيسها، وخصوصاً بعد فشل مشروع المخابرات الأميركية في تدريب مسلحي الفصائل السورية المعتدلة في مخيمات خاصة بتركيا في العام 2013-2014. 

واتهم المتحدثون باسم أحزاب المعارضة الشركة بنقل الأسلحة والمعدات القتالية سراً إلى الفصائل المذكورة، بعد أن حصلت عليها من دول مختلفة، ومنها صربيا وأوكرانيا. وقال الصحافي محمد علي جوللار في صحيفة “جمهوريات” إن عدنان تانري واردي هو الذي أقنع الرئيس إردوغان خلال مناقشات سوتشي مع الرئيس بوتين في أيلول/سبتمبر 2018، بإنشاء نقاط المراقبة العسكرية التركية في جوار إدلب، على الرغم من اعتراض القيادات العسكرية على ذلك. 

وسطع نجم عدنان تانري واردي بعد محاولة الانقلاب الفاشلة في 15 تموز/يوليو 2016، بعد أن عيَّنه الرئيس إردوغان مستشاراً شخصياً له، وقيل إنّه يؤدي دوراً رئيسياً في إعادة ترتيب أمور المؤسسة العسكرية، بعد أن ألغى إردوغان بمرسوم رئاسي كل الكليات والمدارس العسكرية، لتحلّ محلها جامعة الدفاع الوطني، ويترأسها الآن بروفيسور في التاريخ العثماني مقرب منه، كما يترأس مدنيون مقربون منه الكليات العسكرية التابعة للجامعة المذكورة التي يتم الانضمام إليها وفق معايير ستساهم على المدى المتوسط والبعيد في “أسلمة المؤسسة العسكرية”. 

ونشرت صحف المعارضة خلال الفترة الماضية الكثير من الأخبار والمقالات عن نشاط الشركة وفعاليات صاحبها، الذي قيل إنّ له دوراً مباشراً في تدريب عناصر الفصائل المسلحة في ليبيا منذ العام 2013. كما أدى دوراً مهماً في نقل المرتزقة السوريين إلى ليبيا والإشراف على تحركاتهم فيها، وهو الحال أيضاً في كاراباخ. 

وأشار عضو البرلمان عن الشعب الجمهوري آونال جاويكوز إلى اعترافات الرئيس إردوغان الذي تحدث العام الماضي عن “إرسال مجموعات متنوعة للقتال في ليبيا”، وتساءل: “يا ترى، ما هي هذه المجموعات المتنوعة؟ وما علاقة الشركة المذكورة بها؟ وما هو عدد عناصرها؟ وكم تدفع الدولة التركية لها؟ وما هي مهماتها الخاصة في ليبيا أو سوريا أو أي مكان آخر إن كان موجوداً؟”.

وقد يفسر ذلك دعوة كلّ من آوللا جالبكا وأندريه هان، عضوي البرلمان عن حزب اليسار الحكومة الألمانية، “لمتابعة نشاط الشركة المذكورة وعلاقاتها بالجالية التركية والجوامع الإسلامية الموجودة في ألمانيا”، كما لم يخفِ الرئيس الفرنسي ماكرون قلقه “من النشاط السري التركي بين الجاليات الإسلامية في بلاده وأوروبا عموماً”.

وجاء التغيير المفاجئ في النظام الداخلي للقوات المسلّحة نهاية الشهر الماضي، إذ سيتسنى للمخابرات وقوى الأمن الداخلي استخدام ما تشاء من أسلحة الجيش، ليزيد من شكوك المعارضة التي اتهمت الرئيس إردوغان سابقاً “بالعمل على تشكيل ميليشيات مسلحة موالية له مباشرة لاستخدامها في الحالات الطارئة”، من دون أن يتسنى لأحزاب وقوى المعارضة أن تتصدى لمشاريع إردوغان ومخططاته ما دام يملك الأغلبية في البرلمان ويسيطر على جميع مرافق الدولة وأجهزتها، وأهمها الجيش والمخابرات والأمن والمال والقضاء، و95% من وسائل الإعلام الحكومي والخاصّ.

ويسعى إردوغان لإسكات معارضيه من خلال الغرامات المالية التي تفرضها السلطات الحكومية على صحف المعارضة، في الوقت الذي يقرر المجلس الأعلى للإذاعة والتلفزيون إغلاق محطات التلفزيون أو فرض غرامات مالية كبيرة عليها، بحجة أنها تبث أخباراً تتناقض مع “المصالح الوطنية والقومية للأمة والدولة التركية”، وهو ما يعني الاعتراض على سياساته.

 ويفسر كل ذلك هجوم الرئيس إردوغان على قيادات أحزاب المعارضة وكل من يعارضه، واتهامهم جميعاً “بالإرهاب والخيانة الوطنية والعمالة والتجسس”. بدوره، يلاحق الأمن والقضاء كل من يعترض على هذا الكلام، ويوجه له تهمة الإساءة إلى رئيس الجمهورية، التي تتراوح عقوبتها بين عام و3 أعوام في السجن.

وتقول المعارضة إن ما يهدف إليه الرئيس التركي هو منع معارضيه في اليمين واليسار من الحديث عن أسرار الأنشطة التركية، الرسمية منها وغير الرسمية، عسكرياً وأمنياً واستخباراتياً في الخارج، وبشكل خاص في سوريا وليبيا والعراق والصومال والدول المجاورة لها، والآن في أذربيجان وأوكرانيا. 

وتبقى جميع أسئلة المعارضة واستفساراتها من دون جواب، ما دام الغموض يخيم بالكامل على نشاط شركة “سادات” وفعالياتها. وقد قال آوزكور آوزال، المتحدث باسم حزب الشعب الجمهوري، “أن لا فرق بينها وبين شركة “بلاك ووتر” الأميركية السيئة الصيت في العراق ودول عربية وأفريقية أخرى”.

وعبّر آيتون جيراي، عضو البرلمان عن الحزب “الجيد”، “عن قلقه من فعاليات الشركة المذكورة السرية في ليبيا”، وقال عنها “إنها تتواجد هناك لتحقيق التوازن مع شركة “واغنر” الروسية التي تدعم قوات الجنرال حفتر”.

وفي جميع الحالات، ومع استمرار الغموض الذي يخيم على فعاليات الشركة المذكورة، يعرف الجميع أنَّ لها دوراً مهماً جداً في خدمة أهداف الرئيس التركي ومخططاته ومشاريعه على الصعيدين الداخلي والخارجي، من دون أن يتسنى لأحد الدخول في التفاصيل، ما دام الموضوع له علاقة بالأمن الوطني والقومي لتركيا، ولا يحدد أحد مفاهيمه ومعاييره إلا  إردوغان وحده!

Erdogan and Libya… Will the Ottoman Dream End?

ARABI SOURI 

Erdogan the Ottoman Caliph Wannabe - Syria Libya Yemen Africa Azerbaijan

The following is the English translation from Arabic of the latest article by Turkish career journalist Husni Mahali he published in the Lebanese Al-Mayadeen news site Al-Mayadeen Net:

The last week of last year witnessed interesting developments in the Libyan file, and it seems that it will become more hot and interesting during the next few days and weeks; after the fiery statements made by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar calling for the “expulsion of the Turkish occupier”, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan did not delay in responding by sending the Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar and the commanders of the armed forces to Tripoli, in a new attempt from him to flex the muscles, which he relatively failed in after his “strategic ally” Fayez al-Sarraj refused to receive the delegation that met the pro-Ankara figures led by the Minister of Interior, Fathi Bash Agha, who has Ottoman origins, in the midst of information that started talking about differences, splits and conflicts between the forces, factions, and armed groups that support the government Al-Wefaq, some of which are loyal to Turkey, which the Misrata factions attach special importance to, considering that their militants are a remnant of Ottoman rule, according to President Erdogan’s classification.

Erdogan had talked about a million Libyans of successive Ottoman origins, since Sultan ‘Suleiman the Magnificent’ responded to the request for help from the Libyans to protect them from the attacks of the Knights of Malta and Rhodes in the year 1553, and this Ottoman rule continued until 1911 when Italy occupied Tripoli.

The press information also talks about an important role for Abdul Hakim Belhadj, who lives in Turkey, and who owns the “Wings” aviation company, which played an important role in the transfer of Syrian mercenaries to the Mitiga base near Tripoli. Belhadj, who fought alongside bin Laden, is considered one of the most important leaders of the armed factions in the relationship between Ankara and the rest of the Libyan groups that helped it to establish two air bases in Mitiga and Al-Watiyah, and another navy base west of Misrata.

The Turkish officers are training the Libyans in these bases on various types of weapons, including the use of drones and heavy guns, which explains the words of Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, who said during his press conference with Lavrov in Sochi on December 29: ‘Haftar or any other country has no right to ask Turkey to leave the Libyan territories and stop its support for the legitimate government, Turkey will not leave,’ which is the main topic in the discussions of the Libyan parties under the auspices of the United Nations, and had previously agreed to hold elections on December 24, That all foreign forces and mercenaries be expelled from Libya until that date.

Everyone knows that this talk specifically targets Turkey, which is the only country that has officially sent military forces to Libya, and it is the only country that, with President Erdogan’s admission, transferred thousands of Syrian mercenaries to Libya.

And the entry of Egypt on the line of its crisis came to embarrass President Erdogan. The information expects that he will seek to host the Speaker of the Libyan Parliament, Aguila Saleh, in Istanbul, in response to Cairo’s efforts in dialogue with the Libyan parties in Tripoli, which was visited by an Egyptian military, intelligence, and political delegation a day after the visit of Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar.

The Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry’s call to his Libyan counterpart, Muhammad al-Sayala, and after that al-Sayala’s visit to Moscow and his meeting with Minister Lavrov, came amid information that talks about a joint Russian-Egyptian move to bring together Sarraj and Haftar at a summit that settles all matters on the road to final reconciliation.

This may mean ending the Turkish military role in Libya, in which Paris also seeks to play an important role in it, and at all levels, and everyone knows that this role was and will remain against the calculations of Ankara, which is facing many difficulties and problems in its relations with the European Union, and the main reason for this is the President Emmanuel Macron solidarity with Greece and Cyprus.

With Macron remaining in power in the next May elections, he will continue to create problems for Erdogan’s Turkey, and the latter will then find himself in an unenviable position, with possible pressure from President Biden, in the absence of his “traditional friend”, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who will give up her position in this coming September.

All these rapid and successive developments did not prevent Erdogan from continuing to implement his agenda in Libya, in which he sees his important arena to challenge his regional and international enemies, especially Cairo and Paris, which he hopes will return to its normal relations with Ankara in the event that Macron loses in the next elections.

Erdogan did not neglect the appointment of his new ambassador in Paris after he has found the right person for that, a former friend of Macron at the university. The information talks about the Turkish president’s desire to achieve a similar breakthrough in the relationship with Cairo, which Minister Cavusoglu spoke a few days ago about “open intelligence channels with it, as is the case with Tel Aviv,” and perhaps to face all future possibilities.

In all cases, whatever the possible results of the Libyan reconciliation efforts, which information of Ankara’s attempts to obstruct it, it has become clear that Erdogan will mobilize all his Libyan, regional and international capabilities to stay in Libya, for many reasons, the most important of which are psychological, and because he will not accept defeat easily.

Erdogan also does not want his efforts to go to waste, and he is the one who planned to obtain a share in Libyan oil and gas on land and in sea, and also planned to send Turkish companies to Libya, to contribute to the reconstruction of what the war has destroyed, which will bring Turkey a large income that will help it overcome its difficult financial crisis.

The wager on the ideological side that he attaches to special importance in all of his calculations and movements since the so-called “Arab Spring” remains. Without this aspect, Erdogan will not remain the leader of all Islamists in the world, and he will lose his most important weapon in addressing his supporters and followers at home, who are the ones he accustomed to his Ottoman national, religious and historical statements, and he succeeded in convincing them that the whole world is jealous of Turkey and envies it for its victories and feared its greatness!

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 Telegram app.

إردوغان وليبيا.. هل ينتهي الحلم العثماني؟

إردوغان تحدث عن وجود مليون ليبي من أصول عثمانية في ليبيا.
إردوغان تحدث عن وجود مليون ليبي من أصول عثمانية في ليبيا.
حسني محلي
باحث علاقات دولية ومختصص بالشأن التركي

حسني محلي 

المصدر: الميادين نت

يجري تداول معلومات عن تحرك روسي- مصري مشترك لجمع السراج وحفتر في قمة تحسم كل الأمور على طريق المصالحة النهائية، وقد يعني ذلك إنهاء الدور التركي العسكري في ليبيا.

شهد الأسبوع الأخير من العام الماضي تطورات مثيرة على صعيد الملف الليبي، ويبدو أنه سيزداد سخونة وإثارة خلال الأيام والأسابيع القليلة القادمة، فبعد تصريحات نارية أطلقها المشير خليفة حفتر، ودعا فيها إلى “طرد المحتل التركي”، لم يتأخر الرئيس التركي رجب طيب إردوغان في الرد على ذلك بإرسال وزير الدفاع خلوصي آكار وقادة القوات المسلحة إلى طرابلس، في محاولة جديدة منه لعرض العضلات، وهو ما فشل فيه نسبياً بعد أن رفض “حليفه الاستراتيجي” فايز السراج استقبال الوفد الذي التقى الشخصيات الموالية لأنقرة، وفي مقدمتها وزير الداخلية فتحي باش آغا ذو الأصول العثمانية، وسط المعلومات التي بدأت تتحدث عن خلافات وانشقاقات وصراعات بين القوى والفصائل والمجموعات المسلحة التي تدعم حكومة الوفاق، وبعضها موالٍ لتركيا التي تولي فصائل مصراتة أهمية خاصّة، باعتبار أن مسلحيها من بقايا الحكم العثماني، وفق تصنيف الرئيس إردوغان. 

وكان إردوغان قد تحدث عن مليون ليبي من أصول عثمانية متتالية، منذ أن لبى السلطان سليمان القانوني طلب النجدة من الليبيين لحمايتهم من هجمات فرسان مالطا ورودوس في العام 1553، واستمر هذا الحكم العثماني حتى العام 1911، عندما احتلت إيطاليا طرابلس.

وتتحدث المعلومات الصحافية أيضاً عن دور مهم لعبد الحكيم بلحاج المقيم في تركيا، والذي يملك شركة “الأجنحة” للطيران، التي أدت دوراً مهماً في عملية نقل المرتزقة السوريين إلى قاعدة معيتيقة قرب طرابلس. كما أن بلحاج الذي قاتل إلى جانب بن لادن يعدّ من أهم قيادات الفصائل المسلّحة في العلاقة بين أنقرة وباقي المجموعات الليبية التي ساعدتها لإنشاء قاعدتين جويتين في معيتيقة والوطية، وأخرى بحرية غرب مصراتة.

ويقوم الضباط الأتراك بتدريب الليبيين في هذه القواعد على مختلف أنواع الأسلحة، بما فيها استخدام الطائرات المسيرة والمدافع الثقيلة، وهو ما يفسر كلام وزير الخارجية التركي مولود جاويش أوغلو، الذي قال خلال مؤتمره الصحافي مع لافروف في سوتشي بتاريخ 29 كانون الأول/ديسمبر المنصرم: “لا يحق لحفتر أو أي دولة أخرى أن تطلب من تركيا مغادرة الأراضي الليبية ووقف دعمها للحكومة الشرعية، تركيا لن تغادر”، وهو الموضوع الأساسي في مجمل مباحثات الأطراف الليبية برعاية أممية، وسبق أن اتفقت على إجراء الانتخابات في 24 كانون الأول/ديسمبر القادم، على أن يتم إخراج كل القوات الأجنبية والمرتزقة من ليبيا حتى ذلك التاريخ.

ويعرف الجميع أن هذا الحديث يستهدف تركيا تحديداً، وهي الدولة الوحيدة التي أرسلت رسمياً قوات عسكرية إلى ليبيا، وهي الوحيدة التي قامت باعتراف الرئيس إردوغان بنقل الآلاف من المرتزقة السوريين إلى ليبيا.

وجاء دخول مصر على خط أزمتها ليحرج الرئيس إردوغان. وتتوقع المعلومات أن يسعى إلى استضافة رئيس البرلمان الليبي عقيلة صالح في إسطنبول، كرد على مساعي القاهرة في الحوار مع الأطراف الليبية في طرابلس التي زارها وفد عسكري واستخباراتي وسياسي مصري بعد يوم من زيارة وزير الدفاع التركي خلوصي آكار. 

وجاء اتصال وزير الخارجية المصري سامح شكري بنظيره الليبي محمد السيالة، ومن بعده زيارة السيالة إلى موسكو ولقائه الوزير لافروف، وسط المعلومات التي تتحدَّث عن تحرك روسي – مصري مشترك لجمع السراج وحفتر في قمة تحسم كل الأمور على طريق المصالحة النهائية. 

وقد يعني ذلك إنهاء الدور التركي العسكري في ليبيا التي تسعى باريس أيضاً لأداء دور مهم فيها، وعلى جميع الأصعدة، ويعرف الجميع أنَّ هذا الدور كان وسيبقى ضد حسابات أنقرة التي تواجه الكثير من المصاعب والمشاكل في علاقاتها مع الاتحاد الأوروبي، والسبب الرئيسي في ذلك هو الرئيس إيمانويل ماكرون المتضامن مع اليونان وقبرص.

وببقاء ماكرون في السلطة في انتخابات أيار/مايو القادم، سوف يستمر في خلق المشاكل لتركيا إردوغان، وسيجد الأخير نفسه حينها في وضع لا يحسد عليه، مع الضغوط المحتملة من الرئيس بايدن، بغياب “صديقته التقليدية” المستشارة الألمانية أنجيلا ميركل التي ستتخلّى عن منصبها في أيلول/سبتمبر القادم. 

ولم تمنع كلّ هذه التطورات السريعة والمتلاحقة إردوغان من الاستمرار في تطبيق أجندته في ليبيا، التي يرى فيها ساحته المهمة لتحدي أعدائه الإقليميين والدوليين، وبشكل خاص القاهرة وباريس، التي يتمنى لها أن تعود إلى علاقاتها الطبيعية مع أنقرة في حال خسارة ماكرون في الانتخابات القادمة.

ولم يهمل إردوغان تعيين سفير جديد له في باريس، بعد أن وجد الشخص المناسب لذلك، وهو صديق سابق لماكرون في الجامعة. وتتحدث المعلومات عن رغبة الرئيس التركي في تحقيق انفراج مماثل في العلاقة مع القاهرة، التي تحدَّث الوزير جاويش أوغلو قبل أيام عن “قنوات استخباراتية مفتوحة معها، حالها حال تل أبيب”، وربما لمواجهة كل الاحتمالات المستقبلية.

وفي جميع الحالات، وأياً كانت النتائج المحتملة لمساعي المصالحة الليبية، والتي تتحدَّث المعلومات عن محاولات أنقرة لعرقلتها، فقد بات واضحاً أن إردوغان سيستنفر كل إمكانياته ليبياً وإقليمياً ودولياً للبقاء في ليبيا، لأسباب عديدة، أهمها نفسية، ولأنه لن يتقبل الهزيمة بسهولة.

كما لا يريد إردوغان لأتعابه أن تذهب هباء منثوراً، وهو الذي خطط للحصول على حصة ما في النفط والغاز الليبي براً وبحراً، كما خطط لإرسال الشركات التركية إلى ليبيا، لتساهم في إعادة إعمار ما دمرته الحرب، وهو ما سيحقق لتركيا دخلاً كبيراً يساعدها على تجاوز أزمتها المالية الصعبة. 

ويبقى الرهان على الجانب العقائدي الذي يوليه أهمية خاصة في مجمل حساباته وتحركاته منذ ما يسمى بـ”الربيع العربي”. ومن دون هذا الجانب، لن يبقى إردوغان زعيماً لجميع الإسلاميين في العالم، كما سيخسر سلاحه الأهم في مخاطبة أنصاره وأتباعه في الداخل، وهم الذين عوَّدهم على مقولاته القومية والدينية والتاريخية العثمانية، ونجح في إقناعهم بأن العالم أجمع يغار من تركيا ويحسدها على انتصاراتها ويهاب من عظمتها!

Lebanon’s Collapse Is Like the Titanic’s Sinking – French FM

Lebanon’s Collapse Is Like the Titanic’s Sinking – French FM

By Staff, Agencies

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian likened Lebanon’s political and economic collapse to the sinking of the Titanic, only without the music.

“Lebanon is the Titanic without the orchestra,” Le Drian told the daily Le Figaro in an interview published on Sunday. “The Lebanese are in complete denial as they sink, and there isn’t even the music.”

Le Drian’s remarks set a pessimistic tone a little over a week before French President Emmanuel Macron makes his third visit to Beirut since a massive port blast destroyed swathes of the city and killed 200 people in August.

Macron is losing patience with Lebanon’s politicians as rival politicians mired in turf battles stand in the way of sweeping reforms that donors say are imperative for badly-needed financial aid to be released.

It is believed the Titanic’s orchestra kept playing for as long as it could as the liner went down in the Atlantic Ocean in 1912, trying to help keep passengers calm amid impending doom. All the musicians perished.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the 28th Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Moscow, December 10, 2020

Source

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the 28th Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Moscow, December 10, 2020
File Photo

11 December 202000:22

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the 28th Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Moscow, December 10, 2020

Colleagues, friends,

Fyodor Lukyanov spoke about the role of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy. Who would have thought at the time when the Council was created, and I was invited to join in as a co-founder, that the Council would live to this day. The experience gained over the decades of its functioning is instrumental in our work and makes it possible to bounce ideas off the expert community, which is deeply versed in international matters and is keenly interested in them. This is important.

This year was truly challenging and pivotal. Humanity was unprepared for the differences and mixed trends that had been piling up on the agenda over years and exacerbated confusion in international affairs. The habitual way of life of hundreds of millions of people and states, as well as ordinary citizens, has been upended, many sectors of the economy found themselves on the verge of collapse, business activity has significantly decreased, global cooperation chains were disrupted and the unemployment rates went up. Closed borders abruptly reduced the chances for maintaining multifaceted contacts between the countries and the people.

The scale and inertia of the events that we are witnessing in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic make it impossible to say when life will get back to normal. I hope Mr Lukyanov was right when he confidently stated, albeit with reservations, that we will be able to meet in person in the spring. So far, humanity and its best representatives in the person of healthcare professionals are just trying to understand where we are and when this might end. Many people are saying that this will never end, and we will have to live with it just like the annual flu, but with much more severe consequences. One of the key lessons of the pandemic is that no one can secure themselves against these cross-border threats.

The pandemic affected literally everyone. Clearly, this kind of global cataclysm can only be overcome by uniting and rising above fleeting differences. President Putin has repeatedly stated this firm position adopted by Russia. Unfortunately, a number of countries, primarily the United States and its allies, are trying to take advantage of this situation in their geopolitical interests and ignore the needs that are common to humanity.

The term “common to humanity” does not at all mean an average, consensus-based or accommodating understanding of how the inter-civilisational diversity should be respected. This manifests itself in way too many areas of modern international life, including the interpretation of multilateralism energetically promoted and propagated by our Western colleagues. This is also happening in connection with the coronavirus pandemic, despite the fact that people in America and Europe are suffering from COVID-19 as badly as people in other countries.

The need for conducting a mutually respectful dialogue and rejecting artificially created confrontational schemes is nowhere to be seen. Just think of the indiscriminate accusations against China regarding the spread of the disease. There was an attempt to blame the PRC for everything that happened. This undermined the efforts to achieve unity, including of the research capacities, in order to come up with effective responses. In addition to healthcare aspects, we must take a closer look at the international bodies in charge of the health and well-being of the people. The WHO-related developments are quite telling in his regard. Ideas are being put forward to create some non-governmental institutions mandated to determine the international community’s policy. This is a clear attempt to sideline the World Health Organisation. These developments are reminiscent of neo-colonial approaches and habits and show the attempts to restrain the formation of new global centres and to punish those who pursue an independent foreign policy. This can also be seen in the “vaccine race.” We are well aware of attempts to oppose the new concept of the so-called rules-based international order to everything that has been created after establishing the UN and forming a large block of universal international legal instruments.

Russia believes it is imperative to look for ways to unite countries and governments, to look for a constructive agenda relying on the principles of collegiality and equality, which should contribute to de-escalating international tensions and ensuring the predictability of global processes. Later, we will discuss the initiatives that Russia has been promoting to this end. A CSTO summit and a Collective Security Council meeting took place on December 2. Among other decisions, the participants adopted a statement by the heads of state on forming a just and sustainable international order. Among other initiatives, this document proposes setting up a meeting of authorised representatives of the CSTO, the CIS, the SCO, the OSCE, NATO and the EU and seeing if these organisations can sit down and form a common agenda, jointly identify problems and, ideally, outline ways to overcome them. This is not something radically revolutionary. In 1999, the Platform for Co-operative Security was adopted at the OSCE Summit in Istanbul. It proclaimed the unification of the efforts of the OSCE and other sub-regional organisations in the Euro-Atlantic space. Some time ago, before the pandemic, we told our Western partners that it would be nice to take advantage of that consensus and try to build bridges between these organisations, instead of watching them build up confrontational potential, but our Western colleagues chose to step aside. Cooperative security and engagement of the bodies created in the post-Soviet space were important in the 1990s (in this case, in 1999), when the West still hoped that we would follow the path charted by the winners of the Cold War. Now, we have officially submitted a proposal on behalf of the CSTO heads of state. Let’s see how the West will respond to it.

Our goal is clear. We seek stability, fair opportunities for all states, including, of course, Russia. Gunboat diplomacy or democratic or any other sort of messianism is hardly an option if we want to accomplish this. I mentioned the rules which the West wants to base the international order on. There’s an “effective multilateralism” initiative which is openly opposed to multilateralism within the UN. There’s a tendency to interpret it as the need to return to Euro-Atlantic solidarity without exemptions. We are seeing this. I believe that more positive and sustainable results can be achieved through joining efforts based on the observance of the norms and principles of the UN Charter. We are upholding this consistently. President Putin’s initiative to hold a summit of the UN Security Council’s permanent members is part of our policy. It is imperative that they realise their responsibility under the UN Charter and act upon this responsibility. We must do our best to defuse this tension acting together. Heads of all UN Security Council permanent member states gave their consent. The coronavirus pandemic thwarted our efforts to agree on specific dates. However, we are working on it and agreeing on the concept and the potential outcomes of this summit.

We realise that the UN is not a static structure. It needs reform, including the reform of the UN Security Council. Our position is absolutely clear and consistent. It is necessary to increase the representation of the developing countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa if we want to make this body more representative. Only this approach will add value to reforming the UN Security Council. Everything else is up for discussion, but it is unlikely that an increase in Western representation on the Security Council will add diversity of opinions to this central body, which is in charge of peace and security on the planet. In any case, it is necessary to strive for the broadest possible agreement between the member states, so everything will depend on compromises. We are ready to discuss these compromises based on a balance of interests. In principle, this is the key to what needs to be accomplished if we want to ensure stability and harmony in the world inasmuch as this harmony is possible.

We believe that respect for the cultural and civilisational specifics of the modern world and refusal to impose one development model and values on everyone is an absolutely necessary step if we want to calm down the current situation. We see that this approach is shared by the overwhelming majority of participants in international communication. We disagree with the Western attempts to portray Russia as a country in isolation or a geopolitical loner. The viewpoint of our Western colleagues whereby everyone who disagrees with them is a lonely state probably has the right to exist.

However, we can see how the positions that we share are promoted within BRICS, the SCO, the CSTO and the CIS. The EAEU is actively working to align its plans with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. There is the G20. It has been in existence for quite a while, but was brought to the highest level and its meetings were made regular after the 2008 crisis. At first they met twice a year, then once a year. The G20 is the recognition of the fact that the G7 (and even the G8 in its old format) is not capable of resolving all international problems. The G20 includes the G7, the BRICS countries and a number of other like-minded states. The recognition that the G20 is necessary in order to develop generally acceptable approaches based on the balance of interests is a highly symptomatic trend.

Reviewing peace problems should not be driven by ideology, but rather be approached on the basis of equality. President Putin’s initiative to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership is going in the same vein. The partnership is supposed to unite continental efforts with the participation of the EAEU, the SCO and ASEAN and be open to all countries of our vast continent, including the EU states in the long run. This is a long process, but it is crucial to set this goal.

Russia’s proposals regarding strategic stability, arms control and European security are indicative of our constant readiness to achieve mutual understanding. You are aware of our position on renewing the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (START), a moratorium on deploying ground-based intermediate and shorter-range missiles and de-escalating tensions along the Russia-NATO contact line. We came up with a proposal to agree on an arrangement that the exercises on both sides are conducted at a distance from the contact line, and also agree on the minimum distances that may not be violated by military aircraft and warships of Russia or NATO.

Conceptually, we came up with a proposal a long time ago (and failed to see any reciprocity on the part of the United States) to confirm, in the statement made by our countries, and perhaps in the Russia-NATO format, the unacceptability of nuclear war. Many of you have probably seen the recent remarks by US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea, where he almost ridiculed our proposal and called on any future US Administration to never agree with the statement on the unacceptability of nuclear war.

We believe that implementing these initiatives or, at least, a professional straight-to-the-point and substantive discussion of the subject, possibly along with other steps, would help improve the overall atmosphere in Russia-West relations.  Dialogue itself on these matters would improve it. But so far these ideas have been hanging in the air.

Leaving behind almost everything that has been achieved so far, including our proposals, Mr Billingslea puts forward confrontational ideas, including sanctions against all buyers of military products from Russia and China. This is a fairly telling philosophy, which, unfortunately, has not met any serious opposition in Washington so far.

If we take a close look at what we have heard from the North Atlantic camp so far, we can come to a conclusion that it has consciously opted for not just a policy of containment, but confrontation. Perhaps this approach underlies its unwillingness to admit that the world must change. We are now witnessing two opposite trends in Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron is strongly promoting the EU’s strategic autonomy. The trend embodied by Germany is based on the assumption that defending Europe without the United States is impossible. We have already asked about whom they want to defend it from, but haven’t received a clear answer yet. Given this, multipolarity, which Yevgeny Primakov foresaw many years ago, has shown its objective nature. In an effort to stop it, they are doing whatever it takes in order to minimise the number of potential poles that have the strength and courage to uphold national interests.

One of Washington’s primary goals is to make the EU lose its strategic independence and return to the fold of Euro-Atlantic unity, where everyone is aware of who pays the piper and calls the tune.

Despite the above, we are open to an equal dialogue. Most importantly, our counterparts must be willing to engage. We will keep the communication channels open until they are. Our proposals and initiatives remain on the negotiating table. They have been reiterated many times. It is enough for our partners to know that they remain valid. However, in order to move ahead, we need our Western colleagues to respond to them.

Keeping open the channels for a dialogue on all matters, we will continue to work on the newly available opportunities in the economy, culture, science and people-to-people contacts. We do not fence ourselves off from this. Those who want to impose their agenda on us and ignore our status of a subject in international affairs must understand that we are not going to either make excuses or seek approval for our actions. Threats, sanctions or attempts to come up with other punishments are absolutely pointless and counterproductive. It is strange that the West has not realised this so far.

We do not need interaction with the West any more than the West needs Russia and what it has to offer. If our Western colleagues prefer to stick to certain rules and concepts that they themselves invented when they talk with each other, this is up to them. They can build a dialogue with other participants in international life, including Russia, solely on the basis of a generally accepted code of conduct. You can call it the rules enshrined in the UN Charter, namely, respect for the sovereign equality of states, the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

We are pursuing our own foreign policy, which has taken shape over the past two decades. It is aimed at ensuring the country’s security and creating the most favourable external environment for achieving our internal development goals. We are aware that the goal of the West is to prevent us from creating this particular external environment that is beneficial for our internal development. Everything that is being done to contain Russia is clearly done to this end. Attempts to destroy external opportunities that can be used to promote Russia’s growth continue unabated, but, in any case, there’s more to the world than the West. In the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we wanted to become part of something, but we now realise that there isn’t much we can become part of. At least, the West is not building anything of its own. Indeed, President Macron has come up with a proposal to conduct an analytical and philosophical dialogue about whether modern capitalism can meet the needs of the people and resolve related problems.

If we take Western development models, we have no place to fit in. The coronavirus, as if everything else wasn’t enough, showed it very convincingly. We need to build something ourselves. This is a fairly ambitious and complex goal, but it calls for immediate action.

CHICKEN KIEV MEETS COLD TURKEY: BLACK SEA AXIS EMERGES?

South Front

Written and produced by SF Team: J.Hawk, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson

On the face of it, an alliance between Turkey and Ukraine seems like a rather odd creation, yet one that may surprisingly durable simply because neither country has anywhere else to turn. What practically dooms them to a partnership if not an outright alliance is their unenviable geographic and geopolitical position of occupying the strange “no man’s land” between Russia, NATO, and the Middle East. It is, of course, largely a predicament of their own making. Ukraine, with considerable Western backing and encouragement but nevertheless mostly through efforts of a faction of its own oligarchy, opted out of the Russia-centered network of loose alliances, trade partnerships, and other forms of cooperation that were mutually beneficial to the two in the previous two decades. But that defection was not rewarded by the West in a way the likes of Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, Avakov, Parubiy, and other architects of the Maidan coup expected. Merely being stridently anti-Russian did not prove enough to warrant a shower of US and European cash, only onerous IMF loans which moreover come with conditions Kiev elites are in no hurry to abide by. EU foreign policy chief Josef Borrel lecturing Kiev that the European Union is not an “ATM machine” delivered that point loud and clear: Kiev is supposed to privatize whatever crown jewels its economy still has (at this point, mainly agricultural land), fight corruption of its own elites and facilitate the corruption of Western elites. Joseph Robinette Biden Junior is hardly the only Western politician with a talentless son in need of a lucrative sinecure. There are entire Western companies eager to participate in the thinly disguised plunder that the privatization of Ukraine’s economy will inevitably turn into. A Kiev court’s recent decision to declare the country’s anti-corruption institutions that were painstakingly stood up with considerable aid and tutelage from Western governments, down to screening appropriately-minded individuals for the job, looks as if it were calculated to send a middle-finger gesture to Borrel in terms even dense EU bureaucratic hacks will comprehend. Pro-EU newspapers like Kiev Post were quick to label this a “death of democracy”, presumably with the intent of interesting EU and NATO in sponsoring yet another Maidan since last one seems not to be delivering the goods. The expected shower of Western weaponry has not materialized, probably because NATO is afraid to give Ukraine so much aid that it will risk a full-blown war with Russia.

Erdogan’s Turkey, by contrast, is in process of de-facto opting out of NATO, though neither Turkey nor the alliance itself want to take the final step of severing ties completely. NATO membership is still beneficial to Turkey. While the procurement of Russian S-400 air defense systems angered NATO and US in particular, resulting in the expulsion of Turkey from the F-35 program and the cancellation of F-35 sale to the country, evidently Ankara hopes that by nominally remaining in the alliance it limits NATO and EU sanctions that would no doubt be far harsher if it were totally out of the alliance. The hope that Turkey, possibly post-Erdogan, will yet see the error of its ways and return to the fold, prevents NATO from adopting harsher stances that would definitely push Ankara away. Yet the drifting apart is unmistakable, and the animosity between Turkey’s leaders and their Western European counterparts is so intense as to beggar belief. While Germany’s Merkel is careful to tip-toe around the issue due to fear of another wave of refugees as well as unrest among the large Turkish diaspora in Germany, France’s Macron seems to have taken a personal affront to Erdogan’s suggestion he might need a mental evaluation and will press the issue of EU sanctions against Turkey at future Union summits.

But from Turkey’s perspective, getting a cold shoulder from the EU is par for the course. Its own migration to the geopolitical gray zone of Eurasia was motivated by EU’s failure to admit Turkey as a member after decades of leading it by the nose and promising neighborhood in some nebulously distant future right after Hell froze over. Like Ukraine, Turkey was not seeking EU membership because of some mythical “shared values”. It, too, saw EU as an ATM machine that would shower Turkey, one of the poorest countries on the continent, with development assistance and moreover allow Turks to freely travel and work throughout the Union. Needless to say, neither of these prospects appealed to pretty much any European country, no matter how close or distant it was geographically. So after decades of leading Turkey by the nose, EU politely put an end to the charade citing problems with Turkey’s democracy. Thus snubbed, Erdogan opted to chart an independent course and appears to be finding a similarly snubbed oligarch clique in Kiev looking for ways the two countries could extract mutual benefit from their isolated status.

There are plenty of those to be had, as limited as Ukraine’s and Turkey’s resources are, compared to such patrons as EU, NATO, US. Faced with isolation and even a potential ban on arms exports, Turkey has a strong incentive to exploit the resources of the Ukrainian defense industry and engage in some export substitution in case vital supplies are no longer available from the West. Canada’s and Austria’s ban on exports of optronics and engines needed for the Bayraktar TB2 combat drones means Ukraine’s ability to provide substitutes would be most welcome. Ukraine, for its part, would not be against deploying a huge attack drone fleet of its own in the hopes of replicating Azerbaijan’s successful offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh on the Donbass, though there Ukraine’s drones would probably run afoul of Novorossiya’s air defenses in the same way Turkish drones were brought to heel over Idlib. Turkey’s Altay main battle tank is likewise little more than an assembly of components imported from other countries, particularly Germany. Since Germany has already placed a ban on export of powerpacks and transmissions for the Altay, Turkey has been casting about for replacements, looking as far as China. Whether Ukraine’s developments in this realm can be adopted to rescue the Altay project remain to be seen. However, the Oplot powerpacks and transmissions can probably be adapted to Altay use, resulting in Turkey realizing its goal of a home-grown MBT. Ultimately, the greater the contribution of Ukrainian defense industry to Turkey’s military modernization, the more freedom of action it would bestow on Turkey and make it less dependent on other foreign sources of military hardware who can exert influence over Turkey simply by withholding future technical support. If the United States were to follow up on the F-35 expulsion with a ban on servicing Turkish F-16s which form the mainstay of its airpower, the result would be crippling of the country’s air combat capabilities that drones cannot compensate for and which would be sorely missed in any confrontation with another comparable power like Greece. Turkey’s efforts to develop an indigenous fighter aircraft would benefit from Ukraine’s technological contributions and its own interest in indigenous aircraft designs. For Ukraine, the relationship would be an opportunity to acquire NATO-compatible weaponry with the caveat that it would have to pay in full for every last drone, either with cash or in kind. Turkey’s economic situation is not so strong as to allow largesse in the form of free military aid to anyone.

Mitigating against the long-term development of what Zelensky referred to as “strategic partnership” with Turkey is the erratic behavior of Erdogan who seeks to dominate any and all partners and tries to see how far he can push before the partners push back. This practice has led to the confrontations in Syria, Libya, and eastern Mediterranean. Ukraine, in contrast to Russia, France, and even Greece, is hardly in a position to push back. The most dangerous aspect of Turkish politics, from Ukraine’s perspective, is the ideology of Pan-Turkism that just might transform Ukraine’s Tatar community into a proxy force for Turkey right inside Ukraine, adding yet another fissure to the already fractured political picture. On the plus side, Erdogan does not appear interested in “combating corruption” in Ukraine, though that does not preclude the possibility Turkey’s military collaboration with Ukraine might not cost Ukraine dearly, though not to the same extent as EU-promoted privatization efforts.

الحريري أبلغ الفرنسيّين أنه سيغادر لبنان إذا لم يتمّ تشكيل حكومة

باريس – نضال حمادة

أبلغ الرئيس المكلف تشكيل الحكومة سعد الحريري الموفد الرئاسي الفرنسي باتريك دويل خلال زيارته الأخيرة إلى بيروت أنه قرّر مغادرة لبنان خلال فترة قريبة في حال لم يتمّ تشكيل حكومة، هذا الكلام لمصادر دبلوماسية فرنسية.

وقالت المصادر إنّ الحريري يشعر بالإحباط نتيجة الأوضاع التي وصلت إليها عملية تشكيل الحكومة، وأضافت أنّ الرئيس المكلف ينتظر خروج دونالد ترامب من البيت الأبيض حتى تتسنّى له معرفة الموقف الأميركي الحقيقي من محمد بن سلمان صاحب الفيتو على الحريري كشخص وعلى تشكيل حكومة يكون ضمنها حزب الله مباشرة أو عبر مقرّبين.

وحول حزب الله نقلت المصادر أنّ مسؤولي الحزب الذين التقوا بالمسؤولين الفرنسيين أبلغوهم أنّ حزب الله مستعدّ لتقديم ما يلزم عليه لتشكيل حكومة، فيما لو قرّر الحريري تخطي الفيتو الأميركي السعودي.

وفي السياق، وعلى وقع نتائج زيارة وزير الخارجية الأميركي الى باريس، تريد فرنسا تمرير ما تبقى من فترة حكم دونالد ترامب بانتظار وصول بايدن وربما تفهّمه للموقف الفرنسي من الأزمة الاقتصادية والسياسية التي يمرّ بها لبنان…

فيديوات متعلقة

تعليق

سعدو يعتبر نفسه بي السنة وسعدو لديه ثلاث جنسيات، هو لبناني وسعودي وفرنسي ولأن لحم كتافو وكتاف اللي ،”خلفو” من السعودية فالجنسية السعودية هي الأهم ،سعدو لا يستطيع أن يغضب ترمب كما فعل باسيل ويعلم ان حزب الله لن يخضع للشروط الامريكية ويعلم ان حكومتة العتيدة لن ترى النور بدون مشاكة الحزب.

وعليه لا بد من الهروب من لبنان ربما لباريس أو سيشل حتي خروج ترمب، ان خرج، من البيت الأسود ودخوا “المخلص” بايدن لمعرفة مصير محمد بن سلطان

أما لبنان وعياله “سنة لبنان” فليذهبوا للجحيم

The Long Goodbye of Social-Democracy

The Long Goodbye of  Social-Democracy

November 17, 2020

by Francis Lee for the Saker Blog

The ongoing process of political degeneration which has been happening in the UK Labour Party is basically part of a deep-going movement which has been taking place in all left-of-centre parties in Europe. In political/ideological terms, they have been swept away by the rampaging neo-liberal globalist forces – circa 1980 onwards and have, like good little boys and girls, trimmed their sails to the globalist agenda. This, straight betrayal has been justified by the usual TINA cliche. The roll-call of the sell-outs has included the SPD (Germany) the PS (France) Pasok/Syriza (Greece) the old ex-communist party of Italy, (now rebranded as the Democratic Party) PSOE (Spain) not forgetting the Democratic Party in the US. This historical betrayal has given the militant right a chance to attack the very real sell-out of the centre-left parties and publications which includes the Guardian, New York Times, Economist, Washington Post, . L’Express, La Figaro, Der Spiegel – the list is extensive.

THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY

The Guardian newspaper had long been a supporter of the Labour Party but more recently has been the trend-setter in this ‘liberal turn’ if we may call it such. There has taken place an unseemly metamorphosis from centre-left to the Blairite right. Going back to earlier days the Manchester Guardian, as it was then called, steered an honest social-democratic course under the leadership of C.P.Scott famous for his catchphrase, ‘’Comment is free but facts are sacred.’’ was the ultimate statement of values for a free press and continued to under-pin the traditions of good newspapers throughout the western world, (but sadly of course this is no longer the case, not by a long shot).  Looking back, Scott and the then Manchester Guardian resolutely opposed the British war against the Dutch settlers (Boers) in South Africa (1899-1902). For his pains Scott’s home was physically attacked by jingoistic mobs and he required police protection, as did the property of the Manchester Guardian which was also attacked.

That was then, this is now.

The rot in the current Guardian newspaper began with the conversion of what was once a campaigning left-of-centre political publication into a straightforward business journal with a centre-right political orientation; this happened earlier in this century when the Scott Trust was rebranded as the Scott Trust Limited, along with the Guardian Media Group – GMG – both of whom became registered as a commercial company by decamping to the tax haven of the Cayman Islands British Overseas Territory, for tax reasons – i.e. tax avoidance.

THE CORBYN AFFAIR

As for the whole ‘anti-semitic’ brouhaha surrounding ex-leader of the Party, Jeremy Corbyn, and the Labour Party itself, this was engineered from both internal and external sources. It should be understood that anyone who is anyone in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) and who entertains political and occupational preferment in the PLP is a member of the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ – this is mandatory. The same is true of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. So we have here a situation where an ostensibly sovereign state, the UK, has been penetrated by another sovereign state, Israel which in effect is selecting who and who shall not be members of the Labour Party’s policy and decision-making processes. This blatant process was caught by a mole planted by the Kuwaiti TV Station Al Jazeera and televised under the name of ‘The Lobby’ where the mole in question interviewed a member of the London Israeli embassy – Shai Masot – about the ‘taking down’ of pro-Palestinian politicians and spreading Zionist influence inside independent political groups active in the UK. This TV interview showed Mr Masot – who was blissfully unaware of being televised – discussing with his interlocutor how to cause embarrassment to pro-Palestinian politicians deemed to be detrimental to Israeli interests.

Students and campaigners told a reporter posing as a pro-Israel activist they had been given funding and support from Israel’s embassy in London to counter the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. When asked whether he had ever “built a group”, Mr Masot replied: “Yeah, I did several things like that, yeah…in Israel and here. Nothing I can share but yeah.’’

“It’s good to leave those organisations independent, but we help them actually.”

The UK National Union of Students said it was investigating alleged attempts to influence last year’s leadership election, which saw its first black, Muslim, female president Malia Bouattia voted in.

Following claims that opposing NUS members held “secret meetings” with activists supported by the Israeli embassy, a spokesperson for the union said: “The NUS takes these allegations seriously. We are looking into them and, when we have all the information available, the behaviour of NUS officers will be reviewed, and appropriate action taken.” (1)

This seemed outrageous, but such is the influence of extra-national political configurations in British politics. This was instanced in the manner in which the now ex-leader of the Labour party – Jeremy Corbyn – was subject to a relentless but bogus assault internally from the Blairites, the media and also Britain’s Jewish opponents on the basis of his ongoing support for Palestinian rights. Of course anyone who in Zionist terms is a supporter of Palestinian rights is ipso facto an anti-Semite. On absolutely no evidence Corbyn was suspended from the leadership of the party which was now under the leadership of one (Sir) Keir Starmer QC, who doesn’t seem to have any political views at all, apart from his unconditional support of Israel, which of course befits yet another political carpet bagger on the make. ‘What are my politics?’ What would you like them to be?’

Of course the same scenario also applies to the United States – a fortiori. This latter case of organized Jewish influence both internal and from outside (Israel) is so open, widespread and obvious that it barely needs mentioning. (2) Moreover, socialism in the United States, or even social-democracy, has, never, since the days of Eugene Debs been anything other than a minor curiosity and led by a leadership so venal that it collapses at the first serious challenge. Such was the fate of Bernie Sanders, who managed to capitulate to the DNC powers-that-be not once but twice.

But to return to the Labour Party, this political hollowing-out of what was once a mass and proud reformist party has by now been pretty much neutered and in keeping with centre-left conditions just about everywhere. The list does not make pretty reading. Currently there is no centre-left party, in western Europe at least, worthy of the name, the capitulation seems complete. As follows:

GREECE. THE RISE AND FALL OF SYRIZA

On its accession to power Syriza laid great emphasis on trying to convince their opponents that their proposals were financially sound and of benefit to all in the long-run. This is one of the characteristics of social-democracy. It is an approach based upon ‘the truth’, as they understood it, and rationality of their approach and compared favourably to the mistaken beliefs of their political opponents. What Syriza did not understand, however, was that the social virtues and heritage of social democratic reform was now history, buried deep under the refuse pile of new neoliberal values.

The political imperatives of SYRIZA’s position consisted of an adamantly committed policy to stay in the eurozone and the euro regime; but this was a regime of structural flaws which only benefitted the elites rather than ordinary folk. Concurrent with this the Greek people were consistently indicating in various polls taken that they did not want to leave the eurozone either. Like Syriza they wanted to end austerity and stay in Europe and keep the euro. Neither thus understood that the root of austerity lay in the neoliberal euro regime that they wanted to keep. One would have thought that following the crowd in this instance was a dereliction of duty on the part of the Syriza leadership who should have known better, but it is so much easier to take the easy way out than actually lead.

Syriza wanted a European version of the US 1930’s New Deal, but there was no FDR on the horizon, and, moreover, this was 70 years later, and history was not about to repeat itself.

The upshot of this sad historical nemesis was when Syriza took the road of least resistance. The European base of neoliberalism required the arrangement of goods and services and free movement of labour and capital which had indebted Greece (and other peripheral economies) and ensured some form of perpetual austerity. But this was precisely how the system was designed to work.

‘’Over the course of the third debt restructuring negotiations in 2015, Syriza would at first deny and then resist this reality, then concede in steps as it retreated from its positions and its Thessaloniki programme. In August 2015, it capitulated. Like its political predecessors, New Democracy in 2012, and PASOK in 2010, Syriza would also eventually settle into the ‘caretaker’ role for the neoliberal Troika.’’ (3)

FRANCE – LE PARTI SOCIALISTE – ABJECT FAILURE.

In late 2016, French President Francois Hollande became the first leader of the 5th Republic to announce that he would not seek re-election leaving his Parti Socialiste to find another candidate for the April 2017 presidential election. The five years of Hollande’s presidency had not been kind to the ruling party. Terrorist attacks, a shift to the right on domestic matters, persistent unemployment, internal party divisions, and even an illicit love affair, eroded confidence in Hollande’s government and left the Socialists with little in their playbook that remained popular with voters.

Hollande’s choice for economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, created new problems for the president right from the start. Just 36 when he was appointed in 2014, Macron was a former investment banker at a firm owned by the Rothschild family – an unusual choice for a president who once declared that the world of finance was his “enemy”.

Macron soon angered the Socialist’s left wing with his criticism  of the 35-hour work-week and by calling for the deregulation of the French economy. Socialist deputy Yann Galut spoke for many in his party when he accused Macron of “disowning all the values of the left”. But then what else from an investment banker did the party expect?

The pro-business reforms, known as the “Macron laws”, included allowing stores to remain open  on Sundays and late in the evenings. A more wide-ranging labour code 5, made it easier for firms to hire or fire and to extend employee working hours, soon followed suit. The proposed reforms prompted months of sometimes violent protests  over the summer from students and unions who were angry over diminished labour protections. Yes it was all straight from the neoliberal policy manual. Hollande’s government controversially pushed the bill  through parliament in June 2016 without holding a vote, igniting a new burst of outrage.

Macron was not the only member of Hollande’s cabinet to anger the party’s leftist base. Manuel Valls, 54 – the French Tony Blair – who served as interior minister and then prime minister before resigning to announce his own presidential run, has proved that even a Socialist Party can have a right wing.

As protests against labour reforms spread across France last summer, Valls once again took a hard line, moving to ban further demonstrations in Paris after sporadic outbreaks of violence. It was the first time since the 1960s that union demonstrations had been banned in France and it sparked outrage across the political spectrum, including within the already divided Socialist Party. After a weeklong stand-off, the unions were eventually allowed to hold a protest march via a different route.

Valls has said he wanted to ‘modernise’ the Socialist Party, even suggesting that it rename itself because the term “Socialist” is too “old-fashioned”. He says that a revitalised party could unite all of the country’s “progressive forces” into one movement. Valls’ brand of ‘right-wing Socialism’ (i.e., a neoliberal party) highlighted the quandary the party faced. If Hollande is seen as representing the traditional yet ineffectual left, its more dynamic members now look like the centre-right.

As unemployment continued to hit record highs, Valls infuriated many by saying more needed to be done to encourage the unemployed to get back to work. Macron, for his part, had said that the costly system of unemployment benefits needed to be revised, blaming the unions for deadlocking negotiations.

Statements such as these, coming as record numbers of French citizens struggled with a lack of job opportunities, have heightened resentment among much of the public and divided those within the Socialist party. And they seem more like admonishments that would come from the right-wing Les Républicains party than from the fresh new faces of France’s left. But after the erratic Hollande years, the party now faced the task of reinventing itself as a movement that combines traditional leftist values with a fresh dynamism that is ready to meet the challenges of the future. In short, the PS had to change into a neoliberal outfit. After all – TINA!

Humiliated, unloved, and threatened to be plundered by Macron’s movement, the French socialists stood shivering at a crossroad. Hardly unexpected of course. France was, after all, being corralled into the neoliberal sheep-pen.

France has predictably followed the universal neoliberal economic prescriptions and rewarded with the wholly expected failed outcomes. After growing at an estimated rate of 1.7% in 2018, GDP grew by an abysmal estimated 1.3% in 2019. Minimal growth rates needed to overcome this economic standstill needed to be at least 2% to make any impact on what has become a secular stagnation. This has had political ramifications.

The European elections of May 2019 saw the victory of the National Rally of Marine Le Pen (far right), gathering 23% of the vote, compared to 22% for the Republic in March of Emmanuel Macron. On the international scene, the president intends to strengthen the integration of the euro zone by revitalizing the Franco-German partnership. But Macron’s delusions of grandeur are simply swimming against the stream here with unemployment at 10%, trade figures all negative, private debt to GDP at 227% and Sovereign debt at 98%. Unquestionably France is in a deep structural political/economic crisis.

From Gaullism in 1945 consisting of independence and distrust of the Anglo-Saxon bloc, to the current force feeding of neoliberalism and an unquestioning loyalty to NATO. Mission accomplished? Not quite. And then comes the emergence of the Gilet Jaunes. What next for France?

GERMANY: THE SPD

The oldest, Social Democratic Party in Europe, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, can be traced back to the 1860s, and for much of the 20th and 21st centuries it has represented the centre-left in German politics, although not the far left politics of the pre-war KPD (Communists) and SAP (Socialist Workers’ Party’ where Willie Brandt was once a member). Nevertheless from 1891 to 1959 the Party at least theoretically espoused Marxism. Of course this all changed in the main due to Cold War but more importantly for the need for political deals and coalition governments which were made the sine qua non for the formation of governments in Germany. At the present time, the SPD is in a fragile coalition government together with the conservative CDU/CSU and the SPD, the Grand Coalition as it is called.

THE EUROPEAN POWER-HOUSE:

In economic terms Germany had always been the economic powerhouse of Europe and possibly even the world. It’s dynamism came from a globally competitive industrial base, pivoting on automobiles, chemicals, and machine tools. Its exports enabled it to command vast surpluses on current account thus providing the wherewithal to lend globally.

Whether this Teutonic pre-eminence was a conscious policy choice on the part of Germany, or merely a policy-drift due to the internal structure of Germany’s post-war policy configuration seems debatable. Germany had certainly bucked the Anglo-American trend of de-industrialisation and financialization which had become de rigueur internationally as a result of the putative ‘efficiency’ of the Anglo-American model. Germany had not deindustrialised, had a smallish stock market compared with other developed states, eschewed as far as possible a system of equity funding and maintained a traditional reliance on bank funding for industry since long term relations were easier to develop among corporations and banks and the internal structure of corporations is not driven by the desire to placate stock markets. Moreover, the German banking system had a multitiered and competitively structured organization which included a raft of smaller and medium sized banks, the Sparkassen, which operated with a local focus. This stood in stark opposition to the oligopolistic banking monoliths of the Atlantic world.

Additionally, there were further reasons why Germany emerged as the EU hegemon. Primarily, Germany did not sacrifice its world class industrial-export sector on the altar of deindustrialisation. But instead adopted and adapted its own variant of financialization while at the same time protected its industrial sector by manipulating its exchange rate to protect exports. The German manufacturing sector is highly productive, export-oriented and has maintained relatively strong union representation in the wage formation process compared to the rest of the private (domestic) sector which has modest productivity and relatively weak unions in comparison with other EU countries.

In the domestic economy, however, Germany was able to restructure (i.e., lower) wage costs and working conditions with the imposition of the Hartz reforms – a set of policies arrayed against German labour which pushed down costs through the implementation of ‘flexible’ labour markets. This gave Germany a competitive first-mover, edge in intra-European trade resulting in an ongoing surplus on its current account. And when one state achieves a (recurring) surplus on current account other states must record a deficit on current account. In this instance this was the southern periphery. If this smacked of neoliberalism –that’s because it was.

In sharp contrast to the southern periphery the eastern periphery of central Europe was not part of the eurozone which means that they were not ensnared in the Iron Cage of EMU and enabled to keep their own currencies. But heavy German investment in this area produced a core-periphery relationship where low-wage, semi-skilled assembly work was farmed out to Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. That is the usual pattern of FDI supply chains. High-end production, including R&D was kept at Home Base.

Additionally, Central European peripheries have come to depend heavily on Germany for technology and markets. If Germany faced a severe recession so would probably be the whole of Central Europe.

Thus, Germany was to become the overseer of an increasingly neo-liberal order precisely at the time when the 2008 blow-out was to cross the Atlantic and usher in a quasi-permanent period of instability for the whole EU project. The main actors in the future development of the EU were the ECB the EC and the IMF, the infamous Troika. The ECB in particular was the paragon of Banking, monetary and fiscal rectitude. This was underlined insofar as it was domiciled in Frankfurt as was the Bundesbank and was heavily influenced in policy terms by this particular institution.

Then came the 2020 derailment. Prior to this, however, growth rates had been zero to miniscule at less than 1% per quarter since 2018. Then came the yo-yo bounce in 2020. Ten Year Bunds Yields were at -0.53 (that’s a minus sign BTW), unemployment was beginning to rise, inflation was at -0.2% which means that it was actually deflation, interest rates were at zero, consumer confidence was at -3.1, retail sales at -2.2%, Sovereign Debt-to-GDP 68%, Private Debt-to-GDP at 154% (but these latter private figures were based upon 2018 statistics).

THE SPD VANISHING TRICK:

And where was the SPD during all this time? It was following the trend of course. The then party leader and Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, defended his counter-reformist ‘Agenda 2010’ and praised Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ as a successful example of ‘modern’ social democracy. At the same time, up and down the country, some 90,000 workers responded to a call by the Trade Union Federation, the DGB, and demonstrated against attempts to dismantle the welfare state. In East Germany, 84% of all steel workers organised in the IG Metall voted in favour of industrial action for the 35-hour week which had been introduced in the West back in the 1990s.

Horrified by high unemployment (4) and fear of recession and even depression, Schroder and his think tanks were doing what they had always accused the previous Helmut Kohl government of doing: they were attacking the unemployed and not unemployment. They claimed that dismantling the welfare state and massive tax reductions were to the benefit of the employers and the rich but in general would open the path towards economic growth and a new jobs miracle. In doing this, they could count on the applause of the bourgeois media and politicians who kept pushing them further and further down that road.

But later developments in 2019 have led to a new inward turn of the SPD which will give the already rapidly changing party system a further push. Both the CDU and SPD have lost dramatically during recent European and regional elections. The winners have been the ‘woke’ Green party and the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD). The Green party, also led by a new team since January 2018, has been a clear beneficiary of the rise of the urban middle-class and the weakness of the two governing parties. The Green party is now solidly number two in the party system and highly likely to join the next government, either with the CDU or the two parties on the ‘left’, the SPD left centrist and Der Linke the old East German Communist Party.

CONCLUSION

Throughout Europe the Social-Democratic tradition has been in crisis since the 1980s onwards and is heading rapidly toward marginalization and oblivion. Having prostrated itself before the deities of neo-liberalism and globalization, and swallowed the holy dogmas whole there seems no way back. And if anything the situation in the southern and eastern peripheries are even more dire than those in Western Europe. The political structures in Europe now range from outright fascist, right and centre right, and an allegedly centre-left that acts like a centre-right, a Guardian-style liberal woke party. That’s it folks. Europe seems to be heading to a turbulent and ugly future

NOTES

(1) The Lobby – Al Jazeera – The Independent newspaper – London 12-January-2017

(2) The Israel Lobby – John J Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt – passim.

(3) Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges – Jack Rasmus – passim.

(4) The story of the German jobs miracle is misleading. It is true that the number of people in employment increased by more than 10 percent between 2003 and the end of 2016 from 39 to 43 million. But this was achieved mainly by replacing full-time jobs by part-time and mini jobs. In fact, actual working time did not increase at all up to 2010; the work was just spread over more people.” And also since the economic climate improved in 2011, the volume of work has been growing much more slowly than employment and is still below the levels of the early 1990s. And that is why in 2016, 4.8 million people in Germany were living entirely from mini jobs. A further 1.5 million are working against their will in part-time jobs. And then there are around 1 million contract workers and more than 2 million self-employed without employees, and most of them do not have enough work.

The “industrial reserve army“ of the unemployed, as Karl Marx once called them, “was reduced in size at the price of a growth in the reserve army of the under-employed in part-time work and the over-employed who have to do several jobs to get by.”

If US sanctions on Lebanon are about corruption, Saad Hariri should be top of list

Protesters denounce politician Gebran Bassil in downtown Beirut on 8 August (AFP)

13 November 2020 10:55 UTC |

Source

Marco Carnelos

Marco Carnelos is a former Italian diplomat. He has been assigned to Somalia, Australia and the United Nations. He has served in the foreign policy staff of three Italian prime ministers between 1995 and 2011. More recently he has been Middle East Peace Process Coordinator Special Envoy for Syria for the Italian government and, until November 2017, ambassador of Italy to Iraq.

If the US was truly concerned about corruption in Lebanon, it should have targeted the discredited prime minister

المدن - حيرة سعد الحريري: "أبو السنّة" أم "إبن التسوية"؟

The US Treasury recently sanctioned Gebran Bassil, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement party and member of parliament, for his role in corruption in Lebanon, using the Magnitsky Act. This provision is deployed when human rights abuses and corruption reach such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic system. 

Unfortunately, as frequently occurs with the US government’s decisions, even the application of this provision is not immune to double standards. In the case of Lebanon, for Washington, corruption is not a problem – provided that you are aligned with US policies. 

In this case, however, we are facing a real mystery. According to US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Bassil “has helped to erode the foundation of an effective government that serves the Lebanese people”. He noted that this decision “further demonstrates that the United States supports the Lebanese people in their continued calls for reform and accountability”.

Economic mismanagement 

The overall US analysis behind this decision is essentially correct. Lebanon has long suffered from endemic corruption and economic mismanagement by its historical power brokers, who have advanced their own interests at the expense of the Lebanese people. Since October 2019, widespread protests with participation from a broad segment of Lebanese society have called for political, social and economic reforms. 

All Lebanese governments have failed to curb inflation and mounting debt, as well as to improve the country’s failing infrastructure and to ensure basic services. Socioeconomic conditions for ordinary Lebanese people have continued to deteriorate, while political leaders remain insulated from the crisis. 


The US decision remains inexplicable, to say the least. It did not target one of the top people responsible for Lebanon’s chaos

The country is experiencing an energy crisis that leaves people without electricity for hours or even days at a time, and government officials appear unable to fix the problem. The political dysfunction was exemplified by the catastrophic explosion at the Beirut port on 4 August, which many saw as a further example of the negligence and corruption that victimises Lebanese citizens.

Financially, the country has already defaulted, thanks to a Ponzi scheme run for years by its central bank, and ordinary savers have been forced to settle for highly limited access to their bank deposits, bringing many to the brink of starvation.

Yet, while long overdue, the US decision remains inexplicable, to say the least. It did not target one of the top people responsible for Lebanon’s chaos: fourth-time Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who once again returned to power after he was ousted by a popular revolt in October 2019. As though nothing had occurred in recent decades, when Hariri repeatedly served as premier with zero results, he has been supported to assume the role again by the usual power brokers.  

Christian parties marginalised

Bassil, the Christian leader who aspires to succeed his father-in-law, Michel Aoun, as the country’s next president, has this time refused to support Hariri’s comeback to power, which had been pushed by some Sunni and Shia parties, including Hezbollah. The second-most important Christian party, the Lebanese Forces, took a similar decision. 

It is probably the first time, then, that a Cabinet has been formed in Lebanon without the participation of the main Christian parties – an unprecedented development that took place as major world powers watched idly, especially France, which since the 4 August explosion had taken the lead in attempts to save the country from complete collapse. 

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri speaks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris in September 2019 (AFP)
Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri speaks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris in September 2019 (AFP)

After the blast, French President Emmanuel Macron visited Beirut twice. He made specific, sound proposals and asked for clear commitments on reforms, but his appeals went unheeded by the traditional Lebanese power brokers. 

While France has always been proud of its strict secular approach to politics, up to the point of creating deep and probably avoidable fissures  with its Muslim minority, it has also attributed to itself the historical role of protector of the Christian minorities in the Levant. 

It is thus disconcerting how Macron has tolerated the marginalisation of Christian parties in the Lebanese decision-making process, facilitating Hariri’s disgraceful comeback. How is it possible that one of the main enablers of Lebanon’s chaos has again been assigned to rule and reform the country, amid a deafening silence from Paris?

A final disappointment

The US has maintained a similarly questionable position. After mobilising against the country’s endemic corruption and Hezbollah, the Trump administration has not objected to the fact that Hezbollah’s main power-sharing partner in recent decades, Hariri, is again in charge with the support of this same movement – which, incidentally, figures prominently in the US terrorism list, as Washington pushes its European allies to follow suit with a terrorism designation.Beirut explosion: A weapon of mass corruptionRead More »

If the targeting of Bassil really aims to show that the US “supports the Lebanese people in their continued calls for reform and accountability”, then why – considering his abysmal record – has Hariri not been sanctioned as well? If the primary US concern is the struggle against corruption, why it has decided, again, to go after a relatively small fish like Bassil instead of the bigger fish, such as Hariri, Speaker Nabih Berri or veteran politician Walid Jumblatt? 

Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, Speaker Nabih Berri and MP Walid Jumblatt  during their meeting in Beirut on Sunday evening - ASHARQ AL-AWSAT English  Archive

Even on its way out, the Trump administration never misses an opportunity to surprise. The sad news is that this time, in serving one of its last disappointments, it is in good company with the French presidency.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Recommended

Lebanon’s Bahaa Hariri backtracks after interview with Israeli urging peace

Covid-19: Lebanon announces second lockdown after cases spikeUS sanctions imposed on Lebanon’s Gebran Bassil

The Karabakh war is over. The crisis is not. What comes next?

Source

The Karabakh war is over.  The crisis is not.  What comes next?

First, I want to begin this analysis by posting the full translation of an article posted yesterday by the Russian webzine Vzgliad.  I materially don’t have the time to make my own translation, so what I will post is just a minimally retouched machine translation, I apologize for this.

original Russian text: https://vz.ru/world/2020/11/12/1070326.html

Five main mysteries of the second Karabakh war

by Evgenii Krutikov

The end of the second Karabakh war gave rise to many riddles and conspiracy theories. Indeed, some of the circumstances of this conflict are extremely mysterious, or at least paradoxical from the point of view of conventional military logic. Apparently, the Armenian leadership itself provoked a political catastrophe.

Let’s list which riddles raise the biggest questions and provoke the appearance of “conspiracy theories” in Armenia (and not only).

1. Why was not a full-fledged mobilization carried out in Armenia, and full-fledged military units were not deployed to the conflict area?

Despite loud Patriotic statements, there was no real mobilization in Armenia. The permanent number of the Armenian army – about 50 thousand people-was increased only by volunteers. While the conditions of the fighting required to increase the number of defenders of Karabakh to 80-100 thousand people at least. At the same time, very soon the lack of specialists (for example, artillery calculations and MLRS) began to affect the front in the Armenian army. There was no one to fill in the losses.

It is inexplicable why Yerevan did not conduct a real mobilization. The Armenian leadership simply avoids talking about this topic. If there was a mobilization plan, no one tried to implement it. As a result, there was no rotation of military personnel on the first line, in some areas people were sitting in the trenches for a month without a shift. 18-20-year-olds were on the front line, and at some point the untrained youth made up up to 80% of the personnel. The Karabakh detachments, made up of professionals and veterans, suffered heavy losses in the first week, which there was no one and nothing to make up for, since there were simply no reinforcements.

Groups of volunteers in Armenia were formed along party lines. The scandal was caused by an attempt to form a separate detachment of the prosperous Armenia party named after the oligarch Gagik Tsarukyan, who is now Pashinyan’s main opponent. The two have been in conflict for more than a decade. Now the Prime Minister openly calls Tsarukyan “the culprit of the fall of Shusha”, since his phantom squad allegedly did not have enough at the front to win. These conflicts could have been avoided simply by having a mobilization plan and a desire to implement it.

The main military forces of Armenia did not move to Karabakh. But in order to relieve the tension created by Azerbaijani UAVs, it was enough to simply relocate early detection locators to Goris. And one army corps would have been enough to cover the southern direction even at the stage when the Azerbaijanis were languidly marking time in front of the first line of defense. Proper supplies were not organized, and after a month of fighting, this led to a shortage of missiles for the MLRS and shells for the barrel artillery. And without artillery support, the infantry can only die heroically.

All this borders on sabotage, although it may be partly explained by local sloppiness and unwillingness to weaken the defense of Armenia proper. The latter is a very controversial position and it looks like the Armenian leadership has simply abandoned Karabakh to its fate.

2. Why did the Northern front behave so strangely?

In the North and North-East of Karabakh, in the area of the Kyrgyz Republic, there was a large fortified area of the Armenian defense, which included very combat-ready units. And they really put up a serious resistance to the advancing Azerbaijani group and in the end actually stopped it (losing, however, several positions and significant villages).

But after that, the elite Yehnikner battalion suddenly retreated, although its commander managed to get the “Hero of Artsakh”. Moreover, since October 3, neither “Ehnikner” nor any military unit at all was removed from the Northern front and was not transferred to help the burning South. At the same time, the Azerbaijanis only once decided to simulate an offensive in the North again, clearly for distracting purposes. There was no need to keep up to 20 thousand people in the North.

The Karabakh Leadership informally explains all this with a lack of resources. But now the” lack of resources ” in Karabakh explains everything.

3. Why did the southern front collapse?

The fact that the main blow is being inflicted by the Azerbaijanis in the South, in the steppe zone, was visible to the naked eye already in the first few days of the war. Nevertheless, resources – human and technical-began to arrive on the southern front when this front was no longer in fact there. The steppe zone was lost, and the front stopped along the edge of the mountains from Krasny Bazar to Martuni. As a result, up to 30 thousand people defending Karabakh have accumulated in this area. They were threatened with complete encirclement and death, which was one of the reasons for signing the ceasefire agreement. At the same time, before the occupation of Jabrayil, the Azerbaijani troops advanced very slowly, disrupting their own pace of attack. This gave the Armenians a small, but still a head start in order to understand the situation and engage in relocation.

After the occupation of Jabrayil, the front began to fall apart, and the advance of the Azerbaijanis sharply accelerated. The moment was lost.

For some reason, the Armenian command has not made a decision about the transfer of additional resources to the southern front? This is another mystery.

4. Why did the Armenian side limit itself to passive defense?

During the entire war, the Armenian side only twice attempted a counterattack against the advanced units of the Azerbaijanis who were running far ahead. Both times this happened opposite Lachin in a narrow gorge, with the extreme vulnerability of the Azerbaijani battalion-tactical group (BTG). Once even successfully. But these operations were simply reduced to a massive attack by the MLRS on enemy clusters. Operations to block the gorge and encircle the enemy in other sections of the southern front were suggested. But not a single Armenian unit moved. An amazing war in which one of the parties did not conduct a single offensive operation on the ground, limited only and exclusively to passive defense.

A successful counteroffensive in the gorge before Lachin would have crushed so many Azerbaijani forces in the cauldron that they would not have thought about attacking Shusha for at least a couple of weeks. And later it was quite possible to destroy the Azerbaijani infantry in the ravine Averatec. But it took a lot of effort.

There is no explanation for why the Armenian side did not even try to counterattack or use other methods to use the operational advantage that it repeatedly had. The lack of resources can only be referred to endlessly in the last stages of warfare, but passive defense has been a constant tactic since the beginning of the war.

5. Why was Shusha handed over?

The most sensitive and incomprehensible question. The first assault on the city by Azerbaijani infantry was extremely unsuccessful. Then the second column of Azerbaijanis was covered by the MLRS strike. With some effort and assistance from Armenia, the Azerbaijani group that broke through to the city could be destroyed. However, suddenly a decision is made to leave the city without a fight and not to attempt to liberate it with the favorable operational and tactical situation remaining for another day.

It is believed that the decision to leave Shusha was made by NKR President Araik Harutyunyan and Secretary of the NKR security Council General Samvel Babayan, a local legend. Now, in protest against the signing of the armistice, he left his post and renounced the title of Hero of Artsakh. The Armenian YouTube channel “Lurer” (“news”) published a recording of Babayan and Harutyunyan’s talks, from which it follows that General Babayan really considered the possibility of recapturing Shusha even after its abandonment,but the further prospect of resistance was very gloomy.

Fragment of a conversation (not translated verbatim): “Let’s calculate the (combat) task. Twenty, thirty volleys of the “Smerch” MLRS blanket Shushi. We kill everyone there. Taking the city back. What’s next? The state of the army and the civilian population does not allow for war. We gave battle, took Shushi, then what? ( … ) we Can’t fight with the NATO army, with mercenaries, fully equipped… I tried to organize an operation with three battalions yesterday. We only have four howitzers. If we are not provided with artillery, how will you ensure the offensive or cut off his (the enemy’s) tails? (…) Today we must finally negotiate with Russia that we are handing over these territories and leaving them. Or they help us. Imagine that we have two Grads for the entire army today, a dozen howitzers, for which we have no shells.”

To sum up, General Babayan believed that resistance was useless at this stage of the fighting. We must refuse to continue the war and either surrender, or ask for ten days for an organized exit of the local population and the 30 thousand soldiers of the southern front who are completely surrounded. As an alternative, it was proposed to urgently ask Russia for direct military assistance in the form of PMCs or volunteers, equipment and ammunition.

But all this does not negate the question of why a small group of Azerbaijani infantrymen without heavy equipment, who broke through to Shusha, was not destroyed before the Armenian army began to panic. The retention of Shusha created a completely different architecture of political agreements for the NKR and Armenia. If this is a political decision, then who actually made it?

* * *

This list of mysteries of the second Karabakh war is far from complete. In addition, the Armenian leadership has accumulated many similar questions about preparing for war. This war was lost before it even started, precisely because of the inaction or strange action of Yerevan.

The proceedings will continue for a long time. The situation in the region has changed so radically in these forty days that all the old approaches to resolving the conflict and its military component have died out of themselves. And the new reality will require new solutions for Armenia. And it is not yet clear who will take these decisions.  


Personally, I do not see any dark conspiracy here.  What I do see is a truly PHENOMENAL level of incompetence from the Sorosite leadership of Armenia.  Simply put, the vast majority of the truly competent Armenian leaders, civilian and military, were either jailed or, at the very least fired en masse.  There is a very simple explanation for this too.

From Pashinian’s (and, from now on, when I say “Pashinian” I mean the usual suspects: MI6, CIA, Soros, etc.) point of view, the “old guard” of Soviet trained leaders had to be removed because they could not be trusted.  But what this imbecile, and his masters, did not realize is that the “Soviet educated” leadership was far more competent than the “woke and transgender friendly democrats” which took power in 2018.

[Sidebar: Did you notice something quite interesting? The “old” and “Soviet trained” military forces in general, and their commanders especially, are systematically much better trained that those forces trained by NATO or “the most powerful military in the history of the galaxy”.  Why is it that the democratic, progressive and advanced forces like, say, the Saudis, the Israelis, the Georgians, the Yemeni or all the other many “good terrorists” always perform miserably in combat?  I will let you ponder this question :-)]

By the way, Pashinian, who is hiding in a bunker or inside the US embassy compound in Erevan, is still at it!  Yesterday he called Macron, who is under pressure from the huge Armenian immigration in France to do something, to ask for his help and Macron promised to help find a solution acceptable to all sides, implying two things:

  1. That the “Russian solution” (in reality Armenian the acceptance by Erevan of the Azeri terms) is not acceptable and that
  2. That France has some kind of magic wand that Macron can wave a few times and forever turn the entire area of operation into a peaceful land of milk and honey were everybody would hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and “feel the love” forever and ever.

As usually, the Brits are much more devious, secretive and smart: the head of MI6 is in Turkey to meet with “senior officials”.  Yeah, right!  By the way, this guy, Richard Moore, is a former UK Ambassador to Turkey.  To get a sense of what this is all about, all you need to do is look into any history book to see that the Brits have always used the Ottomans as canon-fodder against Russia.

As for the US Americans, they are basically paralyzed by the chaos in their own country.  But either one of the dummies running might try something desperate to “show the flag” and prove that he is “tough on Russia”.

So what’s next?

For years now I have been saying the following about the Western political leaders: they are unable to build anything worthwhile, but they are most definitely able to spread chaos, anarchy, violence, insurgencies, etc.  So the first thing you can be sure of is that the AngloZionists will do everything in their power to egg on the Armenians, the Azeris and even the Turks to reject an outcome which the West sees as a triumph for Russia (and for Putin personally!).

Then there is Erdogan, who is furious at the Russian categorical rejection of his demands to be part of the peacekeeping force.  All the Russians have agreed to is to create a special “monitoring post” staffed by Russians and Turks, far away from the Nagorno-Karabakh region where a joint team of observers would “monitor” the situation by looking at computers.  There will be no Turkish soldiers in the peacekeeping area (see Russian military map above).

As a fallback option, the Turks are also demanding they they be allowed to fly their own drones over the area of operations.  In response, the Armenian side has declared that Armenia and Russia have jointly declared a no-fly zone over the entire area.  As far as I know, the Russians have not confirmed that “yet”, but you can be pretty sure that they will immediately shoot down any unauthorized aircraft approaching their positions.

To get a sense of how the Russians are acting, you need to know two things:

First, the Russian liberal media is already complaining that Russia has included “undeclared” weapons systems in its peacekeeping force (MLRS and APCs).  This is hardly surprising considering the very high probability of provocations (by both sides).  Besides, the vague language of the agreement allows Russian to bring in “specialized vehicles” which could mean anything and everything.

Furthermore, I am pretty confident that the Russian 102nd Military Base is a Russian military base in Gyumri will receive reinforcements and will serve as the logistical support hub for the Russian peacekeeping force.

Lieutenant General Rustam Muradov and Vladimir Putin

Second, it is worth looking at the career of the man who will be commanding the Russian peacekeeping force, Lieutenant General Rustam Muradov.  You can check his biography here and here.  I will simply summarize this man’s career by saying two words: Donbass, Syria.

He is not some kind of pretend-general whose qualifications are mainly as organizers and politicians.  This guy is a real combat general, the kind who personally comes under fire because he makes sure to regularly be with his men on the frontlines and who has experience dealing with the Axis of Kindness and its “good terrorists” (whether local or special ops).

The West perfectly understands this and is absolutely furious about being “cheated” by Russia again!

First, the Russians stopped the bloody war in Syria, now they stopped the war in Azerbaijan.  For the Empire, this means the total loss of the axis of instability which they lovingly tried to create in the Caucasus and the Middle-East to eventually hit the Russian underbelly.  They failed.  They won’t forgive this.

Second, most Armenians worldwide are absolutely horrified at the outcome of this war, and they have my sincere sympathy.  The problem here is that many of them blame Russia, rather than their own leaders.  Furthermore, there are many truly rabid nationalists amongst the anti-Pashinian forces in Armenia.  Right now, Pashinian is hiding somewhere and he still refuses to resign (backed to the hilt by the West, of course).  But this will change, I can’t imagine anybody staying in power after such a catastrophe.

However, Pashinian gone does not at all mean that pro-Russian, or even Russia-neutral, forces will succeed him.  In fact, as in most chaotic situations, it is the extremists who are most likely to seize power.  And God only knows what they might do next!

In a paradoxical way, the best outcome for Russia would be to have Pashinian stay in power just a little longer, just long enough to create a fait accompli on the ground which no nutcases could meaningfully overturn.

Right now, two things are happening: Armenian refugees are clogging the only roads which will allow them to flee to Armenia.  These poor people will never trust the word of an Azeri or, even less so, a Turk, could say (and who could blame them?!).

This is truly a heart-breaking tragedy which could have been completely avoided had Pashinian and his Sorosites done a few, really basic, things (preparing for war and settling for an imperfect peace agreement for starters).

Armenian-NK forces are also withdrawing, and it’s not like they have much of an option here: escaping with their lives is really all these poor soldiers could hope for (and by no fault of theirs, I would add!).

The next couple of weeks will be crucial and I can only hope that the Russians are fully ready to deal with any contingency, including a complete Armenian turnaround if Pashinian is overthrown very soon.

It is now a race against the clock: on one side, the West wants Russia out at quite literally *ANY* costs in Azeri and Armenian lives while the Russians are scrambling to make the agreement a well-defended reality on the ground.  In the Ukraine they say that “the West is willing to fight Russia down the the very last Ukrainian“.  I hope and pray that this does not happen in the Caucasus.

The Saker

PS: on the really sad and tragic side, I personally can’t imagine any refugees willing to come back, in spite of all the pious promises made by all sides.  Look, let’s be honest here: during the first NK war, which the Armenians won, the Azeris were brutally expelled, there were several instances of mass murder of Azeri civilians by the triumphant Armenian forces.  This time around, the Azeris made all sorts of promises, but if I was an Armenian I would not trust a single word the Turks or Azeris say (heck, these two still deny that there was any genocide of Armenians by the Ottomans!).  Keep in mind that in this short war, about 4000 civilians have died; that is the official figure, the real one is probably even worse!

Maybe in a decade or two, and only if Russia remains the peacekeeper of the Caucases, will some refugees, or their sons and daughters return to their historical homelands.  But right now, the Russian peacekeeping force will probably end up maintaining the peace in a very empty Nagorno-Karabakh.  This is a revolting outcome which, I will repeat this, could have been avoided by Pashinian and his gang of Sorosites.  May that be a lesson to anybody else taking these evil clowns seriously!

ما هي تغييرات السياسة الأميركيّة في حال خسارة دونالد ترامب

باريس – نضال حمادة

تظهر النتائج شبه النهائية للانتخابات الرئاسية في أميركا تقدّم المرشح الديمقراطي جو بايدن على الرئيس المنتهية ولايته دونالد ترامب، وإنْ كان بفارق ضئيل يجعل ترامب يحاول عرقلة هذه النتيجة عبر الاعتراض وتقديم الشكاوى، دون أن يكون لذلك تأثير مباشر على عملية الانتقال في الحكم التي سوف تحصل بعد شهرين من الآن في حال ثبتت النتائج الحالية بفوز بايدن.

الآن ومع اقتراب موعد ذهاب ترامب كما تشير صناديق الاقتراع، ما الذي سوف يتغيّر في السياسة الأميركية في العالم وفي الشرق الأوسط بخاصة؟

لا شك في أنّ أوّل المتغيّرات سوف يكون في السعودية على صعيد صراع أطراف آل سعود على السلطة ودعم ترامب المباشر لمحمد بن سلمان الذي مكّنه من السيطرة على مقاليد الحكم في السعودية وزجّ كلّ أطراف آل سعود الأقوياء من أبناء عمومته في السجون، ودعمه لإبن سلمان في حرب اليمن التي ربما لن تغيّر إدارة بايدن الموقف منها بقدر ما سوف تسحب الدعم الكبير داخلياً لإبن سلمان في وجه أبناء عمومته الذين يتحيّنون الفرص للثأر منه.

تركيا سوف تتأثر بسبب كره جو بايدن الشخصي لأردوغان، وهو لم يتورّع (أيّ بايدن) عن التصريح مرتين أنّ أميركا يجب أن تعمل على إسقاط أردوغان من حكم تركيا، وهذا ما سوف يزيد اعتماد أردوغان على روسيا وقد يخلق أجواء إيجابية أكثر في سورية.

روسيا سوف تفتقد ترامب الذي حفلت ولايته بتعاون بينه وبين بوتين في أكثر من مكان، منها سورية التي قرّر ترامب مغادرتها لكن ضغوط الجمهوريّين عليه وأموال العرب التي دفعت له جعلته يتراجع عن قراره هذا ثلاث مرات.

إيران التي وعد بايدن بإعادة العمل بالاتفاق النووي معها، وقد تكون غلطة ترامب القاتلة إلغاء هذا الاتفاق من دون إعطاء أيّ بديل عنه للعالم ولإيران، التي ترى أنّ بايدن بعكس ترامب لن ينسحب من سورية ولا من أفغانستان ولا من العراق، وبالتالي فإنّ أجواء التوتر مع أميركا في ظلّ حكمه سوف تستمرّ، كما أنّ كلام بايدن عن ضرورة إسقاط أردوغان لا يصبّ في مصلحة إيران التي ترى أنّ أميركا سوف تعود من باب إسقاط أردوغان إلى سياسة إسقاط الأنظمة في المنطقة.

في سياسات الحصار التي عمل عليها ترامب لا شيء يوحي أنّ بايدن سوف يوقف العمل بها أو بجزء منها من دون مقابل، هو طوال حملته الانتخابية لم ينتقد قوانين الحصار التي فرضها ترامب على إيران وسورية وغيرها من البلدان، وبالتالي لن يكون التخلي عن هذه السياسات من دون مقابل.

على صعيد دول الغرب تترقب كلّ من ألمانيا وفرنسا بفارغ الصبر ذهاب ترامب الذي عمل على تفكيك أوروبا ودعم بوريس جونسون في خروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد الأوروبي، وكانت علاقات ترامب مع ماكرون وميركل سيئة على الصعيد الشخصي بعكس علاقته الشخصيّة مع بوتين مثلاً.

الصين تنظر بارتياح لخروج ترامب من البيت الأبيض وهو الذي دخل معها في حرب تجارية من دون هوادة، واتهمها بتصنيع ونشر فيروس كورونا، وكانت علاقته بها عبارة عن حفلات من الكره وتوجيه الشتائم.

أخيراً الخاسر الأكبر على الصعيد الشخصي سوف يكون بنيامين نتنياهو صنو محمد بن سلمان الذي سوف يفقد ترامب الداعم الكبير لكلّ اليمين المتطرف الأميركي و»الإسرائيلي» رغم أنّ بايدن أعلن مرة أنه صهيوني لكن علاقته بنتنياهو كانت سيئة إبان وجوده في الحكم مع باراك أوباما ولا شيء يوحي بتحسّنها لحدّ الآن…

Why Is Europe Courting Revolution?

Source

Why Is Europe Courting Revolution? - CORONA stocks

Alastair Crooke

November 2, 2020

All eyes remain on the U.S. election, and on fathoming its consequences. But in the shadow of ‘The Election’, there are other ‘moving parts’: Germany just offered Washington ‘a sweetheart deal’ in which, Europe – with Germany leading – accepts to leverage America’s full-spectrum strategy of isolating and weakening Russia and China. And in return it is asking the U.S. to acquiesce to German leadership of a ‘power-political’, European entity that is raised to parity with the U.S. That, bluntly, is to say, Germany is angling for ‘superpower’ status, atop an EU ‘empire’ for the new era. Putin recognised such a possibility (Germany aspiring to be a superpower) during his recent speech to Valdai.

But the other ‘moving parts’ to this bid are very much in motion, too: Firstly, Germany’s ploy is contingent on their hopes for a Biden win, which may, or may not, occur. And then, too, President Macron seeks for himself, and for France, the leadership of Europe – with this latter – to an extent – being contingent on a ‘no deal’ Brexit taking place at the end of the year, that would further weaken a dis-animated and fading Merkel. France rather, plots the ‘Great Reset’ of Europe: A regulatory and values enforced ‘space’, underpinned by a common fiscal and debt regime that would rebuild France’s economic infrastructure.

All this raises many questions: Should Trump win, he can be expected to puncture any German (or French) aspiration to drain away some of America’s power, however nicely the German FM wraps it, as the U.S. not so much losing power, but as gaining “a strong partner on equal terms”. Huh!

The idea that Europe can leverage this partnership through sweet-talking Germany’s commitment “to the West as a system of values”, which is “at risk in its entirety”, and which, only Germany and the U.S. together can keep strong – does seem a bit of a daydream. Even when sugar-wrapped with “defending against the unmistakable Russian thirst for power, and Chinese ambitions for global supremacy”. Firstly, there is still Trump, and secondly —

China and Russia clearly see the game. Yet European leaders seem to expect that the former will continue as if nothing is awry. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer seems to think so (she is both Defence Minister, and Chair of the CDU, Merkel’s own party). In terms of containing “China’s aggressively controlled state capitalism”, she suggests creating a European trade sphere that is open only to those who want to strengthen and support the liberal, rules-based order – and to which other states must ‘submit’ (Macron’s words). These are the bones to how Brussels proposes to achieve ‘strategic autonomy’ (Charles Michel’s term).

Here are some extracts of Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer’s ‘deal’ given in a 23 October speech:

“… Most of all, America has given us what we call ‘Westbindung’ … Westbindung, to me, is and remains, a clear rejection of the historic temptation of equidistance. Westbindung anchors us firmly in NATO and the EU and ties us closely to Washington, Brussels, Paris and London. It clearly and rightly positions us against a romantic fixation on Russia – and also against an illiberal corporative state that rejects parties and parliaments [i.e. China] … Westbindung is the answer to the famous “German question”, the question of what Germany stands for … Only America and Europe together can keep the West strong, defending it against the unmistakable Russian thirst for power and Chinese ambitions for global supremacy … To be the giver [in a process of ‘give and take with the U.S.] would require us to take a firm power-political stance. To ambitiously play the geopolitical game. But even looking at all this, there are still some Americans who are not convinced that they need NATO. I understand that. Because there is one thing still missing: That is for the Europeans to take powerful action themselves, when push comes to shove. So that the United States can see Europe as a strong partner on equal terms, not as a damsel in distress. As you can see: the German dilemma is a European dilemma as well. We stay dependent [on the U.S.], but at the same time, we must come into our own. In strengthening Europe like this, Germany must play a key role … enabling it to operate more independently of, and more closely with, the United States at the same time …”.

Three major geo-political issues here are intersecting: Firstly, Germany is metamorphosing politically, in a way that holds disturbing parallels with its transition in the pre-WW1, European setting. In short, the ‘German Question’ is surfacing again (but not in AKK’s way): When the Berlin Wall fell, Russia supported the reunification of Germany and pinned hopes on Germany being a partner for the wider unification project: the construction of a ‘Greater Europe’.

It proved to be a chimaera: Germany, far from supporting Russia’s inclusion, instead, favoured the expansion of Europe and NATO to Russia’s borders. The EU – under U.S. pressure – was forming a Greater Europe that would eventually include all the states of Europe, except Russia.

But in so doing, West Europe absorbed into the EU the tumour of East European neuralgia on Russia. Berlin, all the while, has played on America’s visceral hostility towards Russia – more as a tool to build out its European space up to the Russian border. Germany thus has prioritised assuaging Eastern European ancient antipathies, above any real attempt at a relationship with Russia. Now Germany wants to ‘play it again’: In a July interview, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said that the Russian leadership must be “confronted with a clear position: We are well-fortified, and in case of doubt, ready to defend ourselves. We see what Russia is doing, and we will not let the Russian leadership get away with it”.

Well: Fool me once … but fool me twice …? The Navalny episode was the last straw. It was a blatant lie. Merkel and Macron knew it to be a lie. And they knew that Moscow knew it, too. Yet they both preferred to toss the Russophobes another ‘bone’. Moscow gave up with them.

The real puzzle is why Moscow put up with this play for so long. The answer perhaps, lies with the Russian two-headed eagle, whose heads face in opposite directions: one toward Europe, and the other toward Asia. Merkel’s obvious deceit is stretching and testing social trust in Russia, just too far. The Russian élites may lean towards Europe, but their base looks East. Navalny was the humiliating straw that broke the camel’s back

Now Macron – still energised, but himself politically weakened – hopes to drain further Merkel’s strength (in mercantilist terms), through engineering a UK no-deal Brexit that would damage Germany’s huge trade surplus with Britain, at the very moment that Germany is losing markets in Russia (and now possibly in China); and when America, if Trump is re-elected, would likely embark on a trade war with Europe.

Weakening Merkel’s hand – that is – in opposing an European joint debt instrument, together with a common fiscal policies, is the aim, so that France might draw down on German fiscal resources placed within a ‘common pot’, and then deployed to revamp the French economy.

The Brussels plan for a ‘Great Reset’ – transforming the European economy, and the social sphere – through automation and technology is, as Tom Luongo has noted delusional: “[W]hat’s been pretty clear to me is Europe’s delusions that it can subjugate the world under its rubric, forcing its rules and standards on the rest of us, including China, [whilst] again allowing the U.S. to act as its proxy – [as Europe] tries to maintain its [‘power-political’] standing is delusional”.

Why?

‘Delusional’, as although China may be an “aggressively controlled state capitalism” in Euro-speak, it is also a major ‘civilisational state’, with its own distinct values. Brussels may call their regulatory space ‘open’, but it is clearly exclusionary, and not multilateral. The action of this politics is only pushing the world towards a separation of distinct regulatory spheres – and toward deeper recession.

On the practical plane, whereas first phase Covid tended to provide support to Europe’s incumbent governments, this present infection spike is shredding support for incumbents. Protests and riots are increasingly taking place across Europe. Episodes of violence have been met with horror by the authorities, which suspect that organized crime and radical groups are at work to spark a political wildfire. And that potential is very much there.

To the structural unemployment already incurred in phase one, now must be added another wave of possibly irreversible unemployment, (again) in the services sector. For small businesses and the self-employed, it is a nightmare. Not surprisingly, the anger grows as those losing their means of living observe that civil servants and the middle classes more generally, are passing through this episode, virtually unscathed.

European governments have been caught off-guard. There is absolute confusion as governments try to square keeping the economy alive, with containing the infected from overwhelming hospitals – achieving neither. This represents the cost of the ‘summer opening’ to save the tourist season. No one is on their balcony these evenings banging cooking pots in communal solidarity. Today, protests and riots have taken their place.

Into this mounting anger is inserted dark suspicion. Some may view Covid as pure conspiracy; others will not. Yet it is not ‘conspiracy’ to believe that European governments may knowingly have used the pandemic to increase their tools of social control, (despite ‘distancing’ being a genuine medical containment strategy). Was this concerted in anticipation of the changes implicit to the ‘Great Reset’? We do not know. Yet, from the outset, western governments couched their measures as ‘war’ – and as war that required war-time state-directed economics, and war-time public compliance.

Rightly or wrongly, it is becoming a culture war. Overtones of the anger on U.S. streets. Again, dark suspicions that cultural life is being closed down in order to prepare Europeans for the drowning of their cultural identities into a big Brussels-made, melting-pot. These fears may be misplaced, but they are ‘out there’, and viral.

It is Europe’s political fabric and societal cohesion that is in play – and its leaders are not just confused: They fear.

It would indeed be hubristic delusion then, were European leaders to proceed with the automation ‘Great Reset’, and add yet more structural unemployment to a pile, already threatening to topple, under its growing weight (into mass protest). Do they want revolution?

ماكرون إعتذِر وتعهّد بعدم تكرار خطئك الذي لا يُغتفر

المحامي معن الأسعد

لم تكن ردود الفعل من العالمين الإسلامي والعربي، على المواقف التي أطلقها الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون، وأساء فيها إلى نبي الرحمة وأهان الإسلام، واتهمه بأنه يعيش في أزمات، بالمستوى الردعي الذي يستحقه، ويكشف زيفه وادّعاءه ومغالطاته، ويفضح جهله بالإسلام كعقيدة ورسالة سماوية إنسانية كغيرها من الأديان والرسالات التي تدعو إلى المحبة والتسامح والسلام، والحق والفضيلة، وتتصدّى للإرهاب أياً كان مصدره ومرتكبه وهويته «ومن قتل نفساً بغير حقّ كأنه قتل الناس جميعاً» هذا هو الإسلام.

إنّ الرئيس ماكرون يجب ان يعلم وأعتقد أنه يعلم، إلا إذا كان يريد تجهيل نفسه، أنّ الإرهاب لا دين له ولا طائفة ولا هوية، ونذكّره وهو حكماً يتذكّر ماذا فعلت دولته التي استعمرت دولاً بشعوبها وخيراتها في أفريقيا، في الجزائر وتونس ولبنان وغيرها، وكيف حكمتها بالحديد والنار والاعتقال والقمع والتجويع ومصادرة الممتلكات، يعني أنها مارست الإرهاب المكشوف والمقنّع.

نذكّره، ونسأله، أليست فرنسا وأميركا وأوروبا وبعض العرب هم من اخترعوا «داعش» والحركات الإرهابية المتطرفة، ودعموها سياسياً ومالياً وعسكرياً؟ هل يتذكّر الرئيس الفرنسي عندما أطلق وحلفاؤه، على الإرهابيين القتلة، لقب «مقاتلي حرية» (freedom fighters).

ألستم من موّل وسلّح ودعَم الإرهابيين، ونقلهم إلى بلادنا لقتال الدول التي رفضت الانصياع والخضوع لمشاريعكم ومخططاتكم المشبوهة إرضاء وخدمة للكيان الصهيوني الغاصب؟

ألستم أنتم من فتحتم الطريق أمام الإرهابيين تحت أيّ مسمّى كانوا ليرتكبوا المجازر ويقطعوا الرؤوس ويجزّوا الرقاب ويغتصبوا النساء، في أفظع ما تعرّضت له البشرية في العصر الحديث؟ أليسوا هم بغطاء منكم وحمايتكم قتل الإرهابيون مئات الألوف من الشعوب العربية والإسلامية البريئة، ويتّموا أولادهم وشرّدوهم في البراري في ظروف اجتماعية وإنسانية ومعيشية وصحية ومناخية أودت بعشرات الالوف منهم؟ ألستم من ساعد الإرهابيّين على تدمير بلادنا وتهجير شعوبها وتحطيم وسرقة تراثها وآثارها وطمس حضارتها التي كانت الشاهد على زيف حضارتكم؟

إنّ الذين ينحرون ويقطعون الرقاب في بلدكم فرنسا، هم من صناعتكم، وقد عادوا إلى بلادكم بعد أن أمعنوا إرهاباً وقتلاً وتدميراً وخراباً في بلادنا، يعني بكلّ بساطة بضاعتكم عادت إليكم، بعد أن نفذوا إرهابهم في العراق وسورية ولبنان واليمن.

إعتذر أيها الرئيس الفرنسي ممّن أسأت إلى دينهم ونبيّهم وقيَمهم الرسالية والإنسانية، وتعهّد بعدم تكرار ما ارتكبته من خطأ فاضح لا يغتفر…

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

أمين عام التيار الأسعدي

الإرهاب ليس إسلامياً

بثينة شعبان 

المصدر: الميادين نت

2 تشرين ثاني 00:0

عشرات الآلاف من الإرهابيين الذين عاثوا فساداً في سوريا قدموا من الدول الأوروبية
عشرات الآلاف من الإرهابيين الذين عاثوا فساداً في سوريا قدموا من الدول الأوروبية

لقد ضرب مئات الألوف من الإرهابيين، الذين قدِموا من أكثر من مائة دولة، أجزاءً مختلفةً من سوريا وساهموا في تدمير مؤسساتها ولكننا لم نتّهم دين أحد، ولا جنسية أحد منهم.

علّ الخطيئة الأكبر التي اقترفها الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون في تصريحاته المتوترة حول الأحداث الأخيرة في فرنسا هي تصريحه أن “بلادنا تعرضت لهجوم من الإرهاب الإسلامي”. وسواء أكانت هذه العبارة مقصودة أو ناجمة عن جهل أثرها وانعدام صحتها، فهي لا شك خطيرة جداً وفي هذا التوقيت بالذات، ليس على المسلمين فقط، وإنما على فرنسا وأوروبا اللّتين تتشاطران الهوية المسلمة مع  وجود عدد غير قليل من المواطنين المسلمين الذين أصبحوا فرنسيين وأوروبيين، بفعل الهجرة والولادة أو تبنّي الإسلام ديناً لهم، ولا أحد يستطيع إنكار ذلك عليهم. 

أما السبب الثاني فيكمن في خطورة ارتدادات هكذا تصريح. نحن أمام رئيس أوروبي خلط بين إجرامٍ يقوم به بعض المجرمين لأسبابهم الخاصة والمختلفة وبين جنسيتهم أو هويتهم الدينية، وإذا ما تمّ تعميم هذا الأمر على البقع الجغرافية التي يضرب فيها الإرهاب، لانتهينا إلى وجود إرهاب فرنسي وألماني وهولندي وبلجيكي ومسيحي ويهودي وبوذي.. والقائمة تطول. ولذلك فإنه من المحظور أن تُلصق تهمة الإرهاب بدينٍ أو جنسية فقط لأن أحد مرتكبي الجرائم الإرهابية ينتمي إلى هذا الدين أو هذه الجنسية. إنّ الدين والجنسية براء مما يقوم به الإرهابيون. 

لقد ضرب الإرهاب يا سيد ماكرون الجمهورية العربية السورية كأبشع ما تكون به الضربات والعدوان على شعب وتاريخ وحضارة وهوية ومؤسسات، ولكنّ أحداً في العالم لم يسمع جملة واحدة نَطق بها أي سوري، جملةٌ تتحدث عن إرهاب أوروبي أو مسيحي أو ما شابه ذلك لا سمح الله، فنحن ندرك أن هؤلاء الإرهابيين شذاذ آفاقٍ لا علاقة لهم بأي دين سماوي، وأخلاق الديانات السّمحة براء منهم. 

الأكثر من ذلك، إنّ عدداً لا بأس به من هؤلاء كانوا أوروبيين وعدداً منهم كانوا فرنسيين ويتكلمون الفرنسية ويمثلون بالجثث على الأرض السورية وهم يهللون للقتل بلغتهم الفرنسية. ومع ذلك، لم نسمع ولم يسمع العالم تصريحاً سورياً واحداً يتحدّث عن إرهابٍ فرنسي أو إرهابٍ أوروبي رغم أن الأبحاث الموضوعية تُثبت أن عشرات الآلاف من الإرهابيين الذين عاثوا فساداً في سوريا قدِموا من الدول الأوروبية عبر تركيا، حاملين جوازات أوروبية بما فيها الفرنسية، والكثير منهم كان مسلحاً برشاشات لا يستخدمها غير الجيش الفرنسي، أي أن الإرهابيين في غرب دمشق كانوا مسلّحين من قبل الجيش الفرنسي مباشرة.

وما زال 600 طفل من إنجاب هؤلاء عالقين في شرق سوريا ولا تريد دولهم، وعلى رأسها فرنسا، استردادهم رغم نداءات الأمم المتحدة التي دعت هذه الدول إلى تحمّل مسؤوليتها تجاه رعاياها، ولا شك لدينا أنهم حظوا بتمويل وتسليح وتسهيلات من أجهزة المخابرات الفرنسية. ومع ذلك، فقد استهدفنا الإرهابيين أنفسهم في كلّ عملٍ وقولٍ ولم نأتِ على ذكر دينهم أو جنسيتهم ولم نوصم أياً منهما بالإرهاب. 

الفرق بين موقفنا وموقف ماكرون هو أننا نؤمن أن العالم أسرة واحدة وأنّ الإرهاب لا دين ولا وطن له وأنّ الإجرام الذي مارسته تلك العصابات على سوريا والسوريين وقبلهم على اللّيبيين والعراقيين، يمكن أن ينتقل إلى أي مكان في العالم، لأن الخطر الأساس كما أكّد السيد الرئيس بشار الأسد منذ البداية هو الإيديولوجية الإرهابية وليس وجود الإرهابيين فقط، ولذلك لابدّ من التعاون العالمي لاجتثاث جذور هذه الإيديولوجية وإلا فسيبقى الإرهاب يفاجئ الأبرياء من أفغانستان إلى العراق وسوريا وليبيا وفرنسا. ولكن أوروبا ومنها فرنسا الرسمية، عبر مخابراتها السرية، ساهمت بتغذية وتمويل وتسليح الإرهاب الذي ضرب سوريا. 

أما تركيا، فقد شكّلت ولا زالت تشكل ملاذاً آمناً للإرهابيين القادمين إلى سوريا وسهّلت لهم عبورهم وتموضعهم على الأرض السورية، وفي هذا المضمار أيضاً قال الرئيس بوتين “حين نحارب الإرهاب في سوريا فنحن ندافع عن موسكو”، وهذا صحيح ولكن الجيشين السوري والروسي لا يدافعان عن سوريا وروسيا فحسب، إنّما يدافعان عن أمن العالم برمّته في مواجهة هذه الآفة الخطيرة.

المشكلة في الموقف الفرنسي خصوصاً والغربي عموماً هو انقسام العالم إلى “هم” و”نحن”، وهنا يأتي تصريح الرئيس ماكرون ليبرهن على ذلك حين قال: “تعرضنا للهجوم بسبب قيم الحرية لدينا وعدم خضوعنا للإرهاب” متناسياً أنّ العالم كلّه يعرف أنّ المخابرات السرية الغربية والجيوش الاستعمارية القادمة من الغرب متورّطة ومنذ زمن الاستعمار القديم بالإرهاب والمجازر الوحشية. وما السبب برأيك يا سيد ماكرون بأن سوريا تعرضت لهجمات إرهابية أقسى وأعتى مما تعرّضتم له، وعلى مدى عشر سنوات، إذا كانت برأيك تفتقر إلى قيم الحرية التي تعتبرها حكراً عليك وعلى الغرب؟ إن حرية المعتقد والعيش المشترك الذي عُرفت به سوريا على مدى قرون، كان الهدف الأساس لهذه الحرب الإرهابية الظالمة التي تعرّض لها الشعب السوري، وإذا ما أردتم إصلاحاً حقيقياً وآمناً للعالم برمته، فلا بدّ أن تفكروا بطريقة مختلفة لا تُنبئ عن تفكير فوقي يكاد يصل إلى حدود العنصرية ضد الشعوب والأديان الأخرى. 

لقد ضرب مئات الألوف من الإرهابيين، الذين قدِموا من أكثر من مائة دولة، أجزاءً مختلفةً من سوريا وساهموا في تدمير مؤسساتها ولكننا لم نتّهم دين أحد ولا جنسية أحد منهم، ولم نزِر وازرةً وزر أُخْرَى، لما قامت به من شرذمة على أيدي المضلَّل بهم وشذاذ الآفاق الذين تبنّوا هذه الإيديولوجية البشعة لأسباب لا علاقة لها بالدين أو بالإنسانية. 

إنّ هؤلاء الذين يدّعون الدفاع عن الإسلام من ورثة العبودية العثمانية، هم أنفسهم الذين لعبوا دوراً أساسياً في استقدام إرهابيين من كلّ أصقاع الأرض ونظرياً من أتباع كلّ الديانات، إلى سوريا بلد الإسلام والمسيحية والعيش المشترك، فكيف يستوي ادّعاؤهم بالدفاع عن الإسلام والمسلمين مع تدمير بلد قدّم للبشرية أنموذجاً للمحبة والتآخي من بين أتباع الديانات السماوية؟ ثم ماذا عن الإرهاب الذي يضرب الأراضي الفلسطينية والشعب الفلسطيني؟ وماذا عن ذبح المسلمين وهم ساجدون في الحرم الإبراهيمي الشريف على يد المجرم باروخ غولدشتاين والذي أقام الإحتلال الإسرائيلي له نُصُباً تذكارياً؟ هل أسميتم ذلك الإرهاب إرهاباً يهودياً؟ فلماذا إذاً يتم تجريم الإسلام والمسلمين بسبب بعض المجرمين الذين لا يتورّعون عن قتل المسلمين وقتل أتباع الديانات الأخرى لأنهم لا يعرفون الدين أو الإيمان؟

من أجل التخلص من شرورهم، لا بدّ أولاً من التخلص من الموقف التمييزي الذي يقسم العالم إلى أعلى وأدنى، ويعتبر أن القيم التي يتمتع بها حكراً عليه. وما رأيه إذا كانت القيم الحضارية المغروسة في هذه الأرض والمتوارثة على مدى أكثر من عشرة آلاف عام هي القيم المؤهلة لإنقاذ البشرية ليس من خطر الإرهاب فقط، وإنما من خطر التمييز والعنصرية اللّذين يهددان بلدانكم من الداخل؛ فهل من مراجعة عاقلة ومسؤولة لهذا التخبط المفهوماتي والإعلامي الذي يصبّ الزيت على النار بدلاً من معالجة أسباب التوتر المجتمعي والسياسي بحكمة واتزان ومسؤولية؟ وهل من تشريع على مستوى عالمي يحرّم على الجميع تناول الرموز الدينية والمقدّسات لأتباع كلّ الديانات التي يؤمن بها البشر؟ حينذاك فقط، يمكن أن نعزل الإرهابيين ونقضي على شرورهم في كلّ مكان. 

ماكرون عندما ينفذأهداف خصمه أردوغان…!

باريس – نضال حمادة

بعد لعملية الإجرامية التي وقعت أمام كنيسة في مدينة نيس الفرنسية، وفي تصريح جديد له بدا الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون أكثر اعتدالاً اتجاه الجالية الإسلامية في فرنسا ولأول مرة منذ بداية الأزمة عندما أعلن في خطاب له عن أزمة الدين الإسلامي ومن ثم عند حصول جريمة الأستاذ الذي قُتل بسكين شاب شيشاني بسبب الرسوم المسيئة للرسول الأكرم، للمرة الأولى تحدث الرئيس الفرنسي عن مجموعة واحدة في فرنسا هي المجموعة الوطنية، وغيّر من تعابيره عندما تكلم عن الإسلاميين ولم يتكلم عن الإسلام، فيما يبدو انه أتى نتيجة نصيحة بتغيير خطابه، وليس معروفاً لحد الآن مَن نصح ماكرون بتبني خطاب متطرّف وهجوميّ ضدّ الإسلام كدين في بداية الأزمة.

اكتشف ماكرون والمحيطين به بعد عشرة أيام من افتعال الصدام أنه قدّم للرئيس التركي رجب طيب أردوغان كل ما يريده ويتمناه عندما فتح معركة غير مفهومة الأسباب ضد الإسلام، اللهم إلا الأسباب الانتخابية.

لقد أصبح أردوغان المدافع الأول عن النبي الأكرم محمد بسبب سجالاته مع ماكرون وتصريحاته اليومية بهذا الشأن، ويبدو أنّ هناك في أوروبا من نصحه بتغيير لهجته وتعابيره في هذه المعركة، لأنّ خصمه أردوغان هو الرابح الأكبر، كما تشير معلومات صحافية إلى أنّ ألمانيا رفضت الدخول مع فرنسا في موضوع مقاطعة أوروبية لمنتجات دول قد تقاطع البضائع الفرنسية.

فرنسا التي ذهبت إلى ليبيا وأسقطت القذافي ودعمت الإسلاميين المتطرفين هناك ترى بأمّ عينها اليوم روسيا وتركيا تحتلان المشهد الليبي فيما هي غائبة كلياً عنه، وفرنسا أيضاً التي دعمت كلّ الجماعات المتطرفة في سورية لإسقاط النظام هناك وشكلت رأس الحربة في مجلس الأمن الدولي لتكرار التجربة الليبية في سورية، ترى بأمّ عينها روسيا وتركيا تحتلان المشهد السوري فيما هي خارج اللعبة تماماً، ونفسها فرنسا ترفض منذ سنوات التعاون مع الدولة السورية في المجالات الأمنية والآن تلجأ للروس للحصول على معلومات عن سلفيين حاربوا في سورية وعادوا الى أوروبا، أما في لبنان فيبدو أنّ المبادرة الفرنسية انتهت او لن تبصر النور إذا اتخذت الحرب بين فرنسا وسلفييها مساراً تصاعدياً.

في كلّ الأحوال هناك عودة الى العقلانية من جانب الرئيس الفرنسي، في مقاربة الأمور وتوجيه الاتهامات وتوزيع الهجمات يميناً ويساراً بعدما اكتشف أنّ الذي استفاد من هذه الأخطاء خصمهم اللدود تركيا وأردوغان تحديداً. وهذا أمر جيد للعلاقة الفرنسية مع مليار ونصف مليار مسلم عسى أن تستمرّ العقلانية لتنهي هذا الصراع المفتعل والمكلف للجميع…

نصرالله عصر التنوير وماكرون محاكم التفتيش

ناصر قنديل

العلمانية التي ظهرت كنظام سياسي وعقد اجتماعي للدولة الأوروبية المعاصرة، هي منتج سياسي وقانوني لثقافة أعمق نهضت على أكتاف الثورة الصناعيّة وتجسّدت في القرنين الثامن عشر والتاسع عشر بثورة العقل والمنطق. وما عُرف بعصر التنوير الذي قاده عمالقة بحجم فولتير وروسو ومونتسكيو، وتبلورت شعاراتها السياسية بالحرية والأخاء والمساواة في الثورة الفرنسية، بينما تبلورت فلسفته العميقة بالاحتكام للعقل، وكانت قطيعة مع تاريخ معاكس مثلته محاكم التفتيش الكاثوليكية التي دفع فيلسوف كبير مثل برونو وعلماء كبار مثل كوبرنيكوس وجاليلو ثمناً باهظاً لها بتهمة الهرطقة على قاعدة تحريم الاحتكام للعقل والعلم، بينما سياسياً واجتماعياً طورد الإصلاحيون باسم التبرؤ من البدع كما حدث مع الفيلسوف ميشال سيرفيه الذي أحرق حياً في جنيف بتهمة رفض عقيدة التثليث، فيما شكلت جرائمها بحق المسلمين في الأندلس أبرز ما حمله سجلها التاريخي تحت عنوان فحص الولاء لله، وشكلت فكرياً وثقافياً وجهاً من وجوه استمرار الحملات الصليبية.

في ما يشبه استعادة مناخات الحروب الصليبية يتبادل الرئيسان الفرنسي والتركي عبثاً بالعقائد والعواطف والانفعالات المنبثقة عنها، حيث يصب كل منهما من طرفه وفي البيئة التي يخاطبها زيتاً على نار حرب عبثية، لا يتورّع فيها الرئيس الفرنسي امانويل ماكرون عن التحدث عن أزمة في الإسلام، وإرهاب إسلامي، وفاشية إسلامية، أملاً بأن يتزعم جبهة تضم العلمانيين بداعي الدفاع عن حرية التعبير في شقها المتصل بالتغطية على ما يطال المقدسات الإسلامية، وتضم المتطرفين المسيحيين، الذين لا يخفون ضيقهم من تنامي حضور وتعداد المسلمين في فرنسا خصوصاً وأوروبا عموماً، وإلى الفريقين تضم اليمين الوطني الرافض لتكاثر المهاجرين من البلاد الإسلامية، أملاً بأن يشكل هذا الثلاثي مصدر زعامة تشبه زعامات بناها قادة الحروب الصليبية، بينما يسعى الرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان، وفي ظل نزاع مصلحي بين الدولتين الفرنسية والتركية، لقيادة جبهة تضم الجاليات الإسلامية المقهورة تحت ظلم سياسات عنصرية في أوروبا، وتضم التنظيمات الإرهابية التكفيرية التي تشغّلها تركيا، وكانت فرنسا شريكها في التشغيل طوال سنوات الحرب على سورية، وتضم ثالثاً الشعوب العربية من المسلمين التي تسمع بصعوبة كلاماً منخفض الصوت لحكوماتها الواقعة تحت تبعية ذليلة لحكومات الغرب، فتعجز عن التجرؤ لمخاطبة الحكومات الغربية، والرئيس الفرنسي في المقدمة بلغة شجاعة تنتقد وتصحح وتعترض. وهذه الحكومات التابعة هي شريك لحكومات فرنسا وأوروبا في رعاية الجماعات الإرهابية وتشجيع الفكر التكفيري، لكن بغرض استعمال نتاج هذه الرعاية في ليبيا وسورية وليس في أوروبا.

في هذا القحط الفكري، والانفلات القاتل للعصبيّات، يخرج رجل دين معمّم من أتباع الرسول وعشاقه ليقود الدعوة للتعقل وتحمّل المسؤولية، ووضع النقاط على الحروف، مستعيداً المعاني العميقة لشعارات الثورة الفرنسية ودعوات روسو وفولتير، حيث الحرية هي الاحترام العميق لحرية المعتقد. وهو في الأولوية معتقد الأقلية والضعفاء والمقهورين، والأخاء هو الترفّع عن منطق التمييز العنصري على اساس الدين والعرق واللون والجنس، والمساواة هي نزاهة تطبيق معيار المحاكمة العقلية للمفاهيم قبل أن تكون المساواة أمام القانون، حيث لا يستوي نص تحريم الحرية والعقل تحت شعار معاداة السامية، ولو التزما كل التحفظ العلمي والضوابط الأخلاقية، وتطلق حرية بث الكراهيّة، ولو تمت بصورة عبثية تستخف بالضوابط الأخلاقية والقيمية للأخوة الإنسانية، تحت شعار حرية التعبير، فجادل رجل الدين المعمم، بلغة عصر التنوير كوريث لمنجزات الحضارة الإنسانية، من يفترض أنه الوصي على تنفيذ منتجاتها من الموقع الدستوري والسياسي، بعدما ارتضى أن يتحول إلى قائد جيش في الحرب الصليبية أو رئيس غرفة من غرف محاكم تفتيش.

كلام السيد حسن نصرلله في ما تشهده علاقة المسلمين والجاليات الإسلامية بالقضايا المثارة على مساحة أوروبا من وحي قضية الرسوم المسيئة للرسول والجرائم الإرهابية المتذرّعة بها، مرافعة فلسفية عقلانية تستعيد روح عصر التنوير والاحتكام للعقل، والحل الذي تبنّاه ختاماً لمرافعته، مستعيداً مقترح الأزهر بتشريع عالمي لتحريم النيل من المقدسات، حجر متعدد الأهداف في يوم الوحدة الإسلامية، بينما يتساءل بعض رجال القانون في فرنسا، لماذا لا تتم محاكمة أصحاب الرسوم المسيئة للرسول تحت بند العداء للسامية، أليس الرسول من أحفاد سام بن نوح، وقد روى الترمذي أن الرسول هو القائل بأن “سام أبو العرب ويافث أبو الروم وحام أبو الحبش”؟

منظمة الجيش السريّ الفرنسيّ هل حان وقت تفكيك أوروبا!؟

"إبليس باريس" يهدد علاقة إيران بفرنسا.. فماذا عن لبنان؟

محمد صادق الحسيني

أفادت مصادر صحافة استقصائيّة، من إحدى الدول الأوروبية العظمى، حول الاتهامات التي أطلقها الرئيس الفرنسي ضدّ الدين الإسلامي قبل شهر تقريباً، واتهم هذا الدين بانه يعاني من أزمة عالمية، وما أعقب ذلك من عمليات إرهابية شبه منظمة، راح ضحيتها العديد من المواطنين الفرنسيين الأبرياء، أفاد هذا المصدر بما يلي:

أولاً: انّ جميع الجرائم الإرهابية، التي وقعت على أرض فرنسا مؤخراً بشكل خاص، هي ليست عمليات فردية بلا جذور، وإنما هي عمليات منظمة ومنسقة وتهدف الى خدمة الرئيس الفرنسي شخصياً. والعمل على تحسين شعبيته وإبعاد أنظار الفرنسيين عن الكارثة الصحية التي تعيشها البلاد، بسبب جائحة كورونا.

ثانياً: انّ الجهة الفرنسية، المدعومة من أجهزة استخبارات وقوى ضغط دولية (ماسونية)، هي تنظيم سري يتكوّن أعضاؤه من منتسبين للأجهزة الأمنية والعسكرية الفرنسية، الذين لا زالوا في الخدمة. وهو تنظيم يشبه تنظيم: منظمة الجيش السري الفرنسي ، التي أنشئت ابان حرب الاستقلال في الجزائر، بهدف منع الحكومة الفرنسية من منح الاستقلال للجزائر. وقد نفذت هذه المنظمة السرية انقلاباً عسكرياً بتاريخ 13/5/1958 كان هدفة المعلن هو منع تصويت البرلمان الفرنسي، على تشكيل الحكومة الفرنسية الجديدة (آنذاك)، برئاسة السيد پيير فليملين ، والتي يفترض أن تعرض على البرلمان، بتاريخ يوم إعلان الانقلاب للحصول على الثقة. وهي الحكومة التي كان الانقلابيّون يعتبرونها “خطراً” على المصالح القومية الفرنسية، لكونها كانت ذات توجّهات مؤيّدة لمنح الاستقلال للجزائر.

وقد انتهى الانقلاب، نتيجة مفاوضات مباشرةٍ بين مبعوث خاص للجنرال ديغول، هو السيد جاك سوستيل ، وبين قائد الانقلاب، قائد قوات المظلات، الجنرال جاك ماسّو ، والتي انتهت بالاتفاق على أن يقوم الجنرال ديغول بتشكيل حكومة جديدة. وهو الأمر الذي حدث بتاريخ 15/5/1958، والذي أعقبه إعلان الجمهورية الخامسة، من قبل الجنرال ديغول، والتي أصبح رئيساً لها، من تاريخ 8/1/1959 وحتى 28/4/1969.

ثالثاً: لكن المفارقة، في هذا السياق، ان “منظمة الجيش السري الفرنسي” الحاليّة لا تعمل على إسقاط الرئيس ماكرون وحكومته وإنما هي تعمل على تعزيز شعبيته وإنقاذه من السقوط المحتم، نتيجة فشله الذريع في إدارة أزمة الجائحة، خاصة أنّ من يديرون هذه المنظمة من الشخصيات الأمنية والعسكرية، قد وصلوا الى قناعة بأنّ الاشتباك الكلامي، الذي يديره ماكرون مع أردوغان، لم يعد كافياً لتحقيق الغرض، مما جعلهم يلجأون الى تحريك عناصر “إسلامية” خلقت وتدار من قبلهم أصلاً وبمعرفة الرئيس ماكرون وساركوزي من قبله، لتنفيذ عمليات الإرهاب الأخيرة في فرنسا، وذلك بهدف خلق او اختراع “عدو” وهمي غير موجود، للشعب الفرنسي. وهي خطوة ستؤدي بلا شك الى تعزيز التيارات الفاشية داخل فرنسا، كما أنها ستزيد انتشار الفكر اليميني المتطرف في فرنسا داخل الأجهزة الأمنية والعسكرية الفرنسية نفسها.

ثمة من يتساءل هل ما يجري حلقة من حلقات تدمير أوروبا تقودها منظمة بيلدين بيرگ المنظمة الماسونية الأخطر في العالم بعد أن استنفدوا اوراقهم في الوطن العربي وبلاد الشام!؟

رابعاً: من هنا فإن من الأولى بالرئيس الفرنسي أن يلجأ الى تفكيك هذا الجيش اليميني السري، الذي يعبث بأمن فرنسا، تنفيذاً لخطط ستيف كوهين، كبير مستشاري ترامب الاستراتيجيين سابقاً، وهو الملقب بمايسترو التخطيط للانتخابات الشعبوية في أوروبا، انطلاقاً من مقرّ قيادته العامة في بروكسل. خاصة أنّ مشكلة الاقتصاد الفرنسي، وبالتالي المشاكل الاجتماعية في فرنسا، أكبر بكثير من ان تغطي عليها حملات معادية للإسلام، لن يُكتب لها النجاح، خاصة أنّ التمادي في هذه الحملات سيفضي الى نتائج سلبية على شعبية ماكرون نفسه.

من هنا فإنّ عليه الاقتداء بالمستشارة الالمانية، انجيلا ميركل، التي أوعزت لوزيرة الدفاع في حكومتها، بتاريخ 24/9/2020، بإقالة رئيس جهاز الاستخبارات العسكرية في الجيش الألماني، السيد كريستوف غرام ، بسبب ارتباطاته بمجموعات اليمين المتطرف النازيين الذين تموّلهم السعودية وعلى علاقة مع ستيف بانون أيضاً. علماً انّ هذا لم يكن الإجراء الأول من نوعه، ضدّ عناصر وتنظيمات المانية إرهابية داخل أفرع الجيش والأجهزة الأمنية، حيث سبق أن تمّت إقالة قائد شرطة ولاية هيسين (Hessen) / وسط ألمانيا / أواسط شهر تموز الماضي، إضافة الى تسريح العديد من منتسبي الجيش والأجهزة الأمنية الألمانية في أوقات سابقة من هذا العام.

وهذا ما يؤكد انّ هناك الكثير من الوسائل والأساليب لاستعادة الشعبية عبر أسلوب نشر خطاب الحقد والكراهية الذي لجأ اليه الرئيس الفرنسي، حفيد المستعمرين الفرنسيين للجزائر، والذين قطعوا رؤوس 500 من قادة الثورة الجزائرية، قبل حوالي 170 عاماً، ولا يزال ماكرون نفسه يحتفظ بجماجمهم في المتحف الوطني الفرنسي في باريس ويرفض إعادتهم الى وطنهم الأصلي، كي يتمّ دفنهم حسب الأصول الإنسانية والإسلامية.

متحف الإنسان.. حيث تتباهى فرنسا بعرض جماجم ثوار مستعمراتها السابقة - ساسة  بوست

فكيف لمن يحتفظ بجماجم قادة جزائريين في متاحف بلاده، منذ ما يقرب القرنين، أن يطلق كلّ هذه الحملة المعادية للإسلام بذريعة ان “مسلم” قطع رأس فرنسي!؟

لقد حان الوقت لتحكيم العقل والمنطق بدلاً من مواصلة الغرور والممارسات الاستفزازية والعنصرية المقززة، التي عفا عليها الزمن…!

ولذلك نقول إنه عندما يكشر

من خلال إعادة إحياء هذا الجيش السري، ليشنّ حملته الشعواء المعادية للإسلام والمسلمين، فهو لا يأتي بشيء جديد، بل يكشف عن الوجه الحقيقي لفرنسا الاستعمارية وقبلها الصليبية، فها هي اليوم تعود إلى عادتها القديمة المتجذرة في عمق التاريخ الإسلامي، وهي الكيد لهذا الدين الحنيف.

نستطيع القول أيضاً بأنّ الفرنسيين بذلك يحاولون ايضاً تشويه سماحة الإسلام بشتى الطرق، لإظهاره أمام العالم كدين يحرّض على العنف، وهذا نابع من عداوتهم المتأصّلة للمسلمين، وهناك محطات تاريخية عديدة تقف شاهداً على هذا المكر الفرنسي، وهي عندما تستهدف المسلمين إنما تستحضر ذلك الإرث التاريخي المعادي للإسلام، بنزعة انتقاميّة.

فمن لا يعرف انّ فرنسا هي مهد الحملات الصليبية، فمنها انطلقت بهمجية لتجتاح العالم الإسلامي، وتعيث فيه فساداً وتنكيلاً بالمسلمين، وعلى يدها كان أول احتلال أوروبي صليبي تعرّضت له مصر في العهد الإسلامي، وكان البابا الفرنسي أوربان الثاني أول من أطلق دعوة للهجوم على الإسلام، وهو ما يعكس خشية الفرنسيين من عالمية الإسلام.

فى ذكرى أول حملة صليبية.. كيف اخترع البابا أوربانوس الثانى صكوك الغفران -  اليوم السابع

ولا يُخفى دورهم في إطلاق حركة “الاستشراق”، فقد بدأها المستشرق الفرنسي سلفستير دي ساسي الذي أعدّ جيشاً من المستشرقين لغزو بلاد الإسلام، وهو مَن تبنّى فكرة “علمنة” العالم الإسلامي وفصله عن الإسلام. وقد شن الفرنسيون أبشع حملة استعمار في العالم الإسلامي في العصر الحديث، وأمعنت في ارتكاب المجازر.

وليس أدلّ على ذلك مما أجرته في حق الجزائريين، ليس فقط بقتل الإنسان وممارسة أساليب وحشية في التعذيب، بل أيضاً بسعيها لطمس هويتهم الإسلامية، ومحاربة كلّ ما يمت للإسلام بصلة، ولا تزال تفتخر بتلك الجرائم جماجم في متحف الإجرام الذي سمته متحف الإنسان كما ورد آنفاً، وهو يجسد اللاإنسانية في أبشع صورها.

وفرنسا هي التي قصفت دمشق بكلّ وحشية وبشكل عشوائي لوقف مدّ الثورة السورية الكبرى أو ثورة عام 1925، الثورة التي انطلقت في سورية ضدّ الاستعمار الفرنسي في 21 تموز عام 1925 بقيادة ثوار جبل العرب في جنوب سورية، وانضمّ تحت لوائهم عدد من المجاهدين من مختلف مناطق سورية ولبنان والأردن تحت قيادة سلطان باشا الأطرش قائد الثورة العام، وقد جاءت هذه الثورة كردّ فعل على السياسات الدكتاتورية العسكرية التي اتبعتها السلطات الفرنسية والمتمثلة في تمزيق سورية إلى دويلات عدة وإلغاء الحريات وملاحقة الوطنيين وإثارة النزعات الطائفية ومحاربة الثقافة والطابع العربي للبلاد ومحاولة إحلال الثقافة الفرنسية محلها، بالإضافة إلى رفض سلطات الانتداب عقد اتفاق مع القوى الوطنية السورية لوضع برنامج زمني لاستقلال سورية.

وفرنسا التي ورثت إرثاً صليبياً ثقيلاً، لم تتوقف عند هذا الحدّ، فقد كانت أول من خطط لإقامة وطن لليهود على أرض فلسطين، بعد الحملة على الشام في عام 1799، والتي قادها نابليون بونابرت. وبحقدها الدفين للإسلام، حوّلت فرنسا الصراع مع العالم الإسلامي إلى صراع عقيدة، كما خططت لضربه عسكرياً وثقافياً. وما كانت تضمره خلال العقود الماضية، لم يعد يحتمل أن تستمر في إخفائه، وإنْ كانت تعدّ الدسائس باستمرار للنيل من الدول الإسلامية.

وبالتالي فإنّ ما يحصل حالياً من هجمة مسعورة على الإسلام هو ليس فقط مَكراً يمكره ماكرون، بل هو ايضاً انعكاس لحقد دفين لدى فرنسا، وليس مجرد زوبعة يثيرها لغايات ماكرونية فقط، فالماكرونية هي امتداد لفرنسا الصليبية وفرنسا الاستعمارية المعاديتين للإسلام والمسلمين…!

ماكرون يلعب بالنار في إطار لعبة دولية جهنمية تحيك خيوطها الماسونية والصهيونية لإثارة نزعات عنصرية و”دينية” مشبوهة تسمّيها إسلاموية هي الوجه الآخر للقوى اليمينية من النازية الجديدة في كلّ من أميركا وأوروبا، وهي من كانت وراء كلّ ما حصل لبلادنا خلال أعوام ما سمّي بالربيع العربي خلال عقد او يزيد، تحاول دوائر المنهزمين والمنكسرين الامبرياليين على بوابات عواصمنا إعادة إحيائه عبر أساليب جديدة بعد ان فشلت كلّ محاولاتهم بالمناورة ببقايا القاعدة واخواتها في ساحات متعددة…!

ومكر أولئك يبور.

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

Sayyed Nasrallah: Insulting the Prophet [PBUH] Unacceptable; US, The West to Pay the Price of Nurturing Takfirism

Sayyed Nasrallah: Insulting the Prophet [PBUH] Unacceptable; US, The West to Pay the Price of Nurturing Takfirism
Click for Video

By Zeinab Abdallah

Beirut – Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered a televised speech marking the birth anniversary of the Prophet of Mercy, the Messenger of Islam Muhammad bin Abdullah [PBUH] and his grandson the sixth Shia Imam Jaafar bin Muhammad al-Sadiq [AS].

After congratulating the entire Muslim world on the blessed occasions, Sayyed Nasrallah lectured France on the morale and rank of the holy prophet among his Muslim nation, and called the French authorities to reassess their measures and their standards upon which they tackle the freedom of expression.

His Eminence further elaborated on Prophet Muhammad’s [PBUH] existing miracle that will remain until the day of resurrection, which is witnessed in all times, in reference to the holy book that Allah has sent his last prophet, the Holy Quran.

“The survival of this holy book in this accurate manner is a miracle in itself despite all reasons to distort it,” His Eminence stated, adding that “The most notable achievement of Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] is the humanitarian achievement he made in the deep and huge transformation of the Arabian Peninsula community.”

All Muslims respect, sanctify, and appreciate this great prophet unlike any other human, though they love and appreciate all other prophets, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored.

“Among the most important social points for Muslims is that they believe in the greatness of Prophet Muhammad [PBUH], and they view him as the most complete human and the closest creature to Allah the almighty,” His Eminence added.

Making clear that Muslims could never tolerate any insult or humiliation directed at the great prophet, Sayyed Nasrallah added that they consider defending the dignity of their prophet among the top priorities that is above all other interests and calculations.

Elsewhere in his remarks, the Hezbollah Secretary General stated that the Nice incident is strongly condemned and rejected by Islam; the religion that forbids killing or attacking civilians. “All similar attacks are rejected in the first place from Islam’s viewpoint.”

However, he emphasized that neither the French authorities nor others are permitted to blame the religion or the community of the religion to which the perpetrator belongs.

Making the example closer to their minds, Sayyed Nasrallah asked: If a Christian man commits such a crime, which happened indeed in France, is it right to say that all world’s Christians are responsible for this crime?

“The US today commits crimes all over the world, and they admit the killing of thousands in such wars. Did any Muslim accuse Christians of those crimes just because the US President is Christian?” he then questioned.

Highlighting the importance of respecting Islam as a religion, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the matter requires to stop using the terms of “Islamic terrorism” and “Islamic fascism.”

“If some Muslims offended Islam it doesn’t give the right to any other side to offend it too. The Takfiri terrorist ideology, which adopted killing just for ideological differences in our region, was protected by the West.”

Blaming the West for nurturing the Takfiri and terrorist ideology, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that “The West has, in the first place, to look for its responsibility for Takfiri groups, and the US administration and the European governments supported and funded Takfiri groups in Syria and Iraq.”

His Eminence then ruled out Islam’s involvement in such terrorist acts, adding that “Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] and the Muslim nation have nothing to do with the crimes committed by the Takfiri groups.”

Sayyed Nasrallah also noted that the Americans and the Europeans should reassess their behavior of using terrorists as tools in their political schemes and wars. “Using such kind of tools must stop, otherwise you [the US and the West] will pay the prices for those mistakes.”

Referring to the origin of the Muslims’ problem with the French authorities, Sayyed Nasrallah recalled that the crisis began when the notorious French magazine Charlie Hebdo published cartoons insulting Prophet Muhammad [PBUH], and the French authorities, instead of dealing with the issue, started a war of this kind and insisted to continue publishing such sarcastic cartoons.

Instead of dealing with the repercussions, Sayyed Nasrallah advised the French authorities to deal with the reasons. “We have many evidences that they suppressed the freedom of expression in less sensitive issues that insulting the Prophet. We have many evidences that they suppressed the freedom of expression in less sensitive issues that insulting the Prophet.”

Commenting on the double standards when it comes to the freedom of expression in France and Europe, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that is not an absolute matter, but rather restricted with security and political considerations. “When it comes to ‘Israel’, this freedom stops in France, and the examples are many. Why does it stop when it comes to anti-Semitism?”

His Eminence called for reassessing the concept of the freedom of expression, especially when it harms dignities, recommending the French authorities to deal with this grave mistake.

“Do not allow the progress of this aggression, violation and sarcasm. Offending the dignities of our Prophets is not accepted by any Muslim in the world,” Sayyed Nasrallah said as he addressed the French authorities.

He also assured them that they will lose this battle that they insist to continue. “Where are France’s interests in its relations with the Muslim world if it wants to continue in this situation?”

The responsibility for dealing with what happened in France is related to the French authorities’ performance, His Eminence added.

Blasting the Arab regimes that normalize with ‘Israel’, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that they are not allowed to remain silent and cover such offense against the sacred prophet for their people.

The resistance leader hailed the strong significances of the Yemenis’ presence in defending the Prophet [PBUH] despite all difficulties: “Despite the siege and war in Yemen, we find the Yemeni people assemble to celebrate the Prophet’s birth anniversary.”

He then urged Muslims and the entire world to read yesterday’s scene in Yemen with fidelity and religious background. “A major movement must be formed in the Arab world to press for ending this brutal war against Yemen. It is the least of our duties,” Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized.

He then called on Muslims to support the Yemeni people as the most notable thing they would present today to Prophet Muhammad [PBUH].

On the Lebanese level, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the country cannot continue with a caretaker government. He then assured that Hezbollah’s information say that the cabinet formation circumstances are good and acceptable, adding that: “We will cooperate and facilitate the formation. Time now is not for internal problems.”

As for the surging COVID-19 cases across Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah repeated and recalled that leniency in the battle with the Coronavirus is unethical, inhumane and illegitimate. “The responsibility for fighting the Coronavirus belongs to everybody; the government and people, not the Health Ministry alone,” His Eminence concluded.

Before ending his sermon, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that he will deliver a speech on November 11, the day that marks Hezbollah Martyr’s Day.

Related Videos

Related News

Instagram Blocks Imam Khamenei Account following Letter to French Youths

Imam Khamenei

Instagram blocked the French-language account of Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei, two days after his eminence addressed French youths over the French insult to Islam and Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

Iranian media reported the move, while the American photo and video sharing social networking service has not yet commented on the matter.

In his letter to the French youths, Imam Khamenei decried the French president’s support for anti-Islamic moves while the West has criminalized doubts about the Holocaust.

“Ask your President why he supports insulting God’s Messenger in the name of freedom of expression. Does freedom of expression mean insulting, especially a sacred personage? Isn’t this stupid act an insult to the reason of the people who elected him?” the Leader said in the post.

“The next question to ask is: why is it a crime to raise doubts about the Holocaust? Why should anyone who writes about such doubts be imprisoned while insulting the Prophet (PBUH) is allowed?” Imam Khamenei said in the message.

Earlier this month, Macron pledged to fight “Islamist separatism”, which he said was threatening to take control in some Muslim communities around France.

Source: Iranian media

Cui bono from the situation in France

Cui bono from the situation in France

October 29, 2020

I won’t even bother repeating it all here, those who are interested in my views of this entire Charlie Hebdo canard can read my article “I am NOT Charlie” here: https://thesaker.is/i-am-not-charlie/

No, what I want to do is to ask a simple question: do you think the French leaders are simply stupid, suicidal or naive?  I submit that they neither stupid, nor suicidal nor naive.  In fact, they are using a well practiced technique which goes with some variation of this:

  • Infiltrate some pseudo-Islamic gang of cutthroats (literally!)
  • Keep them under close scrutiny ostensibly for counter-terrorism purposes
  • Inside the group, try to promote your confidential informers
  • Have your analysts work on the following question: “how could we best provoke these nutcases into a bloody terrorist act?
  • Once the plan is decided, simply execute it, say by organizing the posting fantastically offensive caricatures
  • Once the cutthroats strike, blame Islam and double down
  • By then, you have infuriated most of the immense Muslim world out there and you can rest assured that the process is launched and will continue on its own.  You can now relax and get the pop-corn
  • Have your propaganda machine declare that Islam is incompatible with western civilization (whatever that means in 2020, both Descartes and Conchita Wurst I suppose…)
  • Shed some crocodile tears when the cutthroats murder some completely innocent Christian bystander
  • And announce a new crusade against “Islamism” (also a vague and, frankly, meaningless term!) and crack down on true Muslim communities and ideas while continuing to lovingly arm, train, finance and direct the “good terrorists” who have now become your own, personal, cutthroats.

Cui bono?

Anybody who knows anything about the political realities in France will immediately know in whose interests this all is and who is behind that: the Zionist power structure in France (CRIF, UEJF, etc. and the Israelis).  They have a total control over Macron and over the entire political class, very much including Marine LePen.

Who else could have concocted the “beautiful” term “Islamo-Fascisme“?!

This is a new phenomenon, a new ideology and a new strategy, which Alain Soral calls “National Zionism” which I discussed in some details here: https://thesaker.is/the-great-fraud-of-national-zionism/.

In its inception (from Ahad Ha’am, Theodor Herzl,  Ze’ev Jabotinsky, etc) Zionism used to be a largely secular and nationalistic, then, later, after WWII, it became very leftist and still secular ( Ben-Gurion, Shlomo Lavi, Golda Meir).  Modern Zionism, however, is both rabidly racist and religious – the perfect example would be US neocons.  It is also a ruthless and genocidal ideology which has created something truly original: God-mandated racism, something which, as far as I know, no other religion professes (so much for the ignorant and, frankly, plain stupid notions of “Abrahamic religions” or, even worse, “Judeo-Christian values”!).  National Zionism is the next phase of Zionism – it is rabidly “conservative” (in a Neocon sense only, of course!) and it parasitically feeds on whatever nationalist ideology the local patriotic goyim are inclined towards (the best example of that being the so-called “Christian Zionists” in the USA).

But here is the demonic “beauty” of it all: in a society like the French one, the Zionists don’t even need to micromanage their false flags: given enough uneducated and murderous pseudo-Muslim cutthroats and enough rabid secularists wanted to offend the faithful – some kind of violent explosion will *inevitably* happen!

Right now, between the embarrassing Yellow Vests movement, the crumbling economy, the massive influx, wave after wave, of unwanted and un-adaptable immigrants and the resulting social tensions, the French regime is in deep trouble.  Add to this the COVID pandemic which just added to the chaos and anger and finish with a total lack of foreign policy successes and you will immediately see why this regime badly needed what could be called a “patriotic reaction”.

Finally, there is the time-proven method of scaring your own population into a state of catatonic acceptance of everything and anything in the name of “security”.

We see it all in France today, we saw it in the UK before, and also in Belgium.  And, rest assured,  we will see much more such massacres in the future.  The only way to really stop these “terrorist” attacks is to show their sponsors that we know who they are and we understand what they are doing.  Short of this, these attacks will continue.

The Saker

%d bloggers like this: