Saturday 14 July 2018

لم ولن تُكسَر معادلات 12 تموز 2006




يوليو 13, 2018




ناصر قنديل

– لا حاجة للقول إنّ معادلات حرب تموز 2006 أبعد من لبنان وقد تموضع على ضفتيها حلفان هما ذاتهما لبنانياً وعربياً يتقابلان اليوم في سورية. كما لا حاجة للقول إنّ الحرب على سورية كانت أبرز محاولة لكسر معادلات حرب تموز بكسر ظهر القلعة التي استند إليها حلف النصر في تموز. ولا حاجة للقول أيضاً إنّ أوّل القلق من نتائج معادلات تموز كان «إسرائيلياً» على ما سيحدثه النصر في فلسطين، تأسيساً على ما فعله نصر العام 2000 في الداخل الفلسطيني، فكانت الانتفاضة وتلاها الانسحاب «الإسرائيلي» من غزة، ولا مجال لقطع الطريق على المزيد إلا بكسر معادلات نصر تموز.

– حشد الفريقان للحرب التي تلت تموز، وأشعلها الذين خسروا الحرب، بعدما رصدوا خمس سنوات للتجهيز والتحضير والاستعداد والحشد. فكانت حرب سورية، وكان أوّل الجديد فيها أن أشهَر المال الخليجي تموضعه من مجرد العمل في الكواليس لتشجيع «الإسرائيليين» على سحق المقاومة في 2006 إلى تمويل الحرب على سورية وحشد التكفيريين من كلّ أصقاع الأرض لخوضها. وكان ثاني الجديد تموضعاً تركياً قطرياً في ضفة الحرب بإغراء مشروع تسلّم الأخوان المسلمين للحكم في تونس وليبيا ومصر واليمن وصولاً إلى سورية. وكان ثالث الجديد تجنيد الإعلام والفتاوى لتحويل الحرب فتنة مذهبية تنهش المنطقة ولحم شعوبها لمئة عام.

– نجح حلف المنتصرين في تموز 2006 بإدراك نوع وحجم الحرب خلال عامها الأوّل الذي كان الصمود فيه على عاتق القلعة السورية، خصوصاً شجاعة الرئيس السوري. وخلال العام الثاني بدأ حلف حرب تموز يتصرّف كحلف في حال حرب، لم تلبث المستجدات أن زوّدته بمصادر القوة التي لم تكن في حسابات قوى الحرب الآتية من حلف المهزومين في تموز، وكان التموضع الروسي السياسي والدبلوماسي، فالعسكري أبرز هذه المستجدّات، وكان الفشل في تفتيت وحدة السوريين على أساس خطوط الفتنة المذهبية رغم سخاء المال وسواد الفتاوى. وكان تماسك الجيش السوري الأسطوري وبطولات المقاومين معه مصدراً لتغيير في وجهة الحرب، باتت ثماره الأخيرة شبيهة بالأيام الأخيرة لحرب تموز 2006 بشارة نصر أكيد.

– كما في حرب تموز، في الحرب التي أردات محو آثارها وفشلت. زادت المقاومة قوة وزادت تحالفات سورية تأثيراً في المعادلات الدولية، فروسيا اليوم غير روسيا قبل الحرب على سورية. وفي المقابل أصاب أعداء المقاومة وسورية ضعف ووهن غيّرا صورة المشهد الإقليمي. فالسعودية الغارقة في حرب اليمن و«إسرائيل» المرتبكة أمام الانتصارات السورية هما غير السعودية و«إسرائيل» قبل حرب سورية وقبل حرب تموز، وما ينجزانه في مجال التطبيع والتحالف أعجز من أن يغيّر المعادلات الجديدة. ففلسطين تستعدّ لتلقي عائدات النصر الجديد بمثل ما تلقت عائدات الانتصارات التي سبقت، وتستعدّ المنطقة ويترقب العالم المواجهة الجديدة، التي يريدونها تحت عنوان «العدو هو إيران» وستفاجئهم فلسطين بفرض روزنامة حربها وشعارها «العدو هو إسرائيل».

– حقائق حرب تموز كمعادلاتها تترسّخ ولا تنكسر. وأولى هذه الحقائق أنّ الصراع في المنطقة سيبقى عنوانه تحرير فلسطين، وأنّ كلّ محاولة لتجاهل هذه الحقيقة تنتهي بتهميش صاحبها من صناعة المعادلات بدلاً من تهميش القضية الفلسطينية، وها هو حلف المقاومة بلسان السيد حسن نصرالله يبشّر بمئات آلاف المقاتلين في الحرب المقبلة، من لبنان وسورية والعراق واليمن وممّا بعد ما بعد العراق واليمن إلى إيران وممّا بعد ما بعد إيران.

Related Videos
Related Articles


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The 12-Year Transformation



Amid the collective despond that gripped “Israel” and its Western allies in the aftermath of the 2006 war with Hezbollah, both Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush claimed victory because Lebanon had apparently been ‘transformed’.
The two former leaders, who presided over the 2006 offensive, were referring to the terms of the fragile ceasefire agreement which dictated that Hezbollah withdraw north of the Litani River and eventually disarm.
Twelve years on and those two stated objectives have never been a more distant prospect.
Today Hezbollah and the Resistance Axis have all but hijacked “Israel’s” long-term deterrent power while the party’s ‘national achievements’ continue to transform Lebanon’s political landscape.
The home front
Following the conclusion of the 34-day “Israeli” offensive, veteran journalist David Hirst summed up the outcome of the conflict by declaring that Hezbollah “kept at bay one of the world’s most powerful armies for over a month, and inflicted remarkable losses on it.”
Although this statement is accurate, it is also a slight oversimplification of what was undoubtedly one of Tel Aviv’s most severe geostrategic setbacks.
While Resistance fighter did indeed inflict “remarkable losses” on attacking “Israeli” troops, Hezbollah also made history by extending the battle to “Israel’s” so-called ‘home front’.
The thousands of Hezbollah rockets that rained down on Zionist settlers had a devastating psychological effect, leaving many “Israelis” feeling abandoned by their leaders.
More importantly, the attacks exposed serious vulnerabilities in “Israel’s” defenses, further shattering it’s aura of invincibility.
In the years that followed, those vulnerabilities would continue to haunt the “Israeli” military and political establishments.
So much so that “Israeli” critics of Tel Aviv’s performance in 2006 have arrived at the conclusion that maybe the war wasn’t so terrible because the next one could have Hezbollah flags being hoisted across the ‘home front’.
In a speech delivered last year, Hezbollah’s Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah sent shockwaves throughout “Israel”, claiming that any future confrontation would take place “inside the occupied Palestinian territories”.
“There will be no place that is out of reach of the rockets of the resistance or the boots of the resistance fighters,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.
Underscoring Hezbollah’s newly acquired deterrent power, the leader of the resistance group explained that “’Israel” has been threatening for 10 years to open a front against Hezbollah, but it hasn’t done anything.”
“”Israel” is afraid of any confrontation,” he added.
Hezbollah’s triumph in Syria has only solidified what is quickly becoming known as the new regional status quo.
When the “Israelis” launched their offensive in 2006, then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert set the bar high, vowing to ‘eradicate’ Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Twelve years later, Tel Aviv has been reduced to limited attacks or its so-called ‘security responses’ – reacting to single events, void of any long term strategy, careful to avoid a wide-scale conflict and driven solely by its obsession to keep the Resistance Axis away from the occupied Golan Heights.
Moreover, the outcome of the Syrian conflict guaranteed that any prolonged “Israeli” attack on Hezbollah would quickly spiral into a regional war, the course of which would be impossible to control.
These new geopolitical realities coupled with Hezbollah’s sophisticated level of tactical experience and weaponry make the prospects of a Third Lebanon War highly unlikely.
National achievements
Joint efforts by the West, Gulf monarchies and “Israel” against Hezbollah date back to the group’s inception in 1982.
Some of the more recent episodes include the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, the 2006 “Israeli” attack, the brief armed confrontation between Lebanon’s rival political camps in May 2008 and of course the beginning of the unrest in Syria in 2011.
Each of these chapters dealt a blow to Tel Aviv and its allies, and each resulted in the emergence of a stronger Hezbollah.
One of the crucial moments in this decades-long conflict came in May of this year when Hezbollah and its political allies won the Lebanese parliamentary elections, gaining 67 out of 128 seats.
Sayyed Nasrallah later said that the results guaranteed the protection of the resistance against “Israel”.
“This is a great political and moral victory for the resistance option that protects the sovereignty of the country,” he stated.
Contrary to the 2006 observations by Olmert and Bush, Lebanon’s ‘transformation’ came in the form of Hezbollah becoming the country’s leading political force.
The outcome of this year’s polls also attested to the importance that the party places on receiving recognition from its citizens. But perhaps more importantly, the electoral victory was made possible by the group’s ability to keep the “Israelis” out of Lebanon twelve years prior.
And as “Israel’s” legitimacy diminishes in the eye of the world, Hezbollah’s is only growing.
Source: Al-Ahed

Related Articles


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Daraa City Cleared of Terrorism

Thursday, 12 July 2018 23:54
DARAA-Units of Syrian Arab Army entered Daraa al-Balad area and hoisted the national flag over the main square ahead of declaring the city free of terrorism, according to SANA.
SANA’s reporter in Daraa said that army units entered Daraa al-Balad area, heralding the return of security and safety to it under the agreement reached on Wednesday.
According to the agreement, terrorist groups will hand over heavy and medium weapons in addition to having the legal status of militants-who are willing to- settled, while those who refuse reconciliation will be evacuated. The agreement includes the areas of Daraa al-Balad, the Dam Road, the Camp, Sajna, al-Manshyia, Gharaz and the Silos.
The reporter added that the army’s engineering units will sweep the residential neighborhoods in the liberated area in preparation for the entry of the workshops to rehabilitate infrastructure and restore basic services to Daraa al-Balad area.
With the Syrian Army entering the area of Daraa al-Balad, another chapter of terrorists’ crimes comes to an end. For over seven years, the safe neighborhoods in Daraa city had been bombarded with thousands of shells, claiming the lives of many innocent citizens and injuring many others.
Syrian Army enters Tafas city in Daraa countryside and hoists national flag over it
Army units also on Thursday entered Tafas city in Daraa western countryside amid a warm welcome by the locals after the city joined the reconciliation and militants handed over their arms.
SANA reporter said that the flag of the Syrian Arab Republic was hoisted over the building of Tafas City Council, 13 km to the northwest of Daraa city, after Tafas joined the reconciliation and army units were deployed in it.
The reporter added that large crowds of the city’s locals received army personnel and they participated in hoisting the national flag in the city to declare that it became secure and stable after the surrender of the armed groups who handed their arms over under the pressure of the military operation carried out by the army to end the existence of terrorists in Daraa province.
In a press statement from inside Tafas city, Daraa Governor Mohammad Khaled al-Hannous said that more than 80 percent of the total area of Daraa was freed from terrorism, either through reconciliations or the military operation conducted by the Syrian Arab army against terrorists.
Related Videos
Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Friday 13 July 2018

The 1943 Volyn Massacre and Ukrainian Nazis Today



The 1943 Volyn Massacre and Ukrainian Nazis Today
July 12, 2018
Today [at the time of writing – ed] is a gloomy anniversary – the 75th anniversary of the Volyn massacre. Its start is counted from July 11th, 1943 rather arbitrarily. Excesses with the mass extermination of Poles happened in February 1943, and even in 1942…
It is simply that on July 10th Zygmunt Jan Rumel – the envoy of the Polish government in Volyn, who tried to hold negotiations with Banderists over the peaceful settlement of the conflict – was killed, and on the next day (July 11th) UPA attacked over 150 Polish villages at the same time.
It is precisely from this day onwards that hope for some form of compromise settlement in Banderist-Polish contradictions was lost and events definitively took the form of the mass genocide of Poles.
In recent years the history of the Volyn massacre is described in all details. The refusal of Kiev to admit the guilt of Banderists in the genocide of Poles in Western Ukraine became the reason for a sharp political conflict between modern Ukraine and Poland, which is far from being exhausted and still hasn’t reached its peak. I want to especially highlight that it is thanks to the inadequate policy of the current Ukrainian authorities that the old half-forgotten Banderist-Polish conflict became an actual Ukrainian-Polish one. I.e., the modern Ukrainian State and its people, without there being any need to do so, assumed responsibility for the actions of monsters 75-years ago.
After all, Kiev was only required to condemn absolutely obvious criminals who committed crimes against humanity, to distance themselves from them and thus close the question. But the authorities decided that the formal Ukrainian-ness of murderers can turn criminals into heroes.
This is now already common Ukrainian guilt and common Ukrainian shame, and whitewashing this will not be simple at all. Actually, the official government of the country, with the full non-resistance and even partial support of the people, at the high international level declared that from its point of view the murder of unarmed people – mainly women and children – is justified if it is done in the interests of Ukrainian statehood.
Now the Ukrainian authorities are sincerely surprised by the Polish reaction. After all, they quite recently said (and did) the same thing concerning Russians and received the hot approval of the collective West, and Poland in particular. Naive Ukrainian leaders decided that “if there is no Nazism in Ukraine” when it is aimed against Russians, then it “won’t exist” concerning the Poles too. Now they accuse the West and Poland of double standards.
After all, the standards are, of course, double, but nobody especially tried to hide this. There was a need to take this into account when developing domestic and foreign policy. Pathological russophobia is an indulgence in the opinion of the West only if crimes are committed against Russians. But it doesn’t mean at all that the West is ready to tolerate the same thing in relation to itself.
Once, even before the collapse of the USSR, the president of a Croatia that had just declared its independence Franjo Tuđman came to Kiev on a visit. Now that he has long been dead, and Croatia tries to obtain a “human face”and turn into a “normal democracy”, even the West tries not to remember his regime as being too dirty to shake hands with. But back then the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship and the ethnic cleansing of Serbians were still ahead, and Tuđman was considered to be a democrat dissident.
In the schedule of Tuđman’s visit to Kiev there was a speech in front of university students. In his speech he called Croatia “the Ukraine of the Balkans”. The parallel was clear enough. Croatians don’t like their Serbian “elder brother”in the same way that Ukrainians don’t like their Russian one. It is necessary to say that as of that moment Tuđman was deeply mistaken concerning Russian-Ukrainian relations. 25 years of extreme propaganda were needed in order to bring the matter to the Russian-Ukrainian civil war in Ukraine.
But even now, if not to take into account the several tens of thousands of ideological descendants of Banderists, in the broad masses of the population there aren’t any of those who have become gripped by the pathological hatred that forced Croatians to invent the srbosjek in the years of World War II, and at the beginning of the 90’s to stage the most large-scale ethnic cleansing on the European continent in the last 70 years. Indifference and apathy are quite characteristic for the citizens of Ukraine, thanks to which the pathetic 1% of the total number of the population can stage maidans, launch war in Donbass, and in the end – exterminate their own State.
And here we arrive at the second mistake of Tuđman. He overestimated the common sense of Ukrainian nationalists, who already back then were actively moving into power in Kiev. Let’s look at the same Croatia. Croatians don’t like not only Serbians. If the Americans didn’t forbid them, they would commit genocide against Bosnians too. They also can’t forgive the Hungarians for the fact that in 1102 Coloman the Learned liquidated the independent kingdom of Croatia. After this only Hitler in 1941 allowed the creation of an independent Croatia.
So in general, in the same way as Ukrainians, Croatians, should they have the desire, could turn their nationalism against their neighbors. But they preferred to concentrate on Serbians, because it is impossible to create a State if all your neighbors are enemies, since they will suffocate it in its cradle via collective efforts.
During this same speech at the Kiev university, Tuđman, answering a question about his attitude towards Tito – someone who he was an irreconcilable political opponent of, said: “Tito, of course, was a communist, but he was Croatian”. This is another noteworthy point. Croatian nationalists, even such radical ones as Tuđman, were able to restrain their ardor not only in foreign policy, but also in the domestic political arena. Being in conflict with the large Serbian community that they finally were able to force out beyond the borders of Croatia, they tried to avoid other serious conflicts, including for ideological reasons.
Only thanks to this did they manage to create a State in rather difficult conditions. Even in the West there was no consensus concerning the expediency of the disintegration of Yugoslavia at the beginning of the 90’s. It is Germany that acted as the locomotive of the process, but there was no guarantee that it would manage to convince its partners in the EU and that the Americans, who Milosevic quite suited at first, would agree to it [disintegration of Yugoslavia – ed]. I.e., the external situation didn’t favor the builders of an independent Croatia. Inside the country, as was already said, there was a strong Serbian community that compactly lived on its historical lands, and which sought to maintain State unity with Serbia. If in these conditions the Croatians started laying down historical claims to all its neighbors, and inside the country a witch-hunt on ideological grounds would be arranged, then independent Croatia would disappear without having ever appeared.
This is exactly what Ukrainians did. Having received independence on a plate and having a quite loyal population, nationalists immediately started to create lines of division in society. Either a pathetic small group of Galician-speaking enthusiasts tries to “Ukrainise” (or to be more exact – Galicianise) all of Ukraine, 83% of which speak Russian, or a small group of “fascistising” marginals try to impose Bandera and Shukhevych being heroes on the grandchildren of the winners [Red Army – ed], and to almost present collaborators from OUN and UPA as the only winners in World War II, during which they allegedly fought against both Germany and the USSR.
It is clear that all of this didn’t make them more popular inside the country. That’s why they were able to come to power only via a coup and remain in power only via open violence: arbitrary arrests and murders. Naturally, they see their main enemy as Russia, just because a Russophobic regime that also openly calls the West for war against Russia can’t please Moscow.
It would be logical to expect that Kiev will try not to irritate other neighbors (Poland, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Belarus). After all, the strongest internal conflict multiplied by disgusting relations with Russia, which definitively declared itself as a superpower, already practically doesn’t give the Ukrainian state any chances of succeeding. But the Ukrainian leadership went in another direction. It managed to attack literally all ethnic minorities, to touch the sore points of literally all their neighbors, and to make the idea of partitioning Ukraine extremely popular in the Eastern European countries that border it.
Moreover, by trying to acquit Banderists for the Volyn massacre, Kiev put forward the concept of a local Ukrainian-Polish war in Volyn. The Ukrainian point of view is that in the region there were clashes between UPA and Armia Krajowa, a by-product of which were attacks on Polish and Ukrainian settlements as potential places of basing enemy forces.
But this in its root contradicts the legend of the simultaneous fight of Banderists against Hitler and Stalin. Armia Krajowa was subordinated to the Polish government in exile in London and was equally negative about both Berlin and Moscow. Here, it would seem, is a natural ally in the “fight” on two fronts, which was allegedly carried out by Banderists. But instead, UPA, relying on the support of the Nazis who they allegedly are at war with, massacred with rapture the Poles who are actually at war with the Germans.
This isn’t just the full collapse of the legend about UPA being an anti-Hitler force. The fact is that by entering into a senseless and doomed in advance discussion with the Poles, Ukrainians stimulate the national memory of the same Poland. Moreover, they force Warsaw, defending its position in the international arena, to actively release into the public domain documents and materials about the true nazi and collaborationist essence of OUN and UPA.
I will emphasise that Poland, which for a long time pretended that it doesn’t see the development of Nazism in Ukraine, is now forced to support the Russian position that Warsaw earlier tried to ignore and even disavow. The long-term propaganda activities of Poland based on a mass of real documents are much more dangerous for Kiev than Hungary’s demonstrative blockade of events in NATO and the EU with the participation of Ukrainians, as well as the feeble efforts of Romania to return the territories that it lost in 1940.
Hungary will withdraw its objections when Kiev becomes reasonable and stops threatening the Hungarian community in Transcarpathia. I.e., the key to an instant solution of this conflict is in the hands of Kiev, and as soon as Ukraine satisfies the fair demands of Budapest the conflict will be settled without any political consequences. Romania alone doesn’t constitute a danger and can’t dream about lands for at least another 100 years. But Poland’s forced exposure of the true essence of Ukrainian nationalism will have long-term consequences that are harmful for Ukraine.
Once launched, the propaganda machine can’t be immediately stopped. Poland has positioned itself as the “lawyer of Ukraine” in the EU and NATO for too long. In the West there is the opinion that Warsaw’s politicians have a better grasp of the Ukrainian perspective than their colleagues from other European countries. If Russia isn’t trusted very often and is suspected of forging aggressive plans, then Poland is excluded from suspicions. If Poland affirms that in Ukraine the ideological followers of the collaborators who served Hitler are today in power, then it means that this is indeed the reality. And suddenly in recent months articles written by journalists who “started to see clearly” and discovered Nazism in Ukraine started appearing in the western press one after the other.
I think that the information activities of Poland very much assisted in such “enlightenment”. Its indirect result is that the West is obliged to recognise with shame that Russia, which already for the 5th year has pointed out the nazi essence of the Kiev regime, appeared to be right. And now the Poles — the main western specialists on Ukraine – also confirmed it. And further there is a logical question: so maybe Russia was right about everything else too?
After this Kiev even dares to be surprised that Merkel so desperately fights for “Nord Stream-2” and the Bulgarians dream of returning to the construction of South Stream. After all, if in Kiev it is indeed nazis who are in power, and Russia is right about everything, then it is for sure that Europe can’t cope without the [gas – ed] “streams”. After all, Europe isn’t Ukraine, and it doesn’t plan to buy “reverse” Russian gas from China extremely expensively.
In general, by glorifying Nazis under the applause of the West to spite Russia, Ukrainian politicians, due to their narrow-mindedness, decided that if the US and NATO are against Russia and Hitler was against Russia, so public solidarisation with Nazi lackeys from OUN and UPA will be met in the West with approval. Having rushed to the gaping heights ahead of the locomotive, Kiev, as is usually the case for it, deceived itself.
Along the way, Ukrainian statehood once again practically lost any chance of being successful. A regime that is officially recognised as being Nazi – and everything is heading towards this [vis-a-vis the junta in Kiev – ed] – isn’t needed by anybody neither in Europe nor in the world. Even by those who share the views of Adolf. Having split and submerged their own country in civil war, nationalists now hammer the last nail into the lid of its coffin, ensuring international isolation for Ukraine.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Russian Defense Minister Army General Sergei Shoigu’s interview with Italy’s Il Giornale full version

July 11, 2018
Russian Defense Minister Army General Sergei Shoigu’s interview with Italy’s Il Giornale full version
Translation by Scott Humor from Russian version found here
Original interview

Q.: Mr. Minister, tensions between Russia and the United States are growing and raising concerns: are we on the threshold of a new Cold War?
Shoigu: We often hear from the US that the crisis in bilateral relations has been provoked by Russia’s alleged aggressive actions on the international arena. However, we are firmly convinced that tensions in our relations have been artificially fueled all this time by those American elites, who believe that the world is divided into the “American” part and the “wrong” part.
it was the United States that in recent years had unilaterally broke key agreements, which formed the backbone of the global security. Despite the promises that were given to the Soviet leadership during Germany’s reunification, Washington initiated eastward NATO expansion towards our borders.
For over 25 years they tried to fool us claiming that there have been no promises, until recently the National Security Agency declassified archives with the documents of that period, in which it has been set out literally and in personalities.
Because of NATO expansion to the East and accession to NATO countries of Eastern Europe: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Romania, an agreement signed in 1990 between the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO called the Treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe, providing for the limitation of armaments in areas of contact between two blocks, de facto lost its meaning for Russia.
In 2002, under a pretext of a fictitious “danger” of a missile attack by Iran or North Korea, Washington unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty and began deployment its radars and anti-missiles in the vicinity of our borders.
I, as president of the Russian Geographical Society, have for a long time wanted to present the US colleagues with a globe so that they would look at it and explain to us, why the ‘US adversaries’ designated by them are located in the Middle East and East Asia, while all their military bases and troops are scooched along Russia’s borders? Do they expect us to defend them?
The US party is currently preparing its withdrawal from the INF treaty. The reason for such step is alleged violations of the treaty by Russia.

Q: What kind of violations?
Shoigu: All we hear are some mumbles and baseless accusations directed at us. But there are no facts, only statements.
We have repeatedly and publicly made it clear in all major international fora that it is the United States that is directly violating the INF Treaty, having installed, during the deployment of a missile shield in Europe, its MK-41 vertical launching systems, which might be used to launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles. The destructive radius of these missiles covers almost all the European part of Russia’s territory.
In 2007 at the Munich Security Conference Russian President Vladimir Putin called on the leadership of the United States and other Western countries to respect Russia’s national interests and to build open and equal relationships. Unfortunately, very few in the West wanted to hear this call.

Q: In your opinion why is this happening?
Shoigu: Today recovering Russia is being viewed not as an ally but as a threat to the US dominance. We are being accused of some aggressive plans towards the West, which, in turn, continues to deploy new forces on our borders.
Among multiple examples of such unfriendly steps there is a decision made in June by NATO to establish two new commands, responsible for the protection of maritime communication and the operative deployment of the US troops to Europe. It’s also an increase of the alliance’s contingent troops in the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland from 2,000 to 15,000 troops with the possibility of rapid build-up of the group to 60,000 soldiers with armored vehicles. Starting with 2020, NATO intends to maintain 30 battalions, 30 air squadrons and 30 warships to be in constant readiness for use at the borders of Russia in 30 days.
All of these takes place directly at Russia’s Western borders. At the same time, the Americans are constantly violating international law, using military force in various regions of the world under the pretext of protecting their own interests.
This happened in April of this year in Syria, when on the territory of the sovereign and independent state, (the US) with the support of Britain and France carried out a massive missile attack. What took place was a gross violation of international law by three permanent members of the UN Security Council under fictitious pretext. And this is not an only example, but a trend.

Q: A trend?
Shoigu: Yes, we are talking about the neocolonial strategy, which has already been tested by the United States in Iraq and Libya and which consists in supporting any, even the most barbaric ideologies, in order to weaken legitimate governments. After that the United States stages attacks with the use of weapons of mass destruction or organizing humanitarian disasters and, at the final stages, uses military force to create “manageable chaos,” which enables the transnational corporations freely extract the existing assets and to funnel them into the US economy.
Russia, which advocates the equal and mutually beneficial cooperation with all the countries within the concept of the multipolar world, will always be an obstacle for such “strategies to be implemented.

Q.: Are there any red lines that cannot be crossed?
Shoigu: In this sense, our military doctrine is very clear, and its essence in prevention of any conflicts. Our official approaches to the use of military force are quite clear and fully disclosed.
Despite of my post, I am convinced that any issues can and should be settled without the use of military force.
I have repeatedly extended invitations to the Pentagon’s head to discuss the existing problems of the global and regional security, including the fight against terrorism. But the Americans are not ready for such dialogue, although, I am certain, that it’s in the best interest not only people in Russia and in the USA, but also in the rest of the world.
Right now, there is only one communication channel between our general staffs now, which is used in negotiations, including at the level of the chiefs of general staff, aimed, first of all, at preventing the military activities of Russia and the United States from turning into a military conflict between our nuclear powers.

Q.: But your country is being accused in carrying out the “hybrid wars” against the West.
Shoigu: In Russia we say that it’s a thief himself who screams the loudest “Hold the thief!” The term “hybrid actions” refers to various forms of pressure used by one state against another, but without an open use of military force. Such “wars” are known since ancient times, and they allowed the UK to prevail over the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the last century. Who doesn’t know about the adventures of Lawrence of Arabia?
Today “hybrid wars” include control of media, economic sanctions, hacking activities in cyberspace, backing of internal unrests, finally, deployment of special units and specialists to carry out terror attacks, sabotage and diversion.
This list, perhaps, can be continued further, but there is one important detail. For its successful implementation this century, it is necessary to have global and all-pervasive media, possession of superiority in information and telecommunication technologies, a hold on global financial systems, as well as experience in the deployment and use of special forces in other countries.

Q.: What countries, other than the United States and the United Kingdom, have this kind of potential?
Shoigu: These methods were successfully tested by London and Washington during the invasion of Iraq in 1991 immediately after the end of the “cold war.”
This is an important detail, because these technologies existed when the Soviet Union and a bipolar world existed, but there were no opportune conditions. And, by the way, the US president at the time [of the Gulf War] was none other than George H. W. Bush, former director of the CIA.
Since the 1990s, these methods have been actively used by the United States in former Yugoslavia, Libya, [Russia’s] Chechen Republic and, most recently, in Syria. All the signs of the “hybrid war” were apparent in Ukraine ahead of the armed rebellion in February 2014, with the European countries’ passive participation in these “hybrid actions.”
Today, everyone pretends to forget how on the eve of the coup (in Kiev) three foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland personally guaranteed to the legitimate President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych a peaceful settlement of the political crisis, if he does not impose a state of emergency and withdraws all units of the security forces from Kiev. But immediately after the implementation of these obligations, nationalist militants, armed and trained with American and European money, staged a coup, and Europe immediately recognized them as legitimate power.
Accusations of Russia (in hybrid actions) began to appear in the American and British media after an unsuccessful attempt to stage this scenario in Crimea.

Q.: Really?
Shoigu: We simply did not give to our overseas colleagues an opportunity to put these measures into practice in Crimea, where, on the contrary, a referendum was held, during which residents freely and, by the way, in the presence of hundreds of representatives of the same American media, voted to withdraw from Ukraine and reunite with Russia. In comparison, after the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia because of the NATO intervention, Kosovo did not hold any general referendums, but achieved immediate recognition of independence by Washington and Europe after the routine parliamentary vote. It was done absolutely ignoring opinion of the Serbs living in Kosovo and the Yugoslavia’s Constitution.

Q.: The issue of Syria will be central during the meeting of presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. What’s your idea of the US strategy in the Syrian conflict?
Shoigu: Since US lawmakers and experts have been calling on the US government to clarify its strategy for Syria, our country is not the only one who does not get it.
In recent years during the continuation of this war, illegal from the point of international law, and even according to the US constitution, the official explanations for the presence of the US military contingent in Syria have been constantly changing.
I would like to recall that initially it was about defeating the ISIL, then about preventing re-emergence of the ISIL and now statements are being made about need to preserve military presence in Syria in order to deter alleged influence of Iran.
Therefore, it is hard to shake off the impression that the United States’ chief objective in Syria is to prevent the situation from stabilizing, to prolong the conflict and undermine the country’s territorial integrity by creating enclaves not controlled by the government on Syria’s borders.
In the areas controlled by the United States for years they have been training militants, who are actively fighting with the Syrian government army and receiving supplies of weapons and ammunition.
In addition, it’s not superfluous to recall that during the struggle of the US-led international coalition against ISIS, the territory controlled by terrorists only increased. Civilization and secular governance persisted only in a few pockets: in Damascus, the province of Latakia and partly in Deir ez-Zor.
At the same time, while declaring its ‘noble’ objectives and ‘good’ will in recent years, the United States has not allocated one cent of aid to provide real assistance to Syrian civilians devastated by long years of war. This applies even to the liberated by the United States and the coalition former capital of ISIS Raqqa, where munition and mortars left after massive bombardments by the “international coalition” still kill local residents. Every week, dozens of people are being killed, including children.
On the other hand, not a single incident involving civilians has been recorded after the Syrian troops’ operations to liberate various regions and localities. Demining activities took place there, people received food and construction materials they needed to resume a peaceful life as soon as possible.
If there is some basis for our American counterparts’ actions in Syria, it is too contradictory to be called a “strategy.”
Q.: Another obstacle to the stabilization of Syria is the rivalry between Iran and Israel…
Shoigu: Iran, like Turkey, historically has been one of the main actors in the region and plays a key role in stabilization of the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic.
As you know, Iran, together with Russia and Turkey, is one of the guarantors of the Astana process aimed at finding an agreement for the final settlement of Syrian conflict.
Regarding the tensions between Iran and Israel or other countries, our position is that we are committed to resolving possible differences and contradictions through dialogue, not through military force and violation of international law.
Use of military force by any of these parties in Syria would inevitably lead to an escalation of tension throughout the Middle East. In that regard, we are committed to the peaceful and diplomatic settlement of any differences and we hope that both sides will be able to show restraint.

Q.: Don’t you think that a possibility of supplying S-300 systems to Damascus represents an additional risk factor?
Shoigu: I would like to note that the S-300 system is a complex of purely defensive weapons. Therefore, it cannot pose a direct threat to anyone’s national security.
This anti-aircraft missile system can only be a threat to air attack vehicles. Besides, the decision to supply this model of arms to the army of any foreign state is made based on the appropriate request, which has not been made, yet.
Thus, it is premature to talk about this specifically. At the request of some of our Western partners, as well as Israel, a few years ago, we refrained from delivering these complexes to Syria. Today, after the aggression of the United States, Britain and France against Syria, which has demonstrated the need for the Syrians to have modern air defense, we are ready to revisit this issue.
Q.: From the war in Syria to the trade war. If the level of relations with Washington has reached a historical minimum, the relations with China are increasingly strengthening…
Shoigu: Of course, the tension in international relations has contributed to the strengthening of Russian-Chinese relations, which are based on mutual respect and trust. Russia and China have long-term friendly and strategic relations, and cooperation is developing in many areas, including through military agencies, which is in the interests of both states.
Examples of our cooperation include conducted on a bilateral basis joint operational training of the armed forces of our states, including the annual naval drill Sea Cooperation, and a large-scale joint Russian-Chinese naval and an annual series of joint anti-ballistic missile air defense exercises called Aerospace Security.
We conduct multinational military exercises of armies and fleets of the member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) the military exercise the Peace Mission. In addition, the Chinese representatives participate in annual competition of the Russia’s Defense Ministry called the International Army Games. Today, about 12% of Russian weapons are exported to China.
At the same time, our joint activities in this area, in contrast to the exercises conducted by NATO and the EU in Europe, are exclusively defensive in nature. Our military partnerships are not directed against any other countries or blocs and serve exclusively to strengthen global and regional security.
Q.: What do you think about the development of the situation in North Korea?
Shoigu: Russia and North Korea have signed a number of agreements in the field of military-technical cooperation, the implementation of which is currently suspended in the framework of the Russian Federation’s implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874.
We are now witnessing a significant reduction in tensions between the North and the South of the Korean Peninsula. We believe that this positive trend is stable and irreversible.
Q.: If we return to Ukraine: do you think it will be possible to find a solution to the current conflict in the South-East of the country?
Shoigu: Only unconditional implementation by Kiev of the Minsk Agreements will allow to exclude emergence of the situation capable to lead to genocide of the Russian population. Unfortunately, Kiev is stubbornly refuses to comply with the agreement, finding various flimsy excuses and making unfounded accusatory statements against Russia.
At the same time, Kiev has been rejecting the very possibility of dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, without which the settlement of this crisis is simply impossible. Of course, our country responds to these developments, constantly calling on Kiev to implement the package of measures that was agreed in Minsk
We hope that the European countries, first and foremost, members of the “Normandy” format, [which includes Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine] will be able to use all their influence on the Ukrainian authorities to reach a peaceful settlement of this internal conflict in southeastern Ukraine.
I believe that a direct confrontation between Ukraine and Russia is impossible. We have common roots, for centuries we have been enduring hardships together and we fought side by side for our freedom and independence during the Second World War. My mother’s family members used to live in Ukraine, I was baptized in a small church in Stakhanov, a town located in Ukraine’s Lugansk region. I am confident that there will never be a place for confrontation or hostility between us, given our common history.

————–
Scott Humor,
the Director of Research and Development
The War on Donbass, which is called by the Western politicians and media the “Russian aggression in Ukraine” was a staged psyop.
My illustrated investigation titled Pokémon in Ukraine reveals how this psyop was staged, by whom and why.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

After 2006: “Israel” Is Deterred




Talk about the strategic and historic achievements of the 2006 victory is no longer merely a theoretical assessment of experts and observers. On the contrary, there is a deliberate campaign aimed at containing the effects of this victory within both the Lebanese and Arab arenas. Over the course of 12 years, these achievements have become concrete facts. Their effects shield the resistance, its supporters and even its opponents. The most significant of these (effects) is the unprecedented state of deterrence – the first of its kind in Lebanon’s history. This deterrence provided a strategic umbrella that also enabled it to deal with the Takfiri threat that was threatening Lebanon’s existence. At the same time, it also prevented the enemy from exploiting Hezbollah’s preoccupation with confronting terrorist and tyrannical groups as well as attacking Lebanon and the resistance.
The state of deterrence imposed by Hezbollah on the enemy is the uppermost manifestation of victory. It reflects the effects of the battlefield triumph on the political and security decision-making process. It also reveals what Hezbollah’s resistance and leadership are instilled in the consciousness of the political, intelligence and military institutions in Tel Aviv. Although the deterrence is the result of a battlefield victory, it is most present in people’s lives, as it is characterized by the perpetuation of its effects. It has the most significant implications, even though a battlefield victory may sometimes be achieved but not affect the enemy. As a result, the enemy will take more aggressive steps by continuing to bet on altering the balance of power on the battlefield. When Hezbollah’s letters are presented to the enemy’s leaders and stop them from taking steps of this kind, this means that they have achieved two levels of victory: the first on the military level (similar to what happened during the 2006 war) and the second on the level of awareness and will, which has been a continues trend for over a decade.
After 2006: “Israel” Is Deterred
One of the practical manifestations of this deterrence came in the form of a security umbrella, enabling the Hezbollah leadership to utilize it in the workshop and build-up and develop its military and missile readiness. This readiness is aimed at preparing for the next round that the enemy has been gearing up for following the war in order to regain its prestige and strengthen the “Israeli” deterrent force that was shattered during the war. This is what senior “Israeli” leaders notably Shimon Peres (who served as deputy prime minister during the war) admitted in his testimony before the Winograd Commission saying, “we have lost the strength of our international deterrence. Today we are considered weaker than we were. In the eyes of the Arabs, we have lost our deterrence strength.” He warned that this would be reflected in the de-legitimization of Israel’s existence. He also pointed out that before the war almost all Arabs had recognized Israel’s existence, but it was now starting to erode.
After the end of the war, “Israel” faced the dilemma over its deterrent power diminishing in the eyes of its opponents, those betting on it and its allies. The current Chief of Staff, Gadi Eisenkot, explicitly highlighted this point when he was in command of the northern region.
“We face a difficulty in deterring Hezbollah from maximizing its capabilities. What we face on the northern border is an axis composed of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. We could not put a handle on it,” Eisenkot was quoted as saying in an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth (3/1/2008) following the war.
This confession and other similar positions reveal the real battle that took the form of competition between Hezbollah and the enemy’s army in their speedy buildup of readiness. One of the most prominent people who expressed this was Major General Giora Eiland, the Head of the National Security Council (he also headed the Planning Division and the Operations Branch of the Army Staff).
“The improvement in Hezbollah’s capabilities since that war has balanced the improvement in the capabilities of the “Israeli” army,” Eiland told the Haaretz newspaper on in October 2008.
After 2006: “Israel” Is Deterred
In light of this, it is accurate to assert that Hezbollah won the battle of wills and readiness, which it fought against the “Israeli” entity throughout the period following the 2006 war. This explains why the enemy refrained from initiating a large-scale aggression throughout these years despite developments in Syria that were meant to pave the way for an ideal circumstance for such an aggression. The Israelis did not even dare to expand the sporadic attacks on Lebanon. This rhetoric was further solidified following operational messages and firm positions issued by Hezbollah’s Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on more than one occasion, leaving a cumulative deterrent effect on the consciousness and calculations of the enemy’s leaders.
Source: al-Ahed News

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!