Russia

Video inside: This video records a really shameful action on behalf of the US regime, on a par with Hitler's arrogant exceptionalism and dishonesty. We have begun the video where the benighted Syrian ambassador begins to respond to a series of utterly unfounded accusations by Niki Haley, the US Ambassador. That she walks out with her following, without listening to him, shows the contempt in which the United States regime holds the people of Syria and its government. Many lives are at stake and the welfare of many generations, but the United States military-industrial complex do not even give them a hearing. Although we have begun the video at the point of the Syrian ambassador's speech, you can roll it back to hear Haley, and then the Russian Ambassador.

"The Russian federation demanded for this meeting to be held on the agenda items, threats to international peace and security, insofar as we are deeply alarmed at the fact that in a number of capitals, above all Washington and those blindly following it, London and Paris, a deliberate policy was undertaken to stoke international tensions. The leadership of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, without any justification and without considering the consequences, have engaged in a confrontational policy against Russia and Syria and they are prompting others to follow suit. A broad arsenal of methods is being leveraged to slander and insult: hawkish rhetoric, blackmail, sanctions and threats to use force against a sovereign state." (Russian ambassador to the United Nations Vassily Nebenzia addressing the Security Council on April 9, 2018, in regard to an alleged chemical attack in the suburban Damascus city of Douma.) See the whole address transcribed below, or listen to the English translator video.

Thank you. If you believe it is a great pleasure for me to speak about the issue we will talk about now, and to make a statement, then you are mistaken. Unfortunately, the situation is such that I will have to say a great deal today, and it will be incumbent upon you to listen to what I have to say. We are grateful to Mr. De Mistura [Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Syria] for his briefing as well as to Mr. [Thomas] Markran [Director and Deputy to the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs].

The Russian federation demanded for this meeting to be held on the agenda items, threats to international peace and security, insofar as we are deeply alarmed at the fact that in a number of capitals, above all Washington and those blindly following it, London and Paris, a deliberate policy was undertaken to stoke international tensions. The leadership of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, without any justification and without considering the consequences, have engaged in a confrontational policy against Russia and Syria and they are prompting others to follow suit. A broad arsenal of methods is being leveraged to slander and insult: hawkish rhetoric, blackmail, sanctions and threats to use force against a sovereign state.

Russia is being unpardonably threatened. The tone with which this is being done has gone beyond the threshold of what is acceptable, even during the Cold war. Such boorishness against my country is something your predecessors did not take the liberty to undertake. What is next? We remind a rhetorical question which our President put forward in 2015 from the UN General Assembly to our Western partners, above all the United States, concerning the reckless of their geopolitical experiments in the Middle East. “Do you understand now what you have done?” And the response at that time hung in the air.

But there is a response: no, you do not understand. Just as you fail to understand what you are doing now. The lack of a clear strategy on any issue is appalling not just to us, it confounds not only us, but it confounds the majority of those sitting here. But they have decided not to openly put this forward to you, following you everywhere you go, regardless of the fact that with everything you touch, chaos is left behind in the brackish waters from which you try to take out fish, something, but only mutant fish are being taken out. I will put forward another rhetorical question. Do you understand the dangerous threshold towards which you are bringing the world?

One of the areas where the hostility is most stark is Syria. The terrorists and extremists supported by external sponsors are enduring a defeat there. Let us recall that we are talking about those terrorists and extremists whom you supplied, financed, and deployed in a country to oust a legitimate government. Now it is clear why this is causing hysteria among those who invested political capital in these dark forces.

Recently, thanks to the efforts undertaken by Russia in line with the Security Council resolutions, a large-scale operation has been undertaken to lift the siege of Eastern Ghouta. Its residents, for a number of years, were forced to endure the mockery and torture of fighters. More than 150,000 civilians were evacuated from that Damascus suburb, completely voluntarily, with the requisite security conditions being provided. Tens of thousands of them have already been able to return to the liberated areas and many met with their relatives. There has been no change [or replacement of population]: this composition being shouted about by supporters of the Syrian opposition has not occurred. These are lies.

With the leaders of these armed groups, difficult negotiations took place. As a result, many of them left the areas they had occupied, with full respect for guarantees for their safety. Incidentally, during the transportation operations, several attempts were undertaken to stage terrorist attacks when the militants attempted to reach the buses with suicide belts. Others preferred to settle their status with the Syrian authorities. Thanks to Presidential amnesties, they will be able to return to civilian life, and subsequently, they may even enter the Syrian security forces. We are talking about implementation of a UN principle: demobilization, disarmament and reintegration.

However, this positive dynamic is not to the liking of some foreign sponsors through Western countries who are willing to take up any straw just to maintain a hotbed of terrorist resistance at a striking distance from the Syrian capital, so that the fighters can continue to terrorize ordinary civilians, to seize their food and to request from the international community that humanitarian assistance be delivered. Incidentally, they were not prepared to share medicine with ordinary civilians – as was shown in the inspection of the stronghold left behind by the fighters. It was already the case in the past in Eastern Aleppo: improvised hospital facilities in basements were full of medicine which, as a result of sanctions – Western sanctions –, were not provided to Damascus and other government-controlled areas.

Also, large storage of [indistinct] were found as were the bodies and corpses of people who had been subjected to torture. We are stunned at the scale of the tunnels that were used by Jihadis. In some of them, small trucks were able to freely move about. These surprising underground facilities brought together the positions of groups who are viewed by some as moderate, and they were linked to the stronghold of the Al-Nosra Front.

On April 6, the new head of Jaysh al-Islam, following instructions of sponsors, derailed the evacuation of a party of fighters from Douma and resumed the rocket and mortar fire against residential areas in Damascus. The firing targeted [indistinct name of four areas]. According to official information, eight people died. 37 civilians were wounded. Unfortunately, we failed to see statements from Western capitals condemning the shelling of a historical district of Damascus. The following day, April 7, fighters accused the Syrian authorities of dropping barrel bombs with toxic substances. At the same time, diversions were being mixed up. It was either called sarin, chlorine, or a mix of toxic gases. Based on a well-known scheme, these rumors were immediately taken out by those who are financed by western capitalists; I am referring to NGOs and the White Helmets who are mendaciously acting under the cloak of health professionals. And these reports were also taken up and transferred to media outlets.

It behooves us once again to state that many of these dubious structures have a clear list of the email addresses of representatives of Security Council members, which shows that some of our colleagues, with a reckless approach towards their status, are leaking sensitive information to their protégés. Incidentally, all should recall the way that accidentally, the White Helmets put on the internet a video which showed preparations for staging a so-called victim of an alleged attack perpetrated by the Syrian army.

In 2011, the chemical serial began, and it continues to be shown to us with the calculation for each new episode to be more resonant than the one prior to it. In Washington, London, and Paris, immediate conclusions were drawn, pinning blame on the Syrian authorities, or as they call it, the Syrian regime. Has nobody wondered why would Damascus need this? There were insults against the Syrian leadership. However, the main burden of responsibility was pinned on Russia and Iran. And I think this is hardly surprising to anybody at this point, but this was done immediately based on current trends, without any investigation being conducted.

On April 8, the Syrian troops sweeping through {Al-Shimona} near Douma found a homemade Jaysh al-Islam manufacturing area to manufacture chemical substances artisanally. Chlorine agents of German manufacture and special equipment were also discovered. In Istanbul, an opposition journalist, [indistinct name], put on his Twitter page a video allegedly from the area of the incident, probably from the White Helmets. An unknown individual is next to a handmade bomb with a chemical that allegedly struck the bedroom of a building in Douma. All of this was accompanied by comments about another attack by the regime against civilians. The staged nature of this action is something of which there is no doubt. The trajectory of the alleged bomb is unnatural. This bomb supposedly entered, piercing through a roof, and naturally, calmly, fell into a bed, without even damaging this bed. Can a bomb fall on a wooden bed without even damaging the wooden bed?! Clearly, it was placed there prior to preparation for the staging.

There’s an interesting sequence of events. The chemical provocation in Douma on Saturday, April 7, occurred immediately after the US delegation at the Security Council received instructions to convene for today, Monday, April 9, to convene expert level consultations on their draft resolution on the mechanism to investigate incidents with chemical weapons. The initial text today has far-reaching changes and revisions.

Under these obscure circumstances, we need of course to get to the bottom of what is taking place. However, we need to do so in an honest, objective, impartial way, without disregarding the principle of presumption of innocence, and by no means prejudging the outcome of the investigation. Despite provocations, Russian specialists continue their efforts to resolve the situation in Eastern Ghouta.

On the afternoon of Sunday, April 8, following a new agreement that was reached, the evacuation of Jaysh al-Islam fighters resumed. Following the liberation of Douma from fighters, Russian specialists on radiological, chemical and biological protection were sent there to collect evidence and information. They took soil samples which show the lack of any nerve agent or chlorine substances.

Locals were interviewed about the cessation of resistance to the fighters. Not a single local resident confirmed the chemical attack having taken place. In local hospitals, there were no reports about symptoms from a toxic substance such as chlorine. Other medical facilities are not located in Douma. The bodies of the dead as a result of contamination were not found. Medical personnel and residents have no information about their potential burial areas. Thereby, the use of sarin and chlorine is not confirmed. Incidentally, the representatives of the Syrian Red Crescent refuted the statement allegedly made on their behalf about a delivery of assistance to victims of toxic gas. I call upon those who will speak against me and slander the regime to proceed from the premise that there was no chemical weapons attack.

Sweden prepared a draft resolution to investigate the incident. In principle, in order to conduct an investigation, the OPCW needs no resolution. However, we are willing to consider this resolution. Today, we propose that what you envisage in your draft be done. Let the OPCW, who through the Director-general of the Technical Secretariat Mr. Üzümcü stated a willingness to get to the bottom of what took place, let it immediately tomorrow fly to Damascus. There, the Syrian authorities and Russian troops will provide conditions to travel to the area of the alleged incident for them to familiarize themselves with the situation. Incidentally, this is what President Trump and other Western leaders called on us to undertake.

As for the possibility of a chemical attack, this was repeatedly warned about by the Syrians at the Russian Center for the reconciliation of opposing sides. It was stated that in order to record on film a chemical attack, and I put this in quotes, “the necessary equipment has already been brought in.” We too made the relevant statements at the Security Council. You heard these warnings. You have heard them but deliberately ignore them insofar as they do not align with the doctrinal views of those who seek the elimination of a legitimate government in another Arabic country.

Still, what is not being looked into is the fact that a significant number of chemical weapons were discovered on November-December 2017 in Syrian territory that had been liberated from terrorists. On the storage sites in al-Zakhariya and al-Afafir in Hama province, twenty 1-ton containers were discovered. More than 50 munitions were found which contain toxic chemicals. In Tal-Adli, Idleb province, 24 tons of toxic chemicals were discovered and this is believed to be chlorine. At the storage site Adhamiya, 30 kilometers northeast of Damascus, 240 and 160 millimeter caliber munitions were found. Plastic canisters were found with phosphorus substances and compounds. In the area of Al-Servita, Idlib province, an industrial complex was found for the synthesis of various toxic substances. 54 chemical munitions were found with a 44 chemical containers and these could be used for the manufacture of toxic substances.

From the beginning of this year alone, four instances were reported of fighters using toxic chemicals against positions where government troops are located in Shuja and Al-Mesharif. More than 100 Syrian troops were hospitalized. On March 3rd, when Hazrama and Al-Tars were liberated in Eastern Goutha, fighters from government troops discovered in a tunnel an underground artisanal manufacturing site to produce chemical munitions of a handmade nature. And this is far from a full list. It points to the wrongdoings and abuses by the irreconcilable opposition. However, the OPCW’s experts being sent there to identify evidence is not something which we see people eager to do. We demand that OPCW verify all of those areas. Access can be provided.

Also, information is surfacing that at the Al-Tanf camp, American instructors have trained a number of groups of fighters to stage provocations with chemical weapons used to create a pretext for a strike. It was clear to us that attempts to shelter terrorists and at the same time punish the regime so hated by some Western capitals would sooner or later be undertaken. Speaking heads on television screens sought to repeat last year's strike against Syria. This morning, there were strikes against the T4 Air Field in Homs province.

We are deeply troubled by such actions. Provocations in Douma echo last year's incident in Khan Sheikhoun. The unifying aspect is the fact that there's a planned nature of these attacks. An analysis of the USS operations prior to and after the incident in Khan Sheikhoun in April 2007 shows that Washington, ahead of time, prepared for its operation. The USS Porter naval destroyer, from 4 to 7 April last year – that is when the toxic substance was used in Khan Sheikhoun, before the strike against the Shayrat airbase –, were already present in the Mediterranean waters where they were engaged in planned operations. They did not enter the ports where an exchange of munitions could have happened in order to increase the number of cruise missiles.

Incidentally, 4 to 5 April, the USS Porter destroyer was located southeast of Sicily, and the USS Ross naval destroyer was in a passage from the Rota naval base in the area south of Sardinia. Later, 6 April, an expedited movement of both naval destroyers was reported towards the firing positions more southwest of Cyprus. From there, on April 7, they conducted a mass strike against the Shayrat airfield. At the same time, the number of Tomahawk missiles that were launched (59) surpassed the overall munitions on both naval destroyers if they had actually been engaged in the anti-missile defense operations that had been assigned to them. For that purpose, only 48 units were necessary. Thereby, US naval vessels, even prior to the chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun, entered military service with extra strike equipment that is an increase of cruise missiles that were not necessary for the anti-missile defense. And this could attest to prior planning by Washington of an act of strike against Damascus.

The fake news on Saturday from Douma are geared entirely towards drawing attention of society away from the Skripal case which was muddled up by London, and throwing on Russia completely unconfirmed accusations with the aim of pulling solidarity to build an anti-Russian alliance. Now the British are stepping away from a transparent investigation and putting forward specific responses for the questions and at the same time they are sweeping up their tracks. During the Security Council meeting on April 5 on the Skripal case, we cautioned that an attempt to unjustifiably blame us of having had a hand in the Salisbury incident was linked to the Syrian chemical dossier. Yesterday, this issue saw new interesting developments. For the moment, Foreign minister Boris Johnson continues to disclose things against Russia and attempt to be witty, and here's the following pearl: experts of an RAF listening post south of Cyprus intercepted on the day of Skripal’s poisoning reports sent from Damascus suburbs to Moscow. And this is what Times is reporting. It contains the following sentence, the phrase “The package has been delivered” and “ the two individuals made a successful egress.” This turns out to be part of the intelligence information provided by London two hours prior to the expulsion of Russian diplomats. However is it not clear that there's an irrefutable link here? Is that not clear to all? Syria-Russia-Salisbury?

I will give a hint to the British intelligence services and I will do so free of charge. Here is another great idea to cover-up their tracks: they could suggest that 'Novichok', which is so liked now, reached Salisbury directly from Syria by package. This is a complete mockery here.

Ambassador Haley has recently said that Russia will never be a friend of the United States. And I wish to respond to that. Friendship is something which is both reciprocal and voluntary. One cannot force a friendship. And we are not particularly keen to be friends with you. Nor are we begging to be friends with you. What we want from you is really nothing. It's something that is normal civilized relations which you arrogantly refuse, disregarding basic courtesies.

And you are misguided if you think that you have friends. So-called friends of yours are only those who cannot say no to you. And this is the sole criterion for friendship in your understanding. Russia has friends and unlike yourselves, we do not have adversaries. We do not view the world through that prism. And yes, international terrorism, that is our enemy. However, we continue to propose cooperation. This needs to be respectful and mutual cooperation, it needs to go towards resolving real and not imagined problems. And you should be just as interested as we are in such a cooperation.

Ultimately, as permanent members of the Security Council, we bear the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Through the relevant channels, we already conveyed to the US that armed force under mendacious pretexts against Syria, where, at the request of the legitimate government of the country, Russian troops have been deployed, could lead to grave repercussions.

We call upon Western politicians to scale down their hawkish rhetoric, to meaningfully consider possible repercussions and to cease the reckless spill over of threats to global security. What military misadventures of the West brought about is well known to us if we consider the examples of Yougoslavia, Iraq and Libya. And nobody has vested you with the power to act as policemen of the world and as investigators, procurators, judges and executioners all at the same time.

We call for your return to the legal fold to comply with the UN Charter and to jointly tackle problems that arise, rather than attempting at each step to advance your egotistical geopolitical game. All of the energy needs to be focused on support for the political process in Syria, to which it is necessary to constructively pull the efforts of all influential players. Russia always stands ready to engage in such cooperation.

To conclude, Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to request an open briefing of the Security Council on the outcomes of the UN assessment mission in Raqqa and the situation in the Rahman camp. We see the way of members of the Commission attempting to create a smoke screen around this issue, which is a result of their actions in Syria, including the operation to raze Raqqa to the ground through bombings. No chemical provocations will divert attention from this, from what you've done. Thank you.

The new film by Andrei Kondrashev, Putin dives into depth about the man the press gossips about, the object of jealousy for other politicians, but about whom we know very little. The film starts with the collapsed Russian economy in Putin's early days of presidency, how he dealt with terrorism, and how he helped Russia recover economically and socially. It was a year in the making and contains personal stories that have never been told on camera before, some of which are described as shocking and stunning: Attempts on the president’s life and the toll of the presidency on Vladimir Putin himself – all combine in what is the most most complete portrait of Vladimir Putin to date. The film runs for two hours and ten minutes.

U.S. imperialism’s deteriorating position in the Middle East was confirmed on Jan. 17, by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s bold assertion for U.S. plans in Syria. The arrogant statement was followed, within hours, by almost immediate backpedaling.

Tillerson’s talk at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University confirmed that the only hope of maintaining U.S. domination is another desperate attempt to close all borders and dismember the entire region. But the latest plan has also created a rupture in NATO, the oldest and largest U.S.-commanded military alliance. [Article first published on Global Research at https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-in-syria-the-us-a-wounded-predator-spreads-chaos-in-middle-east/5627212]

Meanwhile, Turkish planes bombed 100 positions in Syria of U.S.-backed Kurdish YPG forces (the Kurdish acronym for People’s Protection Units) on Jan. 21.

As the war in Syria stretches into the seventh year, Tillerson grandly announced the U.S. military will remain in Syria indefinitely. The newest U.S. plan is to create and train a military border force of 30,000 soldiers. The Secretary of State also arrogantly restated the U.S. demand that has met with failure for seven years: the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the overthrow of the Syrian Arab Republic government.

This was not the first mention of new U.S. plans there. General Joseph Votel, commander of U.S. Central Command, said on Dec. 24 that a training program was being established for Kurdish and Arab fighters to become a permanent U.S. occupying force in Syria. Votel declared, “What we don’t want to do is leave a mess.” (us.pressfrom.com, Dec. 24)

In fact, U.S. long-term plans are to permanently divide Syria and Iraq and expand their imperialist “mess” into Iran.

Since Jan. 14, news reports around the world reported U.S. plans to create a new “border force” in Syria on the borders of Turkey and Iraq. This U.S. plan would separate the oil-rich northern region from the rest of Syria, create a mini-state and close the borders.

Washington said it would help Syrian Democratic Forces, an alliance of militias in northern and eastern Syria led by Kurdish YPG militias, to set up a new 30,000-strong border force.

A flurry of other U.S. statements drew out this plan more explicitly.

The coalition’s Public Affairs Office said: “The base of the new force is essentially a realignment of approximately 15,000 members of the SDF to a new mission in the Border Security Force as their actions against ISIS [the Islamic State group, IS] draw to a close.” (Reuters, Jan. 14)

Before the announcement of a new U.S. plan to occupy and divide the region, numerous commentators described an unprecedented development with the defeat of IS – open borders among Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey. The whole region has been divided since the 1991 U.S. war to recolonize and divide Iraq.

Turkey immediately slammed this new plan of a permanent U.S. occupation through an alliance with YPG Kurdish forces in Syria. Turkey warned of military action against the U.S.-armed and -protected YPG forces.

In the face of Turkey’s fierce opposition, Tillerson claimed, “That entire situation has been misportrayed, misdescribed, some people misspoke. We are not creating a border security force at all.” (aljazeera, Jan. 18)

The Kurdish Nation

Turkey’s great fear is that a “border force” of U.S.-armed Kurdish militias will siphon off advanced U.S.-supplied weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, to Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) forces in Turkey.

Although there are 1.5 to 2 million Kurds in Syria, there are almost 20 million nationally oppressed Kurds in Turkey. Making up 20 percent of population, they are the majority population in southern Turkey, bordering northern Syria, Iraq and Iran.

For decades the Pentagon has armed Turkey and aided in the brutal repression of the Kurds, who resisted under the leadership of the PKK.

But imperialism sees an opportunity to use the smaller Kurdish population in Syria, where they are 5 percent to 8 percent of the Syrian population, as a way to divide Syria. The Kurds in Syria are under the leadership of the Democratic Union Party (PYD); their armed units are the YPG. These are the main units of the U.S.-armed Syrian Democratic Forces.

U.S. imperialism used a similar scenario to impose a division on Iraq. This is imperialism’s divide-and-rule strategy for the entire region. Using the Kurds’ national aspirations for a temporary U.S. military or political advantage, and then cynically dropping them, dates back to Henry Kissinger.

The Kurds are a historically oppressed nation with a distinct language and culture, numbering over 30 million people. They are the largest nation without a state. They live in the underdeveloped, mountainous region spanning four countries: southern Turkey and northern Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Some 72 Turkish jets bombed U.S.-backed Kurdish militias in Syria on Jan. 21. The Turkish news agency Anadolu reported that jets bombed more than 100 targets, including an air base, in the first day of air operations against YPG militias. The operation targeted YPG barracks, shelters, positions, weapons, vehicles and equipment.

Each U.S. maneuver has created greater destruction, but the U.S. has been unable to consolidate its position in the region or gain stable allies.

U.S. divide-and-destroy tactics

Since 2011 the U.S. has covertly armed a whole series of conflicting militias and mercenaries.

With a wink and a nod from U.S. forces in the region, which were arming numerous extremist militias, Saudi Arabia and Turkey armed the fanatical IS army. This became an excuse for open U.S. bombing of Syrian infrastructure.

The U.S. military command pulled 19 other NATO and Gulf countries into the war in Syria. This military onslaught was totally uninvited by the Syrian government.

The Syrian government appealed to Iran, Russia and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon to aid them in defeating IS and the Pentagon-funded militias and mercenaries. This forced Washington to change tactics, but not its objective -- the recolonization of the region.

U.S.-imposed sanctions against Iraq and then Syria were an effort to destroy all forms of normal economic exchange and to shut down all commercial and social life. The U.S. occupation of Iraq divided the country into walled-off mini-states with checkpoints and inspections. All borders were closed. U.S. intervention in Syria was designed to do the same thing.

U.S. wars in the region have displaced more than 10 million people and decimated the region. They have created animosity and suspicion on every side, divided the corrupt and a brutal feudal Gulf state regime aligned with imperialism, and are now dividing the oldest U.S. military alliance -- NATO.

But after seven years of war and 15 years of sanctions, U.S. imperialism has still not succeeded in destroying the sovereign government of the Syrian Arab Republic.

About Sara Flounders: Sara Flounders is an American political writer who has been active in anti-war organizing since the 1960s. Flounders sits on the board of directors for the International Anti-imperialist Coordinating Committee, is founder and an organizer with United National Antiwar Coalition, and is Secretary of the National Board of the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms.

All the news today is about Turkey attacking Afrin, a Kurdish governed city in northern Syria and threatening another Kurdish run city named Manbj. This is a very dangerous situation and another devastating assault on the Syrian people who have already suffered so much from a war that that was started by foreign manipulation and fed by foreign fighters, foreign weapons and foreign cash. The war should have ended by now and be winding down, but Syria’s enemies are persistent and cunning. We should not forget, however, that the foremost enemy of Syria, the strongest, most powerful country, the managing force in this war to destroy Syria is the United States […A Brief Analysis] Article first published 20 January 2018 at https://unac.papillonweb.net/2018/01/20/increasing-us-aggression-in-syria-leads-to-chaos/

Syrian Internal Security Forces are sworn in during their graduation ceremony, at Ain Issa desert base, in Raqqa province, northeast Syria, Thursday, July 20, 2017. Some 250 residents of Syria’s Raqqa province are the latest batch to graduate from a brief U.S-training course that is preparing an internal security force to hold and secure areas as they are captured from Islamic State militants. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla) MintPress, 10/17

US Occupation Forces

The United States has announced that the US is preparing a ‘border force’ of 30,000 fighters to “keep the peace in Syria”.    The plan is for these forces to have the US backed, Kurdish led forces of the SDF (Syrian Defense Forces) at their core, and will occupy nearly a third of sovereign Syrian territory.   This region is not the traditional Kurdish homeland in Syria, but rather the area east of the Euphrates that the SDF was able to occupy with US assistance while the Syrian Arab Army and their allies were busy liberating the rest of Syrian including the more densely populated regions in the west, reintegrating neighborhoods, towns and villages one by one, demining and removing dangerous remnants of the war while providing whatever services and resources they could to local civilians.

According to a report in Bloomberg,  US Secretary of State Tillerson said that the US is not into ‘nation building’ but they will assist with rebuilding Syria AFTER Assad is gone.   In any case, Syrians will wait a long time for any constructive US aid.  So far, the US has done little or nothing to assist with recovering Mosul or Raqqa, not even demining, and certainly nothing that would encourage the return of the civilian population.

The Kurdish forces, originally allied with the Syrian Government, were independent enough to operate on their own with government provision of arms and other resources when they were adopted and offered an independent state by the United States.   The YPG fighting forces emerged from a small sliver of land on the Turkish border  inhabited by several ancient Christian sects, Arabs and Turkomen, indigenous Kurds and Kurdish immigrants who have been arriving in waves throughout the 20th century, escaping pogroms targeting Kurds in Turkey.   The recent immigrants from the 1980s, affiliated with the PKK, a Kurdish resistance organization in Turkey, form the nucleus of the YPG.   Since  the Syrian war began they have been increasingly dominating the other residents of their region, and they now they have spread well beyond it to occupy Raqqa and other cities in a largely Arab region.

US Proxies on the Move

Today the US backed SDF  centers around the Kurdish YPG, but also includes local tribal leaders who want to keep control of their own territories and ISIS members rescued from previous war zones by the US for future use.   According to an article on the World Socialist Organization website, the US has about 2,000 forces in Syria though I have heard estimates as high as 5,000.  They currently claim  to have 230 men in training.   US actions in Syria are spreading chaos and risking a wider regional war – or worse. According to the WSW:

[Turkish President] Erdogan condemned US support for the YPG, declaring on the weekend: “The US sent 4,900 trucks of weapons in Syria. We know this. This is not what allies do.” At a rally yesterday he reiterated his determination to “vanquish” the Kurdish militia. “We have finished our preparations,” he said. “The operation can start any time.” Erdogan accused the US of “creating a terror army on our border,” adding: “What we have to do is nip this terror army in the bud.”

The Syrian government denounced the planned pro-US border force as a “blatant assault” on the country’s sovereignty. The state-run news agency, SANA, cited a foreign ministry spokesperson as insisting that the army was determined to thwart the US “conspiracy, end the presence of the US, its agents and tools in Syria, establish full control over the entire Syria territory and preserve the country’s sovereignty.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday accused the US of seeking to split up Syria, saying it “does not want to keep Syria as a state in its current borders.” Washington was helping “the Syrian Democratic Forces to set up some border security zones.”

An investigation by a couple of Russian journalists has been published on Sputnik reports that the US has a training camp for jihadists near al Tanf, a primary border crossing between Syria and Iraq.   They claim that there are as many as 1,500 fighters there including SDF, New Syrian Army (perhaps represented by the Free Syria Army leaders in Washington last week) and over 200 ISIS fighters.    These men are on the payroll.   Another 5,000 potential fighters reside in nearby Rukban refugee camp which is cut off from all outside access including the United Nations and other NGOS.   Syrian and Russian forces are bombed if they approach the area.   Civilians in Rukban and the US controlled territories are in a desperate situation.   They are lacking the basic necessities while members of criminal gangs control the wells and sell water at inflated prices.    Restless fighters rob  local homes and attack trucks passing on the highway.

It must be noted that the United States has invested not a penny in rebuilding any part of Syria.  Secretary of State Tillerson has said that we will assist rebuilding AFTER Assad has left.     Since this is unlikely to occur, this responsibility will not fall on them in the foreseeable future.    The Arab population of Raqqa has been driven from the city to local refugee camps, and some into the government controlled areas of Syria.  Meanwhile, Syrians living in territories under the control of US forces and US proxies remain in the rubble of the war just as Palestinians in Gaza live in the rubble of the communities that Israel has destroyed.

Fox News has reported that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) members have been in Washington this week meeting with US officials. These are the same ‘moderates’ who have consistently fought side by side with ISIS and al Qaeda from the beginning of the war, and who could not be separated from those organizations to create functioning deconfliction zones.   The article says these FSA leaders claim to have 60,000 fighters.  This is absurd given that they didn’t have that many fighters before they lost the war, and according the investigative report below, they had only a couple of checkpoints in the remaining center of Syrian Opposition, which is controlled by al Qaeda (under various names) and an extremist group called Ahrar al Sham.

One of these FSA leaders in Washington is quoted as saying “Iran and Assad contributed to the creation of Al Qaeda and other extremist groups,” another absurdity since we know that the United States created Al Qaeda in the 80s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, while Turkey, Qatar, Saudia Arabia and their US backers are responsible for transporting these foreign fighters into Syria as well as training the FSA forces. Today, Syria is terrorized by fighters from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Tunisia, and Iraq, Uighers from China, Chechens from Russia, rebellious youth from France, Germany, UK, USA and other western countries, and around the globe.  In fact, it’s big news when somebody takes out one of our own.

Syria for Syrians

The Syrian Government, after recovering Deir Ezzor, long under siege by ISIS, and clearing the Baghdad Damascus road across the border with Iraq, has turned it’s attention to Idlib province.    A strategy of restoring control to urban areas, towns and villages through reconciliation programs has been effective in freeing up the army to move from one area to another, and it has saved many lives.   Although the western media has focused on the use of siege to induce surrender in reconciliation areas, the program is more robust than that.

Areas under the control of Al Qaeda or criminal gangs affiliated with one militant organization or another are not well provisioned even in the best cases because the fighters keep the majority of supplies for themselves and govern through force.   The reconciliation programs attempt to create back channels to deliver resources to the civilian population.  By empowering the civilian population they can convince them to stand against the occupying forces.   The final resolution is negotiated for an end where as many civilians as possible will be protected; where Syrian citizens fighting against the government are given an opportunity to restore their citizenship.  Concessions are made. In some areas, sharia courts continue under the governance of local fundamentalists.   Those who might otherwise fight to the death are given an opportunity to leave.

Idlib

Those who chose to leave are allowed a personal firearm and bused with the families to Idlib province on the Turkish border.       Today, as the Syrian state moves to liberate Idlib,  the situation there is dire.   The province is completely under the control of al Qaeda forces (under various names) and flooded with foreign fighters.  The following is a video produced about a year ago by Jenan Mousa, a roving reporter for Al Aan TV, a pan Arab TV station in out of Dubai.

The reconciliation program will work in Idlib, and has been ongoing for some time. It is clear the civilians there have many unmet needs. The recent change of face implemented by al Nusra/Hayit Tahir al Sham seems superficial and clearly an initiative to influence western backers and not for the benefit of the locals.   The one difference from other reconciliation plans is that there will be no buses to an Al Qaeda haven.   Instead, extremists and mercenaries with families and those who do not want to die in Syria will be driven back across the Turkish border to their training camps and refuges where President Erdogan and the Turkish people will have to deal with the consequences of his folly  just as the people of Pakistan continue to deal with the consequences of Zia al Haq’s collaboration with US plans to build an army of fanatics to fight the soviets in Afghanistan.

Erdogan’s Dilemma

At the moment, Turkish President Erdogan is far more concerned about the Kurdish forces being trained by the US to occupy land in Syria that he once coveted for Turkish occupation.   He is quite beside himself over the US empowerment of Kurdish militias affiliated with the Turkish PKK in Syria.  The Turkish army has begun an attack on the largely Kurdish city of Afrin in northern Syria, and Erdogan has stated that once he has ‘liberated’ Afrin (from the US backed Kurdish forces) he will move on to occupy Manbj, another city in the original Kurdish region of Syria.       The YPG Kurds of the US backed SDF  are followers of a Abdullah Ocalan, a Turkish dissident currently residing in a high security Turkish prison.   The Turkish state has been persecuting the Kurdish people and fighting Kurdish rebellions within its borders since it’s inception.  At that time, an angry and disappointed Kurdish population found themselves denied a promised state in an area (Turkey) where they represented nearly a third of the population, unlike Syria, where Kurds, including recent immigrants, represent less that a tenth of the population.

Increasingly at odds with the US government, and engaged through Russian diplomacy in a tenuous detente with his erstwhile victims in Syria, Turkish President Erdogan is an easy target.  Turkey is the largest military power in the region, with a history of western alliances, and as the war has wound down he has been increasingly isolated and under threat.   They lost and he is holding the bag.  This is not to say that his own bad choices didn’t bring him to this place, but it certainly makes him a dangerous force in the Syrian conflict.   Denied the fruits of his support for the international attack on Syria, he is also faced with the reinforcement of an archetypal enemy of the Turkish state.   His reaction to the latter problem may well give him at least some of the rewards that providing services for the anti-Syrian forces did not.

US officials should have seen this coming.  Well, of course, they did see it coming.  What we are seeing here is politically a Turkish civil war being played out on Syrian territory at the expense of the Syrian people.   Two Turkish forces are fighting for control of northern Syria, one enabled by US backing.  If you look at US objectives, this situation is surely advantageous.   Even as the Syrian forces and their allies move in to clear out the last holdout of Al Qaeda and the other Turkish proxies, Turkey is moving in to occupy Syrian towns and villages along the border in areas where the US can’t hold them.

How convenient is that for US objectives, which include the breakup and destruction of the Syrian state.  In his rage and frustration, Erdogan continues or support the needs of US military strategists who do not really have the forces to hold the large  swathe of Syria they have announced their intention to occupy.   Yesterday, Tillerson again softened his line.   But he well knows that at this point, it doesn’t matter what he says.  He is blowing wind, talking to the press and the people of the United States.   There has been no significant diplomatic engagement with Turkey since Trump came in to office.   Meanwhile, the diplomatic initiative of the Russians has been disrupted and a loose cannon is pivoting out of control on the northern border of Syria.

US Policy in Syria

The US policy of destruction and devastation is clear in Syria as in Libya and Iraq, Afghanistan and even Yugoslavia.   They really only need enough land to put their regional military bases.    Destruction jand chaos are the goal.   Destruction by ISIS, by Al Qaeda/Al Nusra/…/Hayat Tahir,  by Turkey, by the Kurds, by the French and British, by our own forces, it really doesn’t matter.    It’s all the same to US strategists.   Blaming Russia, blaming Muslims, blaming the Turks blaming Iran, blaming Assad – its a ll a pretext for the destruction of an ancient land and culture, of a society that is at the root of our own culture.   This policy has not changed one iota since the beginning of the war fueled  by Libyan fighters with US weapons in the south and Turkish trained proxies armed and funded by the Saudi Arabia and Qatar in in the north.

We need to stand up and set aside our confusion NOW.   The US role and that of the Kurdish militias in Syria has no upside.   It is a bold initiative to create chaos and destruction in Syria and to continue the war that was started by the United States and its allies to crush the independent sovereign Republic of Syria.

Hands Off Syria!  Hands off the Middle East! 

Stand up today against the vicious policy of destruction adopted by the US government!

This article was republished on the Syrian Free Press on 4 Nov 2017.

[UPDATE 7 Nov 2017: Added excerpts from President Rouhani's speech.] I was riveted by this video in its presentation of the antithesis of United States policy in new agreements between Russia and Iran. The video begins with a remarkable political message in the ceremonial exchange of documents of agreement on very important material matters, which should make a big difference to politics in the region - and won't please the United States. These included agreements on nuclear energy transport cooperation, oil and gas exploration, technology and information technology, railway electrification, urban construction and development, trade in the energy industry, visa-free travel for groups between Russia and Iran, and agreement on extradition of convicted persons between the two countries and cooperation on legal affairs. In addition they agreed on mutual cooperation in fighting Islamic extremism, the encouragement of cultural exchange and sports, and working on the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea. This news conference was part of a trilateral meeting of Vladimir Putin, President of Iran Hassan Rouhani and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. Putin and Rouhani appear in the video. You have to be aware of the momentous nature of the agreements in order to appreciate this otherwise somewhat stilted piece of diplomatic theatre. America has been trying to isolate and weaken Iran, which has both considerable oil reserves and a catbird seat on the shores of the oil-rich (if logistically highly problematic) Caspian Sea. America has backed wars in the region, invaded neighbours, and tried to undermine support for Russia in the Middle East because it wants permanent influence there. Obama, in his negotiations about Iran's use of nuclear power, may have been trying to keep some communications open, but Mr Trump has breached all democracy by openly threatening Iran. Iran (now that Syria has been crippled) is the leading technological and socially progressive power in the region, bitterly resented by Saudi Arabia and Israel. Now, apparently ironically, but actually quite naturally, Russia has resealed and expanded its friendship with Iran. In so doing, it has made Iran much more secure. How will the United States, NATO and the EU respond to this?

Russian President Vladimir Putin's speech

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I would like to thank the President of Azerbaijan for the idea of holding such summits and thank my Iranian colleague for organising the second summit of the leaders of Azerbaijan, Iran and Russia.

I believe such regular meetings in this format are very much in demand. They make it possible to coordinate positions on the most acute issues on the regional and international agenda, conduct a constructive search for solutions to shared problems in the sphere of security and the fight against terrorism, and promote trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian cooperation.

The main areas of trilateral cooperation are reflected in the Joint Statement that we will sign following today’s summit. I would like to point out several things I consider important.

No doubt, ensuring regional stability and security is one of our principal tasks. It is necessary to improve coordination of the activity of [our] intelligence and law enforcement agencies, establish an intensive data exchange on the activity of international terrorist and extremist organisations, fight drug trafficking and transnational crime, and stop the attempts to transit militants via our countries.

It is important to continue dialogue on Caspian problems – our colleagues just talked about that – and finish the work on the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea as soon as possible.

Needless to say, special priority should be given to promoting mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation. Last year, Russian-Iranian trade was up 70 percent; in the [first] eight months of this year, Russia’s trade with Azerbaijan increased by 62 percent; Azerbaijani-Iranian trade is also marked by stable positive trends.

In order to further stimulate trilateral exports and imports, it is necessary to streamline customs procedures and eliminate the existing barriers to the free movement of goods and services.

We could also consider increasing the share of national currencies in mutual financial settlements, fostering closer ties between financial and banking institutions and getting business communities in the three countries more actively involved [in these processes].

Transport infrastructure offers good opportunities for developing cooperation. I am referring primarily to the initiative of building the western section of the North-South international corridor – our colleagues just talked about that – which is indeed one of the shortest and potentially the most commercially competitive transit routes from South Asia to Europe.

We support Iran’s plans to begin the construction of the last section of the western Caspian route – the Rasht-Astara railway line. The implementation of this project will make it possible to organise transit more effective and reduce delivery costs.

We see good prospects for deepening energy cooperation. Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan are firmly entrenched in leading positions in the world in terms of hydrocarbons production. I believe that joint prospecting and development of oil and gas deposits and the launching of joint projects in energy production and transit are in our common interests.

Building the Russia-Azerbaijan-Iran energy bridge, integrating our countries’ electric energy systems, remains a priority. Putting this initiative into practice would help enhance energy security of the entire region and ensure reliable energy supplies.

Among other much-needed areas I will single out cooperation in such areas as industry, agriculture, high technology, medicine and drug production. Positive examples of such cooperation have already been mentioned.

Considerable attention should be given to cultural cooperation, the implementation of joint cultural programmes, expanding tourism and youth exchanges and sport contacts and promoting the expansion of direct regional ties between the three countries.

Colleagues, I would like to express my confidence that cooperation between Russia, Azerbaijan and Iran will continue to develop steadily, acquiring a systemic and regular nature.

In closing, I would like to invite you to attend the next trilateral summit in Russia.

Thank you.

Excerpts of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s speech:

[Candobetter.net editor: On 7 November 2017, I located excerpts from President Rouhani's speech at https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2017/11/04/putin-and-rouhani/, where it had republished portions of the article you are reading here. See below:]

President Rouhani said in a press conference after the tripartite summit of the presidents of Iran, Russia and Azerbaijan:

“The three countries aim to build closer ties and take advantage of the capacities of the three countries on the path to economic development and the interests of the nations of Iran, Russia and the Republic of Azerbaijan”.

Thanking the presidents of Russia and Azerbaijan for their presence in Tehran, Dr Hassan Rouhani said:

“The summit of the Presidents of Iran, Russia and Azerbaijan is based on the friendship and neighbourhood of the three countries, and this friendship, closeness and geographical and cultural affinity, has made us more determined to make better use of the capacities of the three countries”.

Referring to the decisions made at the Baku-Tehran summits, including in the area of transit between the three countries and the Eurasian region, Dr Rouhani said:

“Within the framework of this transit route, we will connect north to south, and our decision is to connect Bandar Abbas to Helsinki, connecting Asia to Europe and our route is through Azerbaijan, Russia and Eastern and Northern Europe”.
“We also want to deepen relations in the field of road and maritime connections,”

the president added, saying that the three countries on the Caspian Sea coast should use this sea as a sea of peace for the countries of the region and also the sea of development to use the capacities of coastal development.
Dr Rouhani described energy as another potential for deepening ties between the three countries and said:

“Iran, Russia and Azerbaijan, with huge reserves of oil and gas and the good position in the region and the world, should have their own technological cooperation for the production and extraction of oil and gas in this region as well as joint investments in energy and other fields”.

The president also announced a joint program to connect three countries’ electricity networks, saying:

“Our electricity needs to be connected so that we can use electricity of the three countries at different times”.

The third meeting of the presidents of Iran, Russia and Azerbaijan will be hosted by Moscow next year, the president added.
Dr Rouhani also highlighted regional issues as another focal point of the presidents of the three countries and said:

“Closer relations and the role of the three countries in the stability and security of the region, in particular the fight against terrorism, were discussed at the meeting”.
“It is important for Iran and Russia to cooperate in the establishment of stability and security, and in the fight against terrorism, especially in Syria, and the tripartite cooperation of Iran, Turkey and Russia, which is being pursued in Astana,” he continued.

The president added:

“At the summit, all three countries emphasised regional cooperation for regional peace and stability and the fight against terrorism, drugs and organized crime”.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev also said at the press conference that trilateral negotiations between Iran, Russia and Azerbaijan were successful, saying:

“Relations between the three countries are being successfully pursued and we expect a good future for this cooperation”.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, also expressed satisfaction with the talks between Iranian, Russian and Azerbaijani presidents, and said:

“I am confident that these cordial and transparent meetings will bring important results and benefits for our nations”.

Referring to the meeting with Dr Rouhani on regional security, he also said that the two presidents discussed Iran’s nuclear issue and the Syrian issue, saying:

“Our cooperation with Iran, especially in the Syrian issue, is very fruitful, and through our cooperation with Iran and Turkey, the fight against terrorism in Syria is going well”.

How many of us can truly say we have witnessed such exhilirating history in the making? Footage of the Syrian Arab Army and their allies entering the city of Deir Ezzor has just been released. Yet another one of the brutal and punishing sieges maintained by ISIS and assorted US coalition armed and funded extremist forces has had its back broken by the SAA and the stubborn resistance of the Syrian people. We are witnessing the end of our existing global order, the victory of Truth over Force and asymmetric power and the birth of a new geopolitical paradigm.
Our endless gratitude should be extended to the brave people of Syria for the gift they have given to Humanity – the proof that resistance will prevail despite all the odds against them. The following video was posted by independent Aleppo MP, Fares Shehabi, on Facebook. Watch (Article first published on 5 September 2017 at 21st Century Wire.)

The following report is from AlMasdarNews:

“Within minutes of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) lifting the siege on Deir Ezzor city, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad contacted three top Syrian commanders, all of whom played a major role in the victory, via phone.

According to reports, the Syrian president spoke with Rafiq Shahada (who is Deir Ezzor’s Chief of Security), Hasan Muhammad (commander of the 17th Reserve Division, whose men were the first to reach Syrian forces in Deir Ezzor) and Isaam Zahreddine (the operational commander of all forces in Deir Ezzor).

In the phone conversation, President al-Assad congratulated the three commanders for the historic victory which they have now achieved.

Whilst commanders Rafiq Shahada and Isaam Zahreddine played-out the role of protecting Deir Ezzor and its residents from relentless attacks by besieging ISIS forces over the last three years, Hasan Muhammad, the commander of the 17th Reserve Division, led the vanguard Syrian Army units which officially lifted the siege on the city.”

Seemingly, as a pychologically understandable response to the smearing of Russia by the corporate presstitute media, and now US President Donald Trump, many otherwise well-informed and insightful alternative journalists, who oppose the corporate newsmedia, find it necessary to defend the conduct of the dictator Josef Stalin (1878-1953) with spurious rationalisations.

In fact, the Polish army and air force fiercely resisted the Nazi invaders. The army and the residents of Warsaw held out until 29 September.

Had the Red Army not invaded 12 days earlier than the surrender of Warsaw, and had France and Britain ended their 'phony war' and launched a real military campaign against Germany, can we presume that Poland might not have been able to triumph against the invaders? At the very least, had Russia not invaded from the East, the price paid by Nazi Germany would have been so high as to greatly reduce Nazi Germany's prospects of winning the subsequent Battle of France in 1940.

The Saker rightly objects to the criminal actions by the Polish government and its NATO allies on the world stage right now in 2017. However, humanity's fight against the Washington warmongers and their Eastern European vassals, is not helped by the Saker's apparent whitewashing of the cynical conduct by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in the early years of the Second World War. Whilst what the Saker writes of Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, is true, their betrayal of Czechoslovakia in September 1939 is dwarfed by the effect of the subsequent Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

After the signing of that pact, the Soviet Union effectively became an ally of Nazi Germany. As Nazi Germany conquered Poland, with the help of the Soviet Union, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium and France, then tried to subdue Britain with aerial bombardment and U-boats, and then prepared to invade the soviet Union, the German war economy was supplied with raw materials from the Soviet Union.

Whilst what the Saker writes about the treachery of the Polish Pilsudski government and most of the Western democracies prior to 1 September 1939 is true, this cannot excuse the even more cynical conduct of Stalin after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August 1939 and his subsequent blind trust in Hitler right up to the launch of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941.

This also ignores the fact that Britain under Churchill[1], tacitly supported by America under President Roosevelt (FDR), [2] continued to fight Nazi Germany. FDR's support of Britain and the Soviet Union was contrary to the wishes of many of America's wealthy elite.

Stalin's trust in Hitler was so blind that he even ignored warnings by German Communist Richard Sorge[3] (1985-1944), who worked at the German embassy in Tokyo, at least one defecting German soldier (who was shot for his trouble), and by American intelligence, that Nazi Germany was preparing an invasion.

Had Stalin heeded these warnings, then surely the scale of the Red army's military disaster prior to the battle of Moscow in 1941 could have been considerably mitigated.

Instead, Stalin refused to pass on the warnings to Red Army commanders whilst the Soviet Union continued to send, by rail across the border, much of the raw materials, needed by Nazi Germany to both continue its war against Britain and for the coming invasion of the Soviet Union. Raw materials were sent right up until the morning of 22 June 1941.

Unfortunately, the vast tragedy did not end at Moscow in December 1941. Before Nazi Germany was finally vanquished in May 1945, 25 million Soviet citizens, by one rough estimate, were to lose their lives.[4]

By his treachery and misjudgement, Stalin, more than any other individual in history, made possible the triumph of Hitler's Third Reich. Only the terrible sacrifice of tens of millions of people people, including the 25 million lost by the Soviet Union, prevented that.

Footnotes

[1] Churchill is a paradoxical figure. In October 1944, in contrast to his legendary defiance of Nazi Germany during the 1940 Battle of Britain, he cynically betrayed (with Stalin's collusion) the Greek ELAS fighters who had heroically resisted Nazi Germany. They were tricked into disarming, whilst Greeks, who had collaborated with the German occupiers, were rearmed. (See the Greek Civil War, The Kapetanios (1973) by Dominique Eudes.)

[2] Most of America, including the wealthy elites, opposed the entry of the United States into the Second World War on the side of Britain and the Soviet Union. Many of the wealthy elites opposed war because many were sympathetic to Nazi Germany. On the other hand, ordinary American workers were rightly angry about the loss of 117,465 lives in the pointless First World War. However, FDR understood that, unlike the case in the First World War, humanity had a real stake in the outcome of the Second World War.

To overcome public opposition to war, FDR and some of his top military contrived to provoke Japan into launching a 'surprise' attack on Pearl Harbour. This is described in Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (1999) by Robert Stinnett.

This would be one of very few instances, if not the only instance, in history, where humanity had a stake in a political leader successfully pulling off such a Machaevellian stunt. Had FDR not been able to bring America into the war, the Soviet Union would most likely have lost and its vast stock of natural resources would have been made available to the Nazi German war machine. Nazi Germany and its vassal states would then have been able to rule over a unipolar world.

[3] Any year 8 student of German would know that 'Sorge' is (roughly) pronounced 'sorga' and not 'sorj', as I originally thought.

[4] I personally doubt that a country, even as large as the Soviet Union, could have continued to resist Nazi Germany if even more lives had been lost. In comparison, between December 1941 and August 1945, the United States lost 419,400 lives fighting Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Japanese Empire. Whilst that is a terrible loss of life, it is still an order of magnitude less than 25 million lost by the Soviet Union.

I won't try to explain here, what I believe are the reasons for this enormous disparity here but I reject any notion that it is due to any inherent inherent inferiority of the Soviet peoples as much of the Eastern Front war porn, written since 1945 says, both explicitly and implicitly.

Cdb Ed Update: Broken link to source of this article has been fixed. Vladimir Putin has backed the idea of expanding a program that offers citizens a free hectare of land in Russia’s Far East to all of the country’s regions. The Russian president made the comment during one of his annual Q&A sessions on Thursday. Source: Putin backs extending free land giveaway all across Russia

Tens of thousands of Russians claim free land in Far East

When asked whether the free land program in Russia’s Far East could be expanded to other regions, Putin answered “there is enough land in Russia. Forty-three million hectares of farmland alone are not used for their intended purpose. These are huge, just huge land reserves.”

However, the president stressed that the program in the Far East should be realized first.

Under the Russian version of the Homestead Act, every citizen can get a free hectare of land in the Far East, if they are willing to put it to good use. Within the first year, the recipients must declare how they want to use the land, and, in three years, must report on how it is being developed. After five years, the land can be sold or leased.

Some 93,000 applications have been received since the program was launched in June of last year and nearly 20,000 of those have been approved.

The regions with free land on offer include Yakutia, Kamchatka, Chukotka, Primorye, Khabarovsk, Amur, Magadan, and Sakhalin, as well as the Jewish Autonomous Region. The land can be used for any lawful purpose, but the new owners cannot rent, sell, or give the land away for five years.

1- Amur Region, 2 - Jewish Autonomous Region, 3 - Kamchatka, 4 - Magadan Region, 5 - Primorye, 6 - Yakutia, 7 - Sakhalin Region, 8 - Khabarovsk Region, 9 - Chukotka Autonomous Region.
Foreigners are also eligible to use the land, but the registration of full property rights is only possible after the recipient becomes a naturalized citizen.

Days of incessant propaganda from the ABC, SBS and all other mainstream media toeing the Trump/US Establishment line on chemical weapons in Syria, without any overt logical basis, prompted the author to make a complaint. David Macilwain was in Syria in 2010, corresponds internationally with diverse people concerned about Syria's rights, and has visited Russia twice in the past three years, in a quest to discuss and share views on current events and to build up contacts who might be interviewed by the Australian press rather than the narrow sample usually referred to.

This morning the ABC’s RN breakfast presenter Fran Kelly interviewed a ‘former adviser to the Syrian government and Bashar al Assad’ – Dr Samir Altaqi - who now lives in Dubai. Ostensibly the purpose of the interview was to find out who might replace Assad once he has been ‘removed’. According to the ABC and other Western media, this removal will happen once Rex Tillerson has persuaded Vladimir Putin to stop supporting ‘the Syrian dictator’.

Unsurprisingly for a member of Syria’s government who has abandoned his own country and moved to one of the West’s local allies in the war on Syria, nothing Dr Altaqi said related to the reality of Syria, where the vast majority of citizens now support both their elected President and their defending Army.

You can judge for yourself here: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/us-tells-russia-to-abandon-syrias-assad/8436004

One has to ask who is responsible for finding such NATO-friendly 'dissident' voices who will back up the accepted narrative, and one which is almost the only view to be heard on the ABC. I had assumed that long-time presenter Fran Kelly, who has pushed a pro-Syrian 'opposition' viewpoint since the start of the war, played some part in choosing her interviewees, but it appears not so simple.

This interview was almost the last straw, following days of incessant propaganda from the ABC, SBS and all other mainstream media, and pushed me to phone the ABC Australia Radio breakfast programme immediately.

I spoke to the executive producer, Cheryl Bagwell, who was impatient and busy and advised me to phone later when the program finished, while at the same time explaining that she ‘didn’t want to get into an argument over Syria’.

When I phoned back, I got the same impatient and petulant response, despite explaining I was a spokesperson for Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation)In Syria (AMRIS), and had a complaint over the interviewee’s viewpoint on Assad. She said something like ‘so you support Assad and dismiss his use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons’ – to which I said – “Of course I support him, along with at least 15 million Syrians!”

Then she said something like, 'We’ve had too many calls from your people recently and we’re tired of it'. I’m not ‘your people’ – by which presumably she meant those from Hands off Syria (HoS), who’ve been victimised by the Murdoch Press and the ABC’s Media Watch just recently.

She went off into what seemed to me a bit of a tirade about how the ABC was the best and most balanced coverage of the issue and ‘can you tell me of one that is better?’ – she demanded.

I said that there was nothing that was any better in Australia, as they were all bad and biased and failed to air the Russian or Syrian viewpoint, and I asked if she listened to RT or other non-Western media, mentioning how RT was no different from the ‘independent’ ABC since they are both State supported broadcasters.

She said that only just the other day they had interviewed a Russian analyst – as if any would do. I heard that interview, with the ‘leading Russian military analyst’, Pavel Felgenhauer. (Podcast at
https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgMVjNAZQV?play=true.)

In this interview, the first question was, “At what point will Russia abandon Assad?” Pavel Felgenhauer's response was that Russia won’t abandon Assad - not because Assad isn’t responsible for a chemical weapons attack - but because Russia has invested so much in Syria, both militarily and politically. He said that some Russian advisers should have known that Assad was going to use chemical weapons, but may not have told the Kremlin.

Fran Kelly then asked, “But why would Russia stay so solid behind Assad? What’s the bigger picture?"

Pavel Felgenhauer said that, “Politically it would be too embarassing to abandon Assad, and lose face.” [...] “Russia right now is in a very isolated position, with even China supporting Trump’s actions... "

The ABC’s choice of interviewee in both cases, whether made by Fran Kelly or by Cheryl Bagwell, shows extreme confirmation bias. When I challenged the views espoused by the Russian guest, Bagwell said that he was from Moscow, and would know more than any of us about the situation.

In fact, knowing the views of many Russian analysts and commentators, I would assert that it would be hard to find any others who believed that Assad had actually used chemical weapons, leave alone ‘against his own people’. Just as you wouldn’t find someone from Syria, outside the ‘rebel-occupied’ zones, who would confirm the view that Bashar al Assad is head of an Alawite coterie oppressing the Syrian people.

Whoever is ultimately responsible for choosing the ‘analysts’ and ‘experts’ at the ABC, it is now clear that changing the thinking there is almost impossible. Any voice dissenting from the ABC narrative on Bashar al-Assad, or Vladimir Putin, would be accused of being one of ‘your people’, and their viewpoint dismissed out of hand.

On April 7th, US warships delivered an illegal blow to a Syrian airbase in Homs. Their justification was the recent "chemical weapon" attack on behalf of the Syrian government in Idlib. The Kremlin condemned the strike as an act of aggression against a sovereign state, and a violation of international law. Meanwhile, at the UN, representatives of Western governments attempt to push through a resolution that is based on information taken out of thin air. It includes the removal of Assad, whether or not he was behind the attack. CBS News reporter: Russia says that the airstrike on Khan Sheikhun took place between 11.30 and 12.30 pm. Medics on the ground say that the hit happened hours before that. How so? This is one fascinating question posed to Russian foreign affairs minister, Maria Zakharovna at a press conference on 5 April 2017. See inside the article.

Included video is embedded in article at Fort Russ published & April 2017. The article is a guest contribution on PaulCraigRoberts.org.

Above video embedded in article at Fort Russ published & April 2017. The article is a guest contribution on PaulCraigRoberts.org.

On April 7th, US warships delivered an illegal blow to a Syrian airbase in Homs. Their justification was the recent "chemical weapon" attack on behalf of the Syrian government in Idlib. The Kremlin condemned the strike as an act of aggression against a sovereign state, and a violation of international law. Meanwhile, at the UN, representatives of Western governments attempt to push through a resolution that is based on information taken out of thin air. It includes the removal of Assad, whether or not he was behind the attack.

It is noteworthy, that the only real source of information on what took place, are the videos made by the White Helmets, an infamous propaganda organisation as it pertains to the Syrian civil war. In this clip, Maria Zakharova calls on Western respresenatives/ journalists to hear Russia, and what it has to say. The attack against the Syrian government, much like the Ghouta gas attack in 2013, which precipitated the Syrian civil war, is a giant facade for the military industrial warhawks in the US, to put their money where their mouth is.

It is weird that the mainstream press and the US-NATO war machine continue to put out the same stories as if they were spam-bots. You would think that real human beings could come up with something more convincing. It is known, however, that people tend to believe a message they often hear repeated, to the detriment of their own eyes and reason, so perhaps this is the intentional modus-operandi of the US-NATO-military industrial media complex. The only way to combat the oft-repeated lie is to repeatedly question it, which we are doing here. Once again the US-NATO deep state war-machine has tried to use the UN like Lucy's football for Charlie Brown, to give authority to accusations against the Syrian government which it actually has no reliable basis for. The consequences could be truly awful - but what do spambots care about World War 3?

Do spambots invent US policy in Syria? Has the White House been automated for destruction?

Without credible evidence, without witnesses, without indications, the American president, Donald Trump, and the mainstream news media again have the US trying to convict President al-Assad of 'war-crimes against his own people'. They will try to use this as a pretext for another bloody 'regime change' in the mould of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine, either to keep an enlarge their military footprint in the Middle East or to obtain concessions from peace-keeping Russia.

It is alarming that President Trump is now marching along obediently to the same evil old tune as Hillary Clinton did, since a primary difference between their platforms was that he would not pursue baseless interventions in the Middle East.

His new stance is suspicious of a sudden loss of power to the neocons who surround him, given that his new US State Secretary said, only last week, that the US would leave the Syrian people to decide who would lead them, and not seek regime change. The chemical weapons story is an old one and not a very good one. Four years ago the news was almost identical, when it was resoundingly repudiated, for example by the Swiss UN investigator, Carla del Ponte. See http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188. Since then we have heard it many times, picked up then dropped, picked up then dropped again. We republish here a superb 5 April debate and argument from PressTV on this vital subject. In an exercise of logic unfamiliar in the western media, the moderator here asks for a list of for and against points regarding benefits to the Syrian Government or the 'Rebels' in engaging in the purported chemical attacks.

The Debate - Chemical attack in Syria's Idlib

In this episode of The Debate, Press TV has conducted an interview with Marwa Osman, a journalist and political commentator from Beirut, and Michael Lane, the founder of the American Institute for Foreign Policy in Washington, to discuss a recent suspected chemical attack in the Syrian province of Idlib.

"We deny completely the use of any chemical or toxic material in Khan Sheikhoun town today and the army has not used nor will use in any place or time, neither in past or in future," the Syrian army has said in a statement. The Syrian Air Force has destroyed a warehouse in Idlib province where chemical weapons were being produced and stockpiled before being shipped to Iraq, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman said. The strike, which was launched midday Tuesday, targeted a major rebel ammunition depot east of the town of Khan Sheikhoun, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said in a statement. The warehouse was used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas, Konashenkov said. The shells were delivered to Iraq and repeatedly used there, he added, pointing out that both Iraq and international organizations have confirmed the use of such weapons by militants. [First published by RT at https://www.rt.com/news/383522-syria-idlib-warehouse-strike-chemical/]

The Cold War has long been over, but it seems, not for all. The idea of reconciling with Russia has been met by fierce resistance on Capitol Hill. Though Trump promised to repair broken relations while on the campaign trail, the new US administration has been forced into a struggle against the nation’s establishment. Will the new president still be able to find common ground with Moscow? Or are we in for Cold War Two? RT's Sophie Shevardnadze asks a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan on Russian affairs, Russia scholar and author – Suzanne Massie. Originally published on RT 13 Mar, 2017 07:24 at https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/380460-cold-war-russia-us/

Follow @SophieCo_RT

Sophie Shevardnadze: Suzanne Massie, adviser to President Ronald Reagan on Russia policy, it's really great to have you on our show today, welcome.

Suzanne Massie: Thank you, I am happy to be here.

Disappointing to see that Trump's troops are in Syria without permission. Today, 11 March 2017, in a Chinese publication interview (conducted in English), Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad described the US incursion into Northern Syria from Raqqa as 'raids' which he did not think would succeed against ISIS because they are not coordinated with the Syrian government and army. He said that Russia's military manoeuvres against ISIS have been successful because Russia coordinated with the Syrian government and troops, and was invited. Assad said that he had been more hopeful about the Trump administration vis a vis Syria but that he has yet to have any direct (as opposed to indirect and unreliable) contact with Trump. Asked whether he had opened the door to these American troops, Assad said, "No, no, we didn’t. Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation or consultation or permission, they are invaders, whether they are American, Turkish, or any other one."

Read more at http://pundita.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/video-and-complete-transcript-chinese.html

Full transcript below:
11 March 2016

SANA (Syrian Arab News Agency)

(Damascus, SANA) President Bashar al-Assad said that the solution to the crisis in Syria should be through two parallel ways: the first one is to fight the terrorists, and this is our duty as government, to defend the Syrians and use any means in order to destroy the terrorists who’ve been killing and destroying in Syria, and the second one is to make dialogue.

The president added in an interview given to Chinese PHOENIX TV that any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation or consultation or permission, they are invaders, whether they are American, Turkish, or any other one.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Question 1: Thank you Mr. President for having us here in Dimashq, the capital of Syria. I think this is the first interview you have had with Chinese media after the national ceasefire and after so many fresh rounds of talks, both in Astana and in Geneva, and of course after US President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

And these days, as we have seen, your troops are making steady progress in battlefields, but peace talks do not seem just as productive. So, as far as the Geneva talks are concerned, your chief negotiator, Mr. Jaafari, was trying hard to find out who should be sitting on the other side of the negotiation table. So, according to your idea, who should be sitting there?

President Assad: This is a very crucial question. If you want those negotiations to be fruitful, we have to ask “who is going to be sitting there?” I mean, there could be a lot of good people with good intentions, but the question is: who do they represent? That’s the question.

In this situation, you have different groups, you have people who are, let’s say, patriotic, but they don’t represent anyone, they represent themselves. You have others who represent the terrorists, and you have terrorists on the table, and you have others who represent the agenda of foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, like Turkey, like France, UK and maybe the United States.

So, it’s not a homogeneous meeting. If you want it to be fruitful, going back to the first point that I mentioned, it should be a real Syrian-Syrian negotiations. In spite of that, we went to that meeting because we think any kind of dialogue could be a good step toward the solution, because even those people who are terrorists or belonging to the terrorists or to other countries, they may change their mind and go back to their normality by going back to being real Syrians, detach themselves from being terrorists or agents to other groups. That’s why I say we didn’t expect Geneva to produce anything, but it’s a step, and it’s going to be a long way, and you may have other rounds, whether in Geneva or in Astana.

Question 2: But anyway, it is intra-Syrian talks, right? But the matter of fact is, it is proxy dialogue. I mean, main parties do not meet and have dialogue directly.

President Assad: Exactly.

Journalist: Are you personally satisfied with the current negotiation format or mechanism?

President Assad: We didn’t forge this mechanism; it was forged by de Mistura and the UN with the influence of the countries that wanted to use those negotiations in order to make pressure on Syria, not to reach any resolution.

As you just said, each one represents a different agenda, even the opposition delegations, it wasn’t one delegation; different delegations of the opposition. So, if I’m going to – as a government – if I’m going to negotiate with someone, who’s it going to be? Which one? Who represents who? That’s our question.

So, you are right, this time there was no negotiations in Geneva, but this is one of the reasons, that’s why it didn’t reach anything. The only thing we discussed in Geneva was the agenda, the headlines, what are we going to discuss later, that’s it.

Question 3: But as we see, lot of time, money, energy have been put into this effort, and the clashes are still going on, people are still dying, and the refugees are still increasing.

President Assad: Exactly.

Journalist: What is the possible way of having a negotiation?

President Assad: Again, you are correct. The more delay you have, the more harm and destruction and killing and blood you’ll have within Syria, that’s why we are very eager to achieve a solution, but how and in which way? You need to have two parallel ways: the first one is to fight the terrorists, and this is our duty as government, to defend the Syrians and use any means in order to destroy the terrorists who’ve been killing and destroying in Syria.

The second one is to make dialogue. This dialogue has many different aspects; you have the political one, which is related to the future of Syria; what political system do you need, what kind? It doesn’t matter which one, it depends on the Syrians, and they’re going to have a referendum about what they want. The second part is to try to bring many of those people who were affiliated to the terrorists or who committed any terrorist acts to go back to their normality and lay down their armaments and to live a normal life in return for amnesty that has been offered by the government, and we’ve been going in that direction for three years, and it worked very well. It worked very well.

So, actually, if you want to talk about the real political solution since the beginning of the crisis, of the war on Syria, till this moment, the only solution was those reconciliations between the government and the different militants in Syria, many of them joined the government now, and they are fighting with the government. Some of them laid down their [weapons].

Question 4: But talking about the Syria war, you can never exclude the foreign factors. The Saudi-backed high negotiating committee, HNC, are saying that they are counting on the Trump administration to play a positive role instead of the mistaken policies under his predecessor Barack Obama. So, from your side, what do you expect from Trump’s Middle East policy, particularly policy on Syria?

President Assad: The first part that you mentioned about their hopes, when you pin your hopes on a foreign country, doesn’t matter which foreign country, it means you’re not patriotic, and this is proved, because they should depend on the support of the Syrian people, not any other government or administration.

Now, regarding the Trump administration, during his campaign and after the campaign, the main rhetoric of the Trump administration and the president himself was about the priority of defeating ISIS. I said since the beginning that this is a promising approach to what’s happening in Syria and in Iraq, because we live in the same area and we face the same enemy. We haven’t seen anything concrete yet regarding this rhetoric, because we’ve been seeing now certain [of the fighting] is a local kind of raids.

You cannot deal with terrorism on a local basis; it should be comprehensive, it cannot be partial or temporary. It cannot be from the air, it should be in cooperation with the troops on the ground, that’s why the Russians succeeded, since they supported the Syrian Army in pushing ISIS to shrink, not to expand as it used to be before that.

So, we have hopes that this taking into consideration that talking about ISIS doesn’t mean talking about the whole terrorism; ISIS is one of the products, al-Nusra is another product, you have so many groups in Syria, they are not ISIS, but they are Al Qaeda, they have the same background of the Wahabi extremist ideology.

Question 5: So, Mr. President, you and Mr. Donald Trump actually share the same priority which is counter-terrorism, and both of you hate fake news. Do you see any room for cooperation?

President Assad: Yeah, in theory, yes, but practically, not yet, because there’s no link between Syria and the United States on the formal level. Even their raids against ISIS that I just mentioned, which are only a few raids, happened without the cooperation or the consultation with the Syrian Army or the Syrian government which is illegal as we always say. So, theoretically we share those goals, but particularly, not yet.

Question 6: Do you have personal contact with the President of the United States?

President Assad: Not at all.

Journalist: Direct or indirect?

President Assad: Indirect, you have so many channels, but you cannot bet on private channels. It should be formal, this is where you can talk about a real relation with another government.

Question 7: As we speak, top generals from Turkey, Russia, and the United States are meeting somewhere in Turkey to discuss tensions in northern Syria, where mutually- suspicious forces are allied with these countries. So, do you have a plan for a final attack on Daesh when the main players actually do need an effective coordination in order to clear Syria of all terror groups?

President Assad: Yeah, if you want to link that meeting with ISIS in particular, it won’t be objective, because at least one party, which is Turkey, has been supporting ISIS till this moment, because Erdogan, the Turkish President, is Muslim Brotherhood. He’s ideologically linked and sympathetic with ISIS and with al-Nusra, and everybody knows about this in our region, and he helped them either through armaments or logistically, through exporting oil.

For the other party, which is the United States, at least during Obama’s administration, they dealt with ISIS by overlooking their smuggling the Syrian oil to Turkey, and this is how [ISIS]can get money in order to recruit terrorists from around the world, and [the United States] didn’t try to do anything more than cosmetic against ISIS.

The only serious party in that regard is Russia, which is effectively attacking ISIS in cooperation with us. So, the question is: how can they cooperate, and I think the Russians have hope that the two parties join the Russians and the Syrians in their fight against terrorism. So, we have more hopes now regarding the American party because of the new administration, while in Turkey nothing has changed in that regard. ISIS in the north have only one route of supply, it’s through Turkey, and they’re still alive and they’re still active and they’re still resisting different kinds of waves of attacks, because of the Turkish support.

Question 8: Now, US troops are in Manbej. Is the green light from your side? Did you open the door for these American troops?

President Assad: No, no, we didn’t. Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation or consultation or permission, they are invaders, whether they are American, Turkish, or any other one. And we don’t think this is going to help. What are they going to do? To fight ISIS? The Americans lost nearly every war. They lost in Iraq, they had to withdraw at the end. Even in Somalia, let alone Vietnam in the past and Afghanistan, your neighboring country. They didn’t succeed anywhere they sent troops, they only create a mess; they are very good in creating problems and destroying, but they are very bad in finding solutions.

Question 9: Talking about Russia and China, they just vetoed a new UN sanction on Syria last week. What do these Chinese vetoes mean exactly for your country?

President Assad: Let’s be very clear about their position, which is not to support the Syrian government or the Syrian president, because in the West they try to portray it as a personal problem, and as Russia and China and other countries and Iran support that person as president. It’s not the case. China is a member of the Security Council, and it’s committed to the Charter of the United Nations.

In that veto, China has defended first of all the Charter, because the United Nations was created in order to restore stability around the world. Actually, the Western countries, especially the permanent members of the Council as a tool or means in order to change regimes or governments and to implement their agenda, not to restore stability, and actually to create more instability around the world.

So the second part is that China restored stability in the world by creating some kind of political balance within the United Nations, of course in cooperation with Russia, which is very important for the whole world. Of course, Syria was the headline, the main headline, this is good for Syria, but again it’s good for the rest of the world.

Third, the same countries that wanted to use the UN Charter for their own vested interested are the same countries who interfered or tried to intervene in your country in the late 90s, and they used different headlines, human rights, and so on, and you know that, and if they had the chance, they would change every government in the world, whether big country or small country, just when this government tries to be a little bit independent. So, China protected the Chinese interests, Syrian interests, and the world interests, especially the small countries or the weak countries.

Question 10: If I’m not mistaken, you said China is going to play a role in the reconstruction of Syria. So, in which areas you think China can contribute to bring Syrian people back to their normal life after so many years of hardships?

President Assad: Actually, if you talk about what the terrorists have been doing the last six years, it’s destroying everything regarding the infrastructure. In spite of that, the Syrian government is still effective, at least by providing the minimum needs for the Syrian people. But they’ve been destroying everything in every sector with no exception.

Adding to that, the Western embargo in Syria has prevented Syria from having even the basic needs for the livelihood of any citizen in Syria. So, in which sector? In every sector. I mean, China can be in every sector with no exception, because we have damage in every sector. But if we talk about now, before this comprehensive reconstruction starts, China now is being involved directly in building many projects, mainly industrial projects, in Syria, and we have many Chinese experts now working in Syria in different projects in order to set up those projects.

But of course, when you have more stability, the most important thing is building the destroyed suburbs. This is the most important part of the reconstruction. The second one is the infrastructure; the sanitation system, the electricity, the oil fields, everything, with no exception.

The third one: the industrial projects, which could belong to the private sector or the public sector in Syria.

Question 11: Alright. And it seems no secret that there are some Chinese extremists are here, fighting alongside Daesh. I think it is a threat to both Syria and China. What concrete or effective measures do you have to control border and prevent these extremists from free movement in the region?

President Assad: When you talk about extremists or terrorists, it doesn’t matter what their nationality is, because they don’t recognize borders, and they don’t belong to a country. The only difference between nationality and nationality, is that those for example who came from your country, they know your country more than the others, so they can do more harm in your country that others, and the same for Syrians, the same for Russian terrorist, and so on. So now, the measures, every terrorist should be defeated and demolished, unless he changed his position to the normal life.

Second, because you’re talking about different nationalities --more than 80 nationalities -- you should have cooperation with the other governments, especially in the intelligence field, and that’s what’s happening for example with the Chinese intelligence regarding the Uyghur terrorists who are coming from China through Turkey. Unfortunately, the only means that we don’t have now and we don’t control is our borders with Turkey, because of the Uyghur in particular; they came from Turkey, the others coming maybe from Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, form the sea, maybe, and the majority from Turkey, but the Uyghur terrorists coming mainly from Turkey.

Why? I don’t know why, but they have the support of the Turkish government, and they were gathered and collected in one group, and they were sent to the northern part of Syria. So, the mission now is to attack them, wherever they existed. Of course, sometimes you cannot tell which one… who is who, they mix with each other, but sometimes they work as separate groups from different nationalities. And this is very crucial kind of cooperation between the Syrian and the Chinese intelligence, and we did many good steps in that regard.

Question 12: Mr. President, as you may be fully aware that the “White Helmets” took an Oscar this year for the best documentary short, but folks are saying that the truth about this “White Helmets” is not like what Netflix has presented, so what is your take on this?

President Assad: First of all, we have to congratulate al-Nusra for having the first Oscar! This is an unprecedented event for the West to give Al Qaeda an Oscar; this is unbelievable, and this is another proof that the Oscars, Nobel, all these things are politicized certificates, that’s how I can look at it.

The White Helmets story is very simple; it is a facelift of al-Nusra Front in Syria, just to change their ugly face into a more humanitarian face, that’s it. And you have many videos on the net and of course images broadcasted by the White Helmets that condemn the White Helmets as a terrorists group, where you can see the same person wearing the white helmet and celebrating over the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers.

So, that’s what the Oscar went to, to those terrorists. So, it’s a story just to try to prevent the Syrian Army during the liberation of Aleppo from making more pressure on the attacking and liberating the districts within the city that have been occupied by those terrorists, to say that the Syrian Army and the Russians are attacking the civilians and the innocents and the humanitarian people.

Question 13: Right. Now Palmyra. I took a one-day trip to Palmyra this time. Now, the city is under your control, so as its strategic position is concerned, because Homs is the heart of Syria, it’s right in the middle. Now, when you have Palmyra, what is your next target? Are you going to expand a military operation into Raqqa and Dier Ezzor?

President Assad: We are very close to Raqqa now. Yesterday, our troops reached the Euphrates River which is very close to Raqqa city, and Raqqa is the stronghold of ISIS today, so it’s going to be a priority for us, but that doesn’t mean the other cities are not priority, in time that could be in parallel, because Palmyra is on the way to Dier Ezzor city in the eastern part of Syria which is close to the Iraqi borders, and those areas that have been used by ISIS as route for logistic support between ISIS in Iraq and ISIS in

Syria. So, whether you attack the stronghold or you attack the route that ISIS uses, it has the same result.

Question 14: How many days do you think this war is going to last?

President Assad: if we presume that you don’t have foreign intervention, it will take a few months. It’s not very complicated internally. The complexity of this war is the foreign intervention. This is the problem. So, in the face of that intervention, the good thing that we gained during the war is the unity of the society. At the very beginning, the vision for many Syrians wasn’t very clear about what’s happening. Many believed the propaganda of the West about the reality, about the real story, that this is against the oppression. If it’s against the oppression, why the people in Saudi Arabia didn’t revolt, for example? So, now what we gained is this, this is our strongest foundation to end that war. We always have hope that this year is going to be the last year. But at the end, this is war and you can’t expect what is going to happen precisely.

Question 15: Mr. President, you are President of the Syrian Republic, at the same time, you are a loving husband and a father of three. How can you balance the role of being a President, a father, and a husband?

President Assad: If you cannot succeed in your small duty which is your family, you cannot succeed in your bigger duty or more comprehensive duty at the level of a country. So, there is no excuse that if you have a lot of work to abandon your duties; it’s a duty. You have to be very clear about that, you have to fulfill those duties in a very good way. Of course, sometimes those circumstances do not allow you to do whatever you have to do, your duties, fully, let’s say.

Journalist: During a day, how much time you spend on work, and how much time you spend with your family members?

President Assad: Actually, it’s not about the time, because even if you are at your home, you have to work.

Journalist: Okay.

President Assad: Let’s say, in the morning and the evening, you have the chance, but in between and after those times, you have the whole day to work.

Question 16: Have you ever thought of leaving this country for the sake of your family?

President Assad: Never, after six years, I mean the most difficult times passed; it was in 2012 and 2013, those times; we never thought about it, how can I think about it now?

So, no, no, this is not an option. Whenever you have any kind of reluctance, you will lose. You will lose not with your enemies; you lose with your supporters. Those supporters, I mean the people you work with, the fighters, the army, they will feel if you’re not determined to defend your country. We never had any feeling neither me nor any member of my family.

Question 17: And how is Kareem’s Chinese getting along?

President Assad: He learned the basics of Chinese language, I think two years ago. Unfortunately, the lady and the man who taught him had to leave, because they were members of the Chinese Embassy. They went back to China. Now, he stopped improving his Chinese language.

Question 18: Do you think it is a good choice to learn Chinese for him?

President Assad: Of course, of course, because China is a rising power.

Journalist: You didn’t force him to learn Chinese? It’s his own option, right?

President Assad: No, no, we never thought about it, actually. I didn’t think that he has to learn Chinese, and I didn’t expect him, if I thought about it, that he would say yes, because for many in the world the Chinese language is a difficult language to learn. He took the initiative and he said I want to learn Chinese, and actually till this moment, I didn’t ask him why. I want him to feel free, but when he’s getting older, I’m going to ask him how? How did it come through your mind to learn this language, this difficult language, but of course important language.

Journalist: You didn’t ask him before?

President Assad: No, not yet.

Journalist: So, you think it’s a good choice?

President Assad: Of course, of course. As I said, it’s a rising power, it’s important. I mean, most of the world has different kinds of relations with China whether in science, in politics, in economy, in business, I mean, in every field you need it now. And our relations for the future are going to be on the rise. It was good, but it’s going to be on the rise because when a country like China proves that it’s a real friend, a friend that you can rely on, it’s very natural to have better relations on the popular level, not only on the formal level.

Journalist: Thank you Mr. President, thank you for your time.

President Assad: Thank you for coming to Syria, you’re most welcome.

[END TRANSCRIPT]

Is Trump just falling in line with the evil establishment and going for more 'regime change' in Syria like Obama who preceded him? Is this another illegal invasion of Syria by the United States and NATO? Probably not, because the Syrian President would have complained, but has said nothing. Neither has Russia. Nor has Turkey. Something new is going on in Syria and it may actually be good. Could the end of this terrible war inflicted by US-NATO upon Syria finally be in sight?

Despite Trump's formal disapproval of Iran, Iranian television has once again risen above the situation in delivering a superbly objective inquiry or debate about what Trump's 400 new troops might be doing in Syria. You can watch it here http://presstv.ir/Detail/2017/03/09/513707/US-military-Marines-Syria and it will probably soon appear on Press TV's you-tube channel. This episode of Press TV's 'The Debate', canvasses the opinion of Jim W. Dean, the managing editor of Veterans Today, from Atlanta, and James Jatras, a former US diplomat, from Washington, on the deployment of hundreds of US Marines to Syria. As usual interviewer Kaveh Taghvai's questions are right on the nose.

On RT a day or two ago, probably 8 March Russian time, Catherine Shakdam (Middle East commentator) also argued that during the recent talks in Geneva, which the US attended, the US probably obtained Russia and Syria's permission to enter Syria and cooperate with the Syrian Army and Russian troops. There is no public confirmation of this and Trump has repeatedly said that he isn't going to give details of his military plans - and I don't think Russia or Syria would either.

We cannot help noticing that Putin has both Erdogan & Netanyahu in Moscow at the same time, ostensibly for individual talks with Putin... but it is interesting they're both there together, if we take into account their mutuality of interests.

In the meantime,Catherine Shakdam/s interview has been removed from the RT news record as far as I can see from searching, with a talking [male] head from UK being much more dour on Trump. Not that Shakdam is pro-Trump; she was also keen to portray him as trying to seize victory from the jaws of Syria and Russia for his own glory. For all the Soros/Clinton/Obama administration's conspiracy confabulation regarding RT, that online broadcasting channel, with its American channel based in Washington, D.C., was almost entirely anti-Trump before the US election and remains anti-Trump, with Watching the Hawks, The Big Picture and Redacted Tonight playing to the New York and Washington Left. In this it probably fails to reflect Putin's own preferences. Before the running up to the election The Big Picture was generally quite stimulating because of the wide-ranging politics of its invited panelists. As the election actually loomed, host Tom Hartman seemed to panic and dropped all his republican-sympathetic guests, delivering a kind of CNN program. Crosstalk and Going Underground seem to be the only relatively objective programs on the subject. Excellent and original female interviewers Oksana Boyko and Sophie Shevardnadze, who have their own programs, Worlds Apart and SophieCo respectively, are pretty even-handed, but Boyko has indicated a distrust for Trump's administration. Perhaps Boyko's opinion is a reflection of the new-class influence of post-graduate education in the United States. This does not stop her programs having breadth, however. Sophie Shevardnadze is an exceptional polyglot with a wide international education.

Brilliant Iranian interviewer Kaveh Taghvai's questions on the subject are inspired in this debate - more of a discussion - between J. Michael Springmann, a former US diplomat, and Michael Lane, the founder of American Institute for Foreign Policy, both from Washington. The two guests and the interviewer all have an unusually deep grasp of the drivers of turmoil in the region and of the foreign players involved. We get some very interesting new perspectives and interpretations of the latest moves around Syria. For instance, Turkey's position is often hard to fathom. We know it wants to take land from the north of Syria, whilst pretending to be maintaining safe zones. We know it wants to drive the Kurds back, but the usefulness of the refugee camps for Turkey as a military buffer may not have occurred to everyone. And, why did the United States bother to try to get votes on a draft UNSC resolution to sanction Syria for alleged poison gas incidents, when it would know that Russia would veto these highly dubious allegations? And China! We hear some new ideas on the motive, in terms of bargaining chips. In this episode of The Debate, Press TV has brought out layered and thoughtful explanations and comment on the foreign-backed war on Syria, particularly a Western-proposed UNSC draft resolution against the Syrian government that was vetoed by Russia and China.

In a rather alarming development for Syrians hoping that the danger of a no-fly-zone had passed when the US electorate passed on Clinton, the new ‘pro-Russian’ President Trump has suggested ‘Safe Zones’ in Syria should be pursued, so that Syrian refugees would have somewhere to go when he stops them coming to America.

"Russia urges caution on Donald Trump's plan for safe zones in Syria": A Kremlin spokesman says Donald Trump's administration did not consult Russia before announcing the plan to establish safe zones for refugees in Syria. [...] On Wednesday, the US President said he "will absolutely do safe zones in Syria" for refugees fleeing violence. "I think that Europe has made a tremendous mistake by allowing these millions of people to go into Germany and various other countries," he said in an interview with an ABC News (US) broadcast."

This off-the-cuff remark by Trump has also alarmed Russia, which isn’t yet confident that the US can change its spots, or that the President won’t inadvertently say something unwise and then have to follow through on it.

But while all of Syria’s enemies have jumped at the possibility the US is going to come to its senses and pull Mr Trump back into line, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to them that there is another sort of ‘safe-zone’ possible in Syria, which looks an awful lot like Aleppo.

Russia has in fact already created a – relatively – safe zone in Aleppo by helping the Syrian army and its allies expel the terrorist groups who were holding the East of the city under siege. What is more, already there are tens of thousands of ‘refugees’ returning to their homes in the east from West Aleppo, where they have been living for the last four years since armed jihadists invaded their city.

It may be a hard pill to swallow for Western supporters of Syria’s fake ‘revolutionaries’, but the Syrian people they pretend to speak for have long decided who makes them feel safe – their own security forces! If President Trump is going to help them drive out and kill the terrorist groups his own country has been supporting then he will surely be making us all feel a lot safer.

Interviews with Syrians in Aleppo regarding how they perceive the defeat of the 'rebels', whom they call terrorists. They feel they have been liberated and they consider that France and its allies (US-NATO) were keeping them imprisoned by supporting the terrorists. Arabic, French and English, with French and English subtitles. A number of christian church officials are interviewed.

Good News: Washington Frozen Out of Syria Peace Plan

"As the US mainstream media obsessed last week about Russia's supposed “hacking” of the US elections and President Obama’s final round of Russia sanctions in response, something very important was taking place under the media radar. As a result of a meeting between foreign ministers of Russia, Iran, and Turkey last month, a ceasefire in Syria has been worked out and is being implemented. So far it appears to be holding, and after nearly six years of horrible warfare the people of Syria are finally facing the possibility of rebuilding their lives." [...]

"The fact is, it is often US involvement in “solving” these crises that actually perpetuates them. Consider the 60-plus year state of war between North and South Korea. Has US intervention done anything to solve the problem? How about our decades of meddling in the Israel-Palestine dispute? Are we any closer to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians despite the billions we have spent bribing and interfering?" Ron Paul. Read more here: Good News: Washington Frozen Out of Syria Peace Plan

The UN has concluded its investigation of the 19 September bombing of a UN aid convoy in Syria. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released the summary of the Board of Inquiry’s report on 21 December, but it received virtually no publicity, unlike the wall-to-wall reporting of the USA’s and UK’s hysterical accusations at the time that Russia deliberately bombed the convoy. The lack of publicity is doubtless because the report proves there was no evidence for the accusations against Russia.

Following is a chronology of the incident:

On 11 September, Russia and the USA agreed to a ceasefire in Syria, which Barack Obama insisted must last seven days before any further Russian-US cooperation in the five-year conflict. Senior officials in the Obama administration, including Defence Secretary Ash Carter, were known to be opposed to any cooperation with Russia.

On 17 September, US, Australian and other members of the US-led coalition in Syria bombed Syrian Arab Army soldiers holding a position against ISIS at Deir ez-Zor. More than 62 soldiers were killed in an attack that lasted more than an hour, and when a Russian officer called the US military’s emergency hotline to inform them they were attacking the Syrian army, the Russian officer was put on hold for 27 minutes! The USA later claimed the attack was an “accident”. (The CEC launched a petition demanding the Australian government withdraw its presence from Syria, as it was only assisting ISIS.)

On 19 September, a UN convoy transporting aid for Aleppo was bombed in an area controlled by rebels. The attack occurred at precisely the moment that the al-Qaeda-led rebels in Aleppo launched a furious offensive to break the Syrian Army lines. It was reported as a bombing, but the burnt out trucks remained intact, and there were no craters or other signs of aerial bombardment. The eyewitness reports that the attack was an aerial bombing came from the so-called White Helmets—British- and American-funded jihadists masquerading as civilian rescuers. The USA and Britain accused Russia of a war crime, and—ignoring the attack on the Syrian army two days earlier—of destroying the ceasefire!

Hysterical propaganda

A 20 September Guardian headline blared: “Russian planes dropped bombs that destroyed UN aid convoy, US officials say”. It cited a Reuters report: “Russian jets carried out strike on Syria aid convoy: U.S. officials”.

The most hysterical accusations came from the British government and Parliament, in an 11 October emergency debate. They were also the most hypocritical and cynical. Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell, who moved the debate, compared Russia’s actions in Syria to those of the Nazis in the Spanish Civil War.

Greens leader Caroline Lucas asked Mitchell: “Does he agree that our own Government should follow the example of the French in supporting a referral of Russia to the International Criminal Court?”

Blairite (a crony of disgraced former PM Tony Blair) Labour MP Ann Clwyd—the politician who first publicised the notorious Iraq war lie, that Saddam killed people in a human shredding machine, yet remains completely unapologetic for the illegal invasion of Iraq—called for the UK to take the same approach to Syria as it did to Iraq! “We do not have to wait for the International Criminal Court”, Clwyd urged. “Indict, an organisation that I chaired, collected evidence on Iraqi war crimes years before they were heard. That can be done again, for example through the Foreign Office.” (Emphasis added.)

When Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry at least attempted to inject into the debate the reality that the rebels were predominantly al-Qaeda jihadists, another shameless Blairite Labour MP, Ben Bradshaw, erupted in contrived outrage, and attacked his own colleague: “We had a ceasefire; it was brutally blown apart by Russian and Syrian air power. I still have not heard from my hon. Friend a clear and unequivocal condemnation of Russia’s and Assad’s action. I have not heard her call it out as it is—a war crime!” (Bradshaw is another with the blood of Iraqis on his hands, having aggressively prosecuted the fraudulent case for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and later having voted against convening Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq inquiry into that criminal and disastrous decision.)

Yet another Blairite, John Woodcock, was the most unhinged in hurling wild accusations against Russia for the attack on the convoy: “There is no doubt as to who was the perpetrator of this grotesque war crime. It was President Putin of Russia. He was sticking two fingers up to the United Nations and the international community of which he still has the audacity to claim he is a working part.” (Woodcock is close to Britain’s biggest private defence contractor, BAE Systems—its al-Yamamah arms deal with the brutal Saudi dictatorship has been exposed as having generated a $100 billion slush fund that financed al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attack and the spread of al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorism generally.)

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said: “All the available evidence therefore points to Russian responsibility for the atrocity. I trust that the UN board of inquiry will establish exactly what happened, and we in the United Kingdom Government stand ready to help.” Johnson’s speech made headlines for his reiteration of Ann Clwyd’s call for anti-war protestors to demonstrate outside of the Russian embassy in London. It is worth noting that Johnson was interrupted by a question from Prince Charles’s close friend Sir Nicholas Soames, demanding war crime prosecutions for the attack. Another toady for the British arms industry, Soames is notorious for his threats against Princess Diana when she spearheaded the international campaign against land mines just before her death in 1997. (The inquest ruled Diana’s death an “unlawful killing”, which is effectively a verdict of murder, where the perpetrators are not identified.)

The only contributor to this House of Commons debate who emerged with any credibility intact was Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry, who exposed the self-righteous hypocrisy of the other contributors by insisting that the UK could not condemn the alleged crimes in Syria while simultaneously arming Saudi Arabia to bomb civilians in Yemen.

UN’s finding

Following are excerpts of numbered sections from the UN Headquarters Board of Inquiry Report summary that Ban Ki-moon released 21 December. While the report still assumes an aerial attack that many experts insist could not have been possible, nevertheless it absolves Russia of a war crime. The findings include:

The area where the convoy was attacked was under the control of Islamist jihadists:

“11. The SARC compound, the incident site, is located approximately 1.5 km east of the town of Urem al-Kubra.”

“13. On the date of the incident, Urem al-Kubra was under the control of armed opposition groups, with Jaish al-Mujahideen being the predominant group in the area. The Board was informed that other groups, including Nour al-Din al-Zenki also had a presence there. In addition, the Board received reports of a Jabhat al-Nusra presence in the area.”

Nour al-Din al-Zenki is one of the so-called “moderate” rebel groups backed by the US, members of which filmed themselves beheading a 12-year-old Palestinian boy in July (the same cameraman later took the staged photo of the five-year-old Aleppo boy in an ambulance that suckered the world media). Jabhat al-Nusra is the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda.

The White Helmets’ claim that a hospital was bombed was bogus:

“33. Despite initial reports that a medical clinic had been destroyed, the Board found no evidence of a medical clinic neighbouring the SARC compound.” (Emphasis added.)

This is an important finding, as the most oft-repeated accusation against Russia is that its aircraft deliberately targeted hospitals in Aleppo. The US and UK-financed White Helmets were the source of these claims, which were always baseless. Not only did they claim dozens of times that the “last hospital” in Aleppo had been destroyed, the recent liberation of Aleppo has proved that almost every site they called a hospital was just a jihadist stronghold.

If the Syrian Arab Air Force (SAAF) were responsible for the attack, given the convoy’s location in a jihadist-controlled area they most likely thought it was a military target:

“36. … The Board considered that the location of the SARC compound, on the outskirts of a populated area, in an industrial zone and astride one of the two primary roads leading to southwestern Aleppo, made it a realistic possibility that the buildings around it were used by armed opposition groups prior to the date of the incident. Therefore the Board considered that it had most likely been attacked by pro-Government forces.”

The UN found no evidence to prove that SAAF perpetrated the attack; an SAAF attack does not implicate Russia:

“39. The Board stated that it had received reports that information existed to the effect that the SAAF was highly likely to have perpetrated the attack, and even that the attack was carried out by three Syrian Mi-17 model helicopters, followed by three unnamed fixed-wing aircraft, with a single Russian aircraft also suspected of being involved. However, the Board did not have access to raw data to support these assertions and, in their absence, it was unable to draw a definitive conclusion.”

“40. The Board noted in this connection that there were technical issues pertaining to a hypothesis of the incident being a result of a joint Syrian Arab Air Force/Russian Federation strike. The Board had been informed that that the Russian Federation did not conduct joint strikes. A high degree of interoperability and co-ordination would also be required for two air forces to operate in the same airspace, targeting the same location.”

The UN found no evidence of a war crime:

“42. The Board stated that it did not have evidence to conclude that the incident was a deliberate attack on a humanitarian target.”

Since the US presidential election, the Anglo-American establishment and their corporate media lackeys have coined the term “fake news” for anything that contradicts their lies. In fact, many times since the genocidal fiasco of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, it is they who have been exposed as the real peddlers of fake news. The most extreme example is their litany of lies against Russia, but those lies are also the most dangerous, as they have pushed the world towards nuclear war. Thankfully, with Aleppo now liberated from the USA’s and UK’s terrorists, and a change of government in the USA, there is a chance to turn away from the policies of permanent war, and achieve a just international order based on respect for national sovereignty and a commitment to peace through cooperative economic development. As we approach 2017, all people of good will should resolve to ensure that it happens.

NOTES

Although candobetter.net's philosophy of land-use and population policy reform runs counter to that of the Citizens Electoral Council, we are pleased to publish this press release about Syria and Russia.

The source of this article was a press release dated 30 December 2016, from Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary of the Citizens' Electoral Council
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 1800 636 432
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.cecaust.com.au

President Bashar al-Assad : “[The ]West is telling Russia that Syrian Army went too far in defeating terrorists … Daesh could only attack Palmyra the way it did with supervision of U.S. alliance”. President Obama’s announcement of a waiver for arming unspecified rebel groups in Syria came shortly before the terrorist group Islamic State launched a massive attack on Palmyra. Syrian President Bashar Assad believes it was no coincidence, he told RussiaToday. In the interview, the Syrian leader explained how his approach to fighting terrorism differs from that of the US, why he believes the military success of his forces in Aleppo was taken so negatively in the West, and what he expects from US President-elect Donald Trump. [Full Video and Transcript]

“The announcement of the lifting of that embargo is related directly to the attack on Palmyra and to the support of other terrorists outside Aleppo, because when they are defeated in Aleppo, the United States and the West, they need to support their proxies somewhere else,” Bashar al-Assad said.

“The crux of that announcement is to create more chaos, because the United States creates chaos in order to manage this chaos,” Assad added.

He added that Islamic State (Daesh, IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) forces “came with different and huge manpower and firepower that ISIS never had before during this attack, and they attacked on a huge front, tens of kilometers that could be a front of armies. ISIS could only have done that with the support of states. Not state; states.”

Russia Today (Maria Finoshina): Mr. President, thank you very much for agreeing to speak with us.

President Bashar al-Assad: You’re most welcome in Damascus.

RT: We start with Aleppo, of course. Aleppo is now seeing what is perhaps the most fierce fighting since the war started almost six years ago here in Syria, but the Western politicians and Western media have been largely negative about your army’s advance. Why you think this is happening? Do they take it as their own defeat?

B.A.: Actually, after they failed in Damascus, because the whole narrative was about “liberating Damascus from the state” during the first three years. When they failed, they moved to Homs, when they failed in Homs, they moved to Aleppo, they focused on Aleppo during the last three years, and for them this is the last most important card they could have played on the Syrian battlefield. Of course, they still have terrorists in different areas in Syria, but it’s not like talking about Aleppo as the second largest city which has the political, military, economic, and even moral sense when their terrorists are defeated. So, for them the defeat of the terrorists is the defeating of their proxies, to talk bluntly. These are their proxies, and for them the defeat of these terrorists is the defeat of the countries that supervised them, whether regional countries or Western countries like United States, first of all United States, and France, and UK.

RT: So, you think they take it as their own defeat, right?

B.A.: Exactly, that’s what I mean. The defeat of the terrorists, this is their own defeat because these are their real army on the ground. They didn’t interfere in Syria, or intervened, directly; they have intervened through these proxies. So, that’s how we have to look at it if we want to be realistic, regardless of their statements, of course.

RT: Palmyra is another troubled region now, and it’s now taken by ISIS or ISIL, but we don’t hear a lot of condemnation about it. Is that because of the same reason?

B.A.: Exactly, because if it was captured by the government, they will be worried about the heritage. If we liberate Aleppo from the terrorists, they would be – I mean, the Western officials and the mainstream media – they’re going to be worried about the civilians. They’re not worried when the opposite happens, when the terrorists are killing those civilians or attacking Palmyra and started destroying the human heritage, not only the Syrian heritage. Exactly, you are right, because ISIS, if you look at the timing of the attack, it’s related to what’s happening in Aleppo. This is the response to what’s happening in Aleppo, the advancement of the Syrian Arab Army, and they wanted to make this… or let’s say, to undermine the victory in Aleppo, and at the same time to distract the Syrian Army from Aleppo, to make it move toward Palmyra and stop the advancement, but of course it didn’t work.

‘ISIS could only attack Palmyra the way it did with supervision of US alliance’

RT: We also hear reports that Palmyra siege was not only related to Aleppo battle, but also to what was happening in Iraq, and there are reports that the US-led coalition – which is almost 70 countries – allowed ISIL fighters in Mosul in Iraq to leave, and that strengthened ISIL here in Syria. Do you think it could be the case?

B.A.: It could be, but this is only to wash the hand of the American politicians from their responsibility on the attack, when they say “just because of Mosul, of course, the Iraqi army attacked Mosul, and ISIS left Mosul to Syria.” That’s not the case. Why? Because they came with different and huge manpower and firepower that ISIS never had before during this attack, and they attacked on a huge front, tens of kilometers that could be a front of armies. ISIS could only have done that with the support of states. Not state; states. They came with different machineguns, cannons, artillery, everything is different. So, it could only happen when they come in this desert with the supervision of the American alliance that’s supposed to attack them in al-Raqqa and Mosul and Deir Ezzor, but it didn’t happen; they either turned a blind eye on what ISIS is going to do, and, or – and that’s what I believe – they pushed toward Palmyra. So, it’s not about Mosul. We don’t have to fall in that trap. It’s about al-Raqqa and Deir Ezzor. They are very close, only a few hundred kilometers, they could come under the supervision of the American satellites and the American drones and the American support.

RT: How strong ISIS is today?

B.A.: As strong as the support that they get from the West and regional powers. Actually, they’re not strong for… if you talk isolated case, ISIS as isolated case, they’re not strong, because they don’t have the natural social incubator. Without it, terrorists cannot be strong enough. But the real support they have, the money, the oil field investment, the support of the American allies’ aircrafts, that’s why they are strong. So, they are as strong as their supporters, or as their supervisors.

RT: In Aleppo, we heard that you allowed some of these terrorists to leave freely the battleground. Why would you do that? It’s clear that they can go back to, let’s say, Idleb, and get arms and get ready for further attacks, then maybe attack those liberating Aleppo.

B.A.: Exactly, exactly, that’s correct, and that’s been happening for the last few years, but you always have things to lose and things to gain, and when the gain is more than what you lose, you go for that gain. In that case, our priority is to protect the area from being destroyed because of the war, to protect the civilians who live there, to give the chance for those civilians to leave through the open gates, to leave that area to the areas under the control of the government, and to give the chance to those terrorists to change their minds, to join the government, to go back to their normal life, and to get amnesty. When they don’t, they can leave with their armaments, with the disadvantage that you mentioned, but this is not our priority, because if you fight them in any other area outside the city, you’re going to have less destruction and less civilian casualties, that’s why.

‘Fighting terrorists US-style cannot solve the problem’

RT: I feel that you call them terrorists, but at the same time you treat them as human beings, you tell them “you have a chance to go back to your normal life.”

B.A.: Exactly. They are terrorists because they are holding machineguns, they kill, they destroy, they commit vandalism, and so on, and that’s natural, everywhere in the world that’s called as terrorism. But at the same time, they are humans who committed terrorism. They could be something else. They joined the terrorists for different reasons, either out of fear, for the money, sometimes for the ideology. So, if you can bring them back to their normal life, to be natural citizens, that’s your job as a government. It’s not enough to say “we’re going to fight terrorists.” Fighting terrorists is like a videogame; you can destroy your enemy in the videogame, but the videogame will generate and regenerate thousands of enemies, so you cannot deal with it on the American way: just killing, just killing! This is not our goal; this is the last option you have. If you can change, this is a good option, and it succeeded. It succeeded because many of those terrorists, when you change their position, some of them living normal lives, and some of them joined the Syrian Army, they fought with the Syrian Army against the other terrorists. This is success, from our point of view.

RT: Mr. President, you just said that you gain and you lose. Do you feel you’ve done enough to minimize civilian casualties during this conflict?

B.A.: We do our utmost. What’s enough, this is subjective; each one could look at it in his own way. At the end, what’s enough is what you can do; my ability as a person, the ability of the government, the ability of Syria as a small country to face a war that’s been supported by tens of countries, mainstream media’s hundreds of channels, and other machines working against you. So, it depends on the definition of “enough,” so this is, as I said, very subjective, but I’m sure that we are doing our best. Nothing is enough at the end, and the human practice is always full of correct and flows, or mistakes, let’s say, and that’s the natural thing.

‘West’s cries for ceasefire meant to save terrorists’

RT: We hear Western powers asking Russia and Iran repeatedly to put pressure on you to, as they put it, “stop the violence,” and just recently, six Western nations, in an unprecedented message, they asked Russia and Iran again to put pressure on you, asking for a ceasefire in Aleppo.

B.A.: Yeah.

RT: Will you go for it? At the time when your army was progressing, they were asking for a ceasefire.

B.A.: Exactly. It’s always important in politics to read between the lines, not to be literal. It doesn’t matter what they ask; the translation of their statement is for Russia: “please stop the advancement of the Syrian Army against the terrorists.” That’s the meaning of that statement, forget about the rest. “You went too far in defeating the terrorists, that shouldn’t happen. You should tell the Syrians to stop this, we have to keep the terrorists and to save them.” This is in brief.

Second, Russia never – these days, I mean, during this war, before that war, during the Soviet Union – never tried to interfere in our decision. Whenever they had opinion or advice, doesn’t matter how we can look at it, they say at the end “this is your country, you know what the best decision you want to take; this is how we see it, but if you see it in a different way, you know, you are the Syrian.” They are realistic, and they respect our sovereignty, and they always defend the sovereignty that’s based on the international law and the Charter of the United Nations. So, it never happened that they made any pressure, and they will never do it. This is not their methodology.

RT: How strong is the Syrian Army today?

B.A.: It’s about the comparison, to two things: first of all, the war itself; second, to the size of Syria. Syria is not a great country, so it cannot have a great army in the numerical sense. The support of our allies was very important; mainly Russia, and Iran. After six years, or nearly six years of the war, which is longer than the first World War and the second World War, it’s definitely and self-evident that the Syrian Army is not to be as strong as it was before that. But what we have is determination to defend our country. This is the most important thing. We lost so many lives in our army, we have so many martyrs, so many disabled soldiers. Numerically, we lost a lot, but we still have this determination, and I can tell you this determination is much stronger than before the war. But of course, we cannot ignore the support from Russia, we cannot ignore the support from Iran, that make this determination more effective and efficient.

‘Stronger Russia, China make world a safer place’

RT: President Obama has lifted a ban on arming some Syrian rebels just recently. What impact you think could it have on the situation on the ground, and could it directly or indirectly provide a boost to terrorists?

B.A.: We’re not sure that he lifted that embargo when he announced it. Maybe he lifted it before, but announced it later just to give it the political legitimacy, let’s say. This is first. The second point, which is very important: the timing of the announcement and the timing of attacking Palmyra. There’s a direct link between these two, so the question is to whom those armaments are going to? In the hands of who? In the hands of ISIS and al-Nusra, and there’s coordination between ISIS and al-Nusra. So, the announcement of this lifting of that embargo is related directly to the attack on Palmyra and to the support of other terrorists outside Aleppo, because when they are defeated in Aleppo, the United States and the West, they need to support their proxies somewhere else, because they don’t have any interest in solving the conflict in Syria. So, the crux of that announcement is to create more chaos, because the United States creates chaos in order to manage this chaos, and when they manage it, they want to use the different factors in that chaos in order to exploit the different parties of the conflict, whether they are internal parties or external parties.

RT: Mr. President, how do you feel about being a small country in the middle of this tornado of countries not interested in ending the war here?

B.A.: Exactly. It’s something we’ve always felt before this war, but we felt it more of course today, because small countries feel safer when there’s international balance, and we felt the same, what you just mentioned, after the collapse of the Soviet Union when there was only American hegemony, and they wanted to implement whatever they want and to dictate all their policies on everyone. Small countries suffer the most. So, we feel it today, but at the same time, today there’s more balance with the Russian role. That’s why I think we always believe the more Russia is stronger – I’m not only talking about Syria, I’m talking about every small country in the world – whenever the stronger Russia, more rising China, we feel more secure. It’s painful, I would say it’s very painful, this situation that we’ve been living, on every level; humanitarian level, the feeling, the loss, everything. But at the end, it’s not about losing and winning; it’s about either winning or losing your country. It’s existential threat for Syria. It’s not about government losing against other government or army against army; either the country will win, or the country will disappear. That’s how we look at it. That’s why you don’t have time to feel that pain; you only have time to fight and defend and do something on the ground.

‘Mainstream media lost credibility along with moral compass’

RT: Let’s talk about media’s role in this conflict.

B.A.: Yeah

RT: All sides during this war have been accused of civilian casualties, but the Western media has been almost completely silent about the atrocities committed by the rebels… what role is the media playing here?

B.A.: First of all, the mainstream media with their fellow politicians, they are suffering during the last few decades from moral decay. So, they have no morals. Whatever they talk about, whatever they mention or they use as mask, human rights, civilians, children; they use all these just for their own political agenda in order to provoke the feelings of their public opinion to support them in their intervention in this region, whether militarily or politically. So, they don’t have any credibility regarding this. If you want to look at what’s happening in the United States is rebellion against the mainstream media, because they’ve been lying and they kept lying on their audiences. We can tell that, those, let’s say, the public opinion or the people in the West doesn’t know the real story in our region, but at least they know that the mainstream media and their politicians were laying to them for their own vested interests agenda and vested interests politicians. That’s why I don’t think the mainstream media could sell their stories anymore and that’s why they are fighting for their existence in the West, although they have huge experience and huge support and money and resources, but they don’t have something very important for them to survive, which is the credibility. They don’t have it, they lost it. They don’t have the transparency, that’s why they don’t have credibility. That’s why they are very coward today, they are afraid of your channel, of any statement that could tell the truth because it’s going to debunk their talks. That’s why.

RT: Reuters news agency have been quoting Amaq, ISIL’s mouthpiece, regarding the siege of Palmyra. Do you think they give legitimacy to extremists in such a way? They’re quoting their media.

B.A.: Even if they don’t mention their news agencies, they adopt their narrative anyway. But if you look at the technical side of the way ISIS presented itself from the very beginning through the videos and the news and the media in general and the PR, they use Western technique. Look at it, it’s very sophisticated. How could somebody who’s under siege, who’s despised all over the world, who’s under attack from the airplanes, who the whole world wants to liberate every city from him, could be that sophisticated unless he is not relaxed and has all the support? So, I don’t think it is about Amaq; it’s about the West adopting their stories, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.

RT: Donald Trump takes over as US President in a few weeks. You mentioned America many times today. What do you expect from America’s new administration?

B.A.: His rhetoric during the campaign was positive regarding the terrorism, which is our priority today. Anything else is not priority, so, I wouldn’t focus on anything else, the rest is American, let’s say, internal matters, I wouldn’t worry about. But the question whether Trump has the will or the ability to implement what he just mentioned. You know that most of the mainstream media and big corporate, the lobbies, the Congress, even some in his party were against him; they want to have more hegemony, more conflict with Russia, more interference in different countries, toppling governments, and so on. He said something in the other direction. Could he sustain against all those after he started next month? That’s the question. If he could, I think the world will be in a different place, because the most important thing is the relation between Russia and the Unites States. If he goes towards that relation, most of the tension around the world will be pacified. That’s very important for us in Syria, but I don’t think anyone has the answer to that. He wasn’t a politician, so, we don’t have any reference to judge him, first. Second, nobody can tell what kind of pattern is it going to be next month and after.

‘Western countries only sent aid to terrorists’

RT: The humanitarian situation in Syria is a disaster, and we hear from EU foreign policy chief, Madam Mogherini, that EU is the only entity to deliver humanitarian aid to Syria. Is that true?

B.A.: Actually, all the aid that any Western country sent was to the terrorists, to be very clear, blunt and very transparent. They never cared about a single Syrian human life. We have so many cities in Syria till today surrounded by and besieged by the terrorists; they prevented anything to reach them, food, water, anything, all the basic needs of life. Of course, they attack them on daily basis by mortars and try to kill them. What did the EU send to those? If they are worried about the human life, if they talk about the humanitarian aspect, because when you talk about the humanitarian aspect or issue, you don’t discriminate. All the Syrians are humans, all the people are humans. They don’t do that. So, this is the double standard, this is the lie that they keep telling, and it’s becoming a disgusting lie, no-one is selling their stories anymore. That’s not true, what she mentioned, not true.

RT: Some suggestions say that for Syria, the best solution would to split into separate countries governed by Sunni, Shi’a, Kurds. Is it any way possible?

B.A.: This is the Western – with some regional countries’ – hope or dream, and this is not new, not related to this war; that was before the war, and you have maps for this division and disintegration. But actually, if you look at the society today, the Syrian society is more unified than before the war. This is reality. I’m not saying anything to raise the morale of anyone, I’m not talking to Syrian audience anyway now, I’m talking about the reality. Because of the lessons of the war, the society became more realistic and pragmatic and many Syrians knew that being fanatic doesn’t help, being extreme in any idea, I’m not only talking about extremism in the religious meaning; politically, socially, culturally, doesn’t help Syria. Only when we accept each other, when we respect each other, we can live with each other and we can have one country. So, regarding the disintegration of Syria, if you don’t have this real disintegration among the society and different shades and spectrum of the Syrian society, Syrian fabric, you cannot have division. It’s not a map you draw, I mean, even if you have one country while the people are divided, you have disintegration. Look at Iraq, it’s one country, but it is disintegrated in reality. So, no, I’m not worried about this. There’s no way that Syrians will accept that. I’m talking now about the vast majority of the Syrians, because this is not new, this is not the subject of the last few weeks or the last few months. This is the subject of this war. So, after nearly six years, I can tell you the majority of the Syrians wouldn’t accept anything related to disintegration, they are going to live as one Syria.

RT: As a mother, I feel the pain of all Syrian mothers. I’m speaking about children in Syria, what does the future hold for them?

B.A.: This is the most dangerous aspect of our problem, not only in Syria; wherever you talk about this dark Wahhabi ideology, because many of those children who became young during the last decade, or more than one decade, who joined the terrorists on ideological basis, not for the like of money or anything else, or hope, let’s say, they came from open-minded families, educated families, intellectual families. So, you can imagine how strong the terrorism is.

‘Being secular doesn’t protect a nation from terrorist ideology’

RT: So, that happened because of their propaganda?

B.A.: Exactly, because the ideology is very dangerous; it knows no borders, no political borders, and the network, the worldwide web has helped those terrorists using fast and inexpensive tools in order to promote their ideology, and they could infiltrate any family anywhere in the world, whether in Europe, in your country, in my country, anywhere. You have secular society, I have secular society, but it didn’t protect the society from being infiltrated.

RT: Do you have any counter ideology for this?

B.A.: Exactly, because they built their ideology on the Islam, you have to use the same ideology, using the real Islam, the real moderate Islam, in order to counter their ideology. This is the fast way. If we want to talk about the mid-term and long-term, it’s about how much can you upgrade the society, the way the people analyze and think, because this ideology can only work when you cannot analyze, when you don’t think properly. So, it’s about the algorithm of the mind, if you have natural or healthy operating system, if you want to draw an analogy to the IT, if you have good operating systems in our mind, they cannot infiltrate it like a virus. So, it’s about the education, media and policy because sometimes when you have a cause, a national cause, and people lose hope, you can push those people towards being extremists, and this is one of the influences in our region since the seventies, after the war between the Arabs and the Israelis, and the peace failed in every aspect to recapture the land, to give the land and the rights to its people, you have more desperation, and that played into the hand of the extremists, and this is where the Wahhabi find fertile soil to promote its ideology.

RT: Mr. President, thank you very much for your time, and I wish your country peace and prosperity, and as soon as possible.

B.A.: Thank you very much for coming.

RT: This time has been very tough for you, so I wish it’s going to end soon.

B.A.: Thank you very much for coming to Syria. I’m very glad to receive you.

RT: Thank you.

Sources of this article and transcript were:

Videos by Syrian Presidency and Russia Today, Transcript by Russia Today and SyrianPatriots War Press Info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/al-assad-to-rt/

Re-publications are welcome, but we kindly ask you, to facilitate the correct information's diffusion, to cite all these original links and sources.

Thirty people, including Donald Trump Jr., attended an event on October 11, 2016 at the Paris Ritz. The event was hosted by a French think tank, founded by Fabien Baussart,and his wife, Randa Kassis. Ms Kassis is Syrian born and the organisation has been trying, with Russia, to end the war in Syria. Baussart has described as "absurd" the political stance on Syria of the US and some countries in Europe.This meeting occurred prior to Donald Trump Sr.'s election to President of the United States. It gives support to many hopes that President Elect Trump meant business when he talked of cooperating with the Syrian Government and Russia to end the war in Syria over which he rightly accused the Hillary Clinton and Obama regime of incompetence. Unfortunately, Australia has assiduously followed the Clinton-Obama regime line, with the shameful support of most Australian mainstream media.

Kassis wrote on her facebook page, "Syria's opposition got hope that political process will move forward and Russia and the United States will reach accord on the issue of the Syrian crisis, because of Trump's victory. Such hope and belief is the result of my personal meeting with Donald Trump junior in Paris in October… I succeeded to pass Trump, through the talks with his son, the idea of how we can cooperate together to reach the agreement between Russia and the United States on Syria."

She was also quoted by Sputnik, saying, "I think Donald Trump’s vision of the Syrian settlement will be close to Russia’s approach. I think the conflict will stop. I hope that in practice this will happen as soon as Syrian radical Islamist groups are cut off from their financing sources."

She wrote on her facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/search/str/randa%2Bkassis/keywords_search?filters_rp_author=198576333514358

As the next US president, Donald Trump could show support for Moscow's approach to the Syrian settlement. His team includes people who are ready for dialogue with Russia, French analyst Fabien Baussart told Sputnik.

Sputnik also reports that Baussart said, "State Secretary John Kerry permanently told lies to his Russia colleagues, which created obstacles for a constructive dialogue." Sputnik says that Bausart noted that Trump’s team consists of "people who can launch constructive cooperation with Russia." It adds that "Baussart underscored that the "fight against radical Islamism serves the interests not only of Russia and the US, but also of Europe and Muslims peacefully practicing their religion." "However, Britain, France and even Germany embrace an absurd closed stance on any proposals on the Syrian crisis." Read more: https://sputniknews.com/world/201611141047422760-trump-russia-syria/

Dr Marcus Papadopoulos was interviewed by BBC News about 'russophobia' in Britain and policy in Syria . Speaking very clearly, Papadopoulos gives a history of British resentment of Russia, dating from the Crimea and thinks that Britain is acting in part out of a feeling of being left-out in the region. Islamist terrorists in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria are the only ones benefiting from this British ignorance and bias. It should be remembered that those Islamic terrorists that the west is backing, pose a huge threat to the people of Britain. The US-led coalition in Syria is not acting legally.

Here are excerpts from transcripts of Trump's and Clinton's references to Putin and to Syria in the context of the 2nd US presidential debate (Trump vs Clinton). There is complementarity between the Putin references and the Syria ones. We have put the moderator input in black, but Trump in red and Clinton in blue. I think people will find them interesting and get the sense of Trump being better on Syria and Russia than Clinton, by a mile, therefore less likely to start WW3. The debate was less real responses to questions or to the other candidate's arguments than a platform for each candidate. Readers may also be interested in a link to many on-line polls about the debate, collected here: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/09/polls-polls-polls-so-who-won-the-second-presidential-debate/. The majority of these polls place Trump squarely as the winner of the debate, whereas Foxnews and one or two others placed Clinton as the winner. The comments under these polls are often interesting to read. We have also embedded the full debate inside the article.

REFERENCES TO PUTIN

MARTHA RADDATZ (Moderator) 9:54 PM

Thank you, Mr. Trump. I want to move on. This next question comes from
the public through the bipartisan open debate coalitions online form where
Americans submitted questions that generated millions of votes. This question
involves Wikileaks release of reported excerpts as Secretary Clinton paid
speeches which she has refused to release and one line in particular in
which you, Secretary Clinton, reportedly say you need both a public and private
position on certain issues. So Tiu from Virginia asks is it okay for
politicians to be two-faced? Is it acceptable for a politician to have a
private stance on issues? Secretary Clinton, your two minutes.

HILLARY CLINTON 9:55 PM

Well, as I recall, that was something I said
about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie
called Lincoln. It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the
Congress to approve the 13th amendment. It was principled and it was strategic.

And I was making the point that it is hard
sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep
working at it and yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he
used some arguments, convincing other people, he used other arguments. That was
a great -- I thought a great display of presidential leadership.

But you know, let's talk about what's really
going on here Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said
in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian
government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts, to
influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that as our other sites, where
the Russians hack information, we don't even know it's accurate information,
and then they put it out.

We have never in the history of our country been
in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to
influence the outcome of the election, and believe me, they’re not doing it to
get me elected. They're doing it to try to influence the election for Donald
Trump.

Now maybe because he has praised Putin, maybe
because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do, maybe because
he wants to do business in Moscow -- I don't know the reasons that we deserve
answers. And we should demand that Trump release all of his tax returns so that
people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationships --

DONALD TRUMP 9:58 PM

Well, I think I should respond because, so
ridiculous. Look, now she's blaming - she got caught in a total lie her papers
went out to all her friends at the banks, Goldman Sachs and everybody else, and
she said things, WikiLeaks that just came out and she lied.

Now she's blaming the lie on the late great Abraham
Lincoln. That's one that I haven’t - okay Honest Abe never lied. That’s the
good thing that's a big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That's a
big big difference, we're talking about some difference. But as far as other
elements of what she was saying I don't know Putin. I think would be great if
we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together as an example.
But I don't know Putin. But I notice anytime anything wrong happens they like
to say the Russians we don't know if it's Russian.

She doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the
hacking, maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia and the reason
they blame Russia because they think they are trying to tarnish me with Russia.
I know nothing about Russia. I know, I know about Russia but I know nothing
about the inner workings of Russia.

I don't deal there, I have no businesses there have
no loans from Russia.

Have a very very great balance sheet, so great that
when I did the old post office on Pennsylvania Avenue, the United States government,
because of my balance sheet, which they actually know very well, chose me to do
the old post office between the White House and Congress, chose me to do the
old post office, one of the primary things in fact perhaps the primary thing
was balance sheet.

But I have no loans with Russia. You could go to
the United States government and they would probably tell you that because they
know my sheet very well in order to get that development I had to have -- now
the taxes are very simple thing. As soon as -- first of all, I pay hundred of
millions of dollars in taxes. Many of her friends took bigger deductions.
Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who is a friend of hers, took a
massive deduction. Many of the people that are giving her all this money that
she could do many more commercials than me gave her took massive deductions. I
pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes but but as soon as my routine
audit is finished, I'll release my returns I'll be very proud to. They’re
actually quite good.

REFERENCES TO SYRIA:

MARTHA RADDATZ (moderator): The heartbreaking video of a five -year-old
Syrian boy named Omran sitting in an ambulance after being pulled from the
rubble after an airstrike in Aleppo, focused the world’s attention on the
horrors of the war in Syria, with 136 million views on Facebook alone.

But there are much worse images coming out of Aleppo every day now where
the past few weeks alone four hundred people have been killed, at least one
hundred of them children. Just days ago, the State Department called for a war
crimes investigation of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and its allies
Russia for the bombardment of Aleppo. So this next question comes from social
media through Facebook. Diane from Pennsylvania asked, if you were president,
what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? Isn't it a
lot like the Holocaust when the U.S. waited too long before we helped?
Secretary Clinton, we will begin with your two minutes.

HILLARY CLINTON10:12 PM

Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic.
And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in
partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air,
bombarding places, in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands
of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort
by the Russian Air Force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of
the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime. Russia
hasn't paid any attention to ISIS. They’re interested in keeping Assad in
power. So I, when I was Secretary of State, advocated. And I advocate today a
no-fly zone in safe zones.

We need some leverage with the Russians because
they're not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution
unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with
our partners and allies on the ground. But I want to emphasize that what is at
stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia.

Russia has decided that it's all in in Syria.
And they also decided who they want to see become president of the United
States, too. And it's not me. I've stood up to Russia. I've taken on pollutant
and others. And I would do that as president. I think wherever we can cooperate
with Russia, that's fine. And I did at Secretary of State, that’s how we got a
treaty reducing nuclear weapons. It’s how we got the sanctions on Iran that put
a lid on the Iranian nuclear program without firing a single shot. So I would
go to the negotiating table with more leverage that we have now. But I do
support the effort to investigate for crimes -- war crimes committed by the
Syrians and the Russians and try to hold them accountable.

DONALD TRUMP10:15 PM

First of all, she was there as the secretary of
state with the so called line in the sand.

HILLARY CLINTON

No, I wasn’t. I was gone. I hate to interrupt
you but at some point, we need to do some fact checking.

DONALD TRUMP

Excuse me. You were in total contact with the White
House. And perhaps, sadly Obama probably still listened to you. I don't think
he would be listening to you very much anymore. Obama draws the line in the
sand, it was laughed at all over the world what happened. Now with that being
said, she talks tough against Russia. But our nuclear program has fallen way
behind. And they have gone wild with their nuclear program. Not good. Our
government should not have allowed that to happen. Russia is new in terms of
nuclear. We are old. We are tired. We are exhausted in terms of nuclear. A very
bad thing. Now, she talks tough, she talks really tough against Putin. And
against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn’t even know who the
rebels are. Every time we take rebels. Whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else.
We are arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than
the people. Look what she did and Libya with Gaddafi. Gadhafi is out. It’s a
mess. And by the way ISIS has a good chunk of their oil.

I’m sure you probably have heard that. It was a disaster.
Because the fact is that everything that she has done an foreign-policy has
been at the stake and it has a been a disaster. And if you look at Russia -- is
take a look at Russia and look at what they did this week. Where I agree she
was not there, but possibly she was consulted. We sign a peace treaty,
everyone's all excited. Well what Russia did with Assad, and by the way with
Iran who made very powerful with the dumbest deal I have ever seen in the
history of dealmaking with the Iran deal. With the 1.7 in cash, which is enough
cash to fill this room.

But look at that deal. Iran now and Russia are now
against us. So she wants to fight, she wants to fight for rebels. There’s only
one problem. You don’t even know who the rebels are.

And those three have now lined up because of our
weak foreign policy.

MARTHA RADDATZ 10:17 PM

Mr.Trump, let me repeat the question. If you were president, what would
you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? And I want to remind
you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russian need to be met
with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved with
airstrikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States
of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military
targets, of the Assad regime.

DONALD TRUMP10:18 PM

Okay. He and I haven’t spoken and I disagree.

MARTHA RADDATZ10:18 PM

You disagree with your running mate?

DONALD TRUMP10:18 PM

We have to knock out ISIS. Right now Syria is
fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same. But Syria's
no longer Syria. Syria’s Russia and it’s Iran which she made strong, and Kerry,
and Obama made into a very powerful nation. And a very rich nation. Very, very
quickly. I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we
can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria.
They had a chance and that was the line.

MARTHA RADDATZ10:19 PM

What do you think will happen if Aleppo falls?

DONALD TRUMP10:19 PM

I think Aleppo is a disaster humanitarian-wise.

MARTHA RADDATZ10:19 PM

What do you think it will happen if it falls?

DONALD TRUMP10:19 PM

I think that it basically has fallen. OK? It
basically has fallen.

Let me tell you something, you take a look at
Mosul. The biggest problem I have with the stupidity of our foreign policy. We
have Mosul. They think a lot of the ISIS leaders are in Mosul. So we have a lot
of announcements coming out of Washington and coming out of Iraq, we will be
attacking Mosul in three weeks or four weeks. All of these bad leaders from
ISIS are leaving Mosul. Why can't they do it quietly why can't they do the
attack, make it a sneak attack. After the attack is made, inform the American
public that we have knocked out the leaders, we’ve had tremendous success.
People leave. Why do they have to say we're going to be attacking Mosul within
the next four to six weeks? Which is what they are saying. How stupid is our
country?

MARTHA RADDATZ10:20 PM

There are sometimes reasons the military does that. Psychological
warfare.

DONALD TRUMP10:20 PM

I can't think of any.

MARTHA RADDATZ10:20 PM

It might be to help get civilians out.

DONALD TRUMP10:20 PM

Look, I have two hundred generals and admirals who
endorsed me. I have twenty one Congressional medal of honor recipients who
endorsed me. We talk about it all the time. They understand why can't they do
something secretively? Where they go in and they knock out the leadership. How
-- why would these people stay there? I’ve been reading now for weeks...

MARTHA RADDATZ10:20 PM

Tell me what your strategy is.

DONALD TRUMP10:20 PM

I have a reading for weeks about Mosul that is the
harbor between Raqqa and Mosul. This is where they think the ISIS leaders are.

Why would they be - they’re not staying there
anymore. They are gone. Because everybody is talking about how Iraq, which is
us with our leadership, goes in to fight Mosul. With these two hundred admirals
and generals, they can't believe it. All they say is this. General George Patton,
General Douglas MacArthur are spinning in their grave at the stupidity of what
we're doing in the Middle East.

You talk about diplomatic efforts, those have
failed. Ceasefires have failed. Would you introduce the threat of U.S. military
force beyond the no-fly zone against the Assad regime, to back up diplomacy?

HILLARY CLINTON10:21 PM

I would not use American ground forces in Syria.
I think that would be a very serious mistake. I don't think American troops
should be holding territory, which is what they would have to do as an
occupying force. I don't think that is a smart strategy. I do think the use of
special forces, which we're using, the use of enablers and trainers in Iraq,
which has had some positive effects, are very much in our interest. And so I do
support what is happening. But let me --

MARTHA RADDATZ10:22 PM

So what would you do differently than the President Obama is doing?

HILLARY CLINTON10:22 PM

Well, Martha, I hope that by the time I -- hope
by the time I am president that we will have pushed ISIS out of Iraq. I do
think that there is a good chance that we can take Mosul. And you know Donald
says he knows more about ISIS than the generals. No, he doesn't.

There are a lot of very important planning going
on. And some of it is to signal to the Sunnis in the area, as well as Kurdish
fighters that we all need to be in this. And that takes a lot of planning and
preparation. I would go after Baghdadi. I would specifically target Baghdadi
because I think our targeting of Al Qaeda leaders, I was involved in a lot of
those operations, highly classified ones, made a difference. So I think that
could help.

I would also consider arming the Kurds. The
Kurds have been our best partners in Syria, as well as Iraq. And I know there
is a lot of concern about that in some circles, but I think that they should
have the equipment they need so that the needs of Kurdish and Arab fighters on
the ground are the principal way that we take Rocco after pushing ISIS out of
Iraq.

Mossad are the secret police of the state of Israel, which has explicitly waged wars of aggression against Syria in the past. Whilst we are aware of other NATO-aligned illegal presences in Syria, this news of the presence of Mossad is particularly shocking, in a series of increasingly shocking incidents. This report directly implicates US-NATO in terrorist activities and it is likely that the western newsmedia will avoid reporting this exposure of its illegal activities, for fear of calling into legitimate question the western presence in Syria.Republished from article of Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:12 on Farsnews (Iran) which cites Sputnick as its source. Inset Video is Russian language news report with summary in English by Lad Rey, from her article here: https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/libya-2-0-west-demands-syria-no-fly-zone-retaliation-russian-kalibr-missiles-strike-us-intel-center/ TEHRAN (FNA)- The Russian warships stationed in Syria's coastal waters targeted and destroyed a foreign military operations room, killing over two dozen Israeli and western intelligence officers."The Russian warships fired three Caliber missiles at the foreign officers' coordination operations room in Dar Ezza region in the Western part of Aleppo near Sam'an mountain, killing 30 Israeli and western officers," the Arabic-language service of Russia's Sputnik news agency quoted battlefield source in Aleppo as saying on Wednesday.

This video is a Russian news report of the incident. Here is Lada Rey's 'summary translation' published at https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/libya-2-0-west-demands-syria-no-fly-zone-retaliation-russian-kalibr-missiles-strike-us-intel-center/: According to Fars News agency, Russian military ships launched three Kalibr cruise missiles; the strike hit the Dar Ezza joint intelligence coordination center for the US coalition, killing 30 Israeli and Western officers. The center, aka, Field Operations Room near Aleppo is staffed with officers from US, Turkey, UK, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar. Canadian researcher Michel Chossudovsky says that the center was hit after US coalition forces bombed the Syrian army. The intelligence center in question provided intelligence and played a leading role in making the bombing happen.

The operations room was located in the Western part of Aleppo province in the middle of sky-high Sam'an mountain and old caves. The region is deep into a chain of mountains.

Several US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and British officers were also killed along with the Israeli officers. The foreign officers who were killed in the Aleppo operations room were directing the terrorists' attacks in Aleppo and Idlib. 

Earlier in September, the Syrian army units launched a preemptive strike on the terrorists of the so-called Aleppo Operations Room in their gathering centers near Castello road in the Northern areas of Aleppo and Mallah farms, foiling their plots to attack the region's supply route, a source said.

The source said that the army's artillery units attacked the terrorists' gathering centers near Castello and Mallah farms in Zahra Abdo Rabbah, Kafar Hamra and Hurayatyn which killed and wounded dozens of militants.

Also, the Syrian air force attacked the terrorists' supply route in Northern Aleppo towards Hayyan and Adnan as well as the supply roads in Western Aleppo towards the North and smashed the terrorists' convoys in al-Aratab, Urom Kobra and Ma'ara al-Artiq which thwarted the terrorists' plots and forced many of them flee towards the Turkish borders.

Informed media sources disclosed earlier that the Syrian army has continued its advances in the Southern part of Aleppo, and regained control over several strategic areas in the town of Khan Touman.

"A number of key warehouses of Khan Touman are now under the Syrian army's control," the Arabic-language media quoted an unnamed informed source as saying.

The source noted that the Syrian air force and army's artillery units also targeted the gathering centers and fortifications of the terrorists in Khan Touman.

The following is some of the transcript from the latest episode of 20 March of RT's In The Now entitled "Trump Card". In the first part program host Host Annissa Naouai interviews Doctor Theodore Karasik a senior advisor of Gulf State Anaytics to discuss how the Syrian conlict may develop now that Russia has decided to withdraw most of its forces from Syria.

Much of the interview consists of a long ostensible explanation by Dr. Karasik of Saudi Arabia's actions in the conflict. The transcript of the end of the interview concludes in the paragraphs immediately below. Below, at the end of the article, is a #criticalResponse">critical response to that interview posted to that In the Now page.

#criticalResponse">Transcript of the conclusion of Annissa Naouai's interview with Dr. Theodore Karasik

04:18 Annissa Naouai (AN): Critics in the West were just pointing out how this was all just an attempt to bolster Assad. Putin's gotten in and out. How is Bashar al-Assad really feeling about Russia leaving Syria? You know, I mean, Syria doesn't really have many friends out there world at the moment.

04:32 Dr. Theodore Karasik (TK): I think that the Assad government is very interested in what happens next clearly. Russia is telling Assad that there must be movement on the political front in order to rectify the problems within Syria today and to come to a new state entity, if you will, that will govern the Syrian state.

This point is something that Moscow has driven home since the entry of Russia into Syria six months ago – that the political solution must come first and dealing with Islamic State in total, particularly in Raqqa, comes second. You can't have it the other way around.

Therefore, you see Russia pushing Assad to go along with this settlement discussion that's ongoing in Geneva. The big question, of course, is what about Assad's other friends, particularly in Tehran – and the Iranian reaction is this one that seems very positive, so far, but we need to be very careful about the dynamics within Iran and how various schools of thought will look at Russia's latest move and what that means for the settlement of Syria in the coming months and throughout the rest of the year.

06:07 AN: What about other key players like Saudi Arabia? Are they going to use this as an opportunity to make some moves? I assume in Tehren that could possibly be one of the options that is being discussed.

06:21 TK: I think what the Saudis are interested in the most is the protection of their interests in the Levant. I think that it's clear that Riyadh and other allies of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were taken by surprise with the Russian announcement of quote unquote 'withdrawal'. I think Riyadh also recognises that this gives an opportunity for a diplomatic solution. I don't think Riyadh wants to use the Islamic military alliance completely in full operation within the Levant, but, if push comes to shove, they will.

So I think that this is a moment for Saudi Arabia to decide how best to proceed diplomatically on trying to find a solution to Syria where Assad does leave and I think that all parties are beginning to agree that President Assad's days are numbered in his current position.

07:23 AN: Doctor Theodore Karasik, a senior advisor at Gulf State Analytics, thanks so much for being In The Now.

Response to the above Interview posted to "In the Now"

I thought that Russia's stance on President Bashar al-Assad is that only the Syrian people were entitled to decide on whether or not he was to be their President and for how long he would remain President. All the evidence, of which I am aware, shows that, even with all the killing, destruction and other hardships faced by Syrians since March 2011, the Syrian President remains immensely popular. In fact, he enjoys far more popularity than the leaders of purported democracies of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Israel and others that have criminally conspired against him. Probably the only national leader who can claim to be more popular than Bashar al-Assad is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Syrians can count themselves lucky to have been led since March 2011 by such a capable and well-intentioned man as Bashar al-Assad.

I found outrageous the suggestion by your guest, Dr. Theodore Karasik, that a settlement of the Syrian crisis required that the Syrian President step down. By saying so, Dr. Karaz demonstrated ignorance at best, or contempt for the wishes of the Syrian people at worst.

Your failure to challenge Dr. Karasik's views is what I have come to expect of corporate mainstream 'journalists' in the West and not from RT.

Could I suggest that you look at the many interviews that the Syrian President has given to the newsmedia in recent years, including CBS's 60 Minutes of 2014, and compare his forthright and honest answers, to the most probing questions, to what was mouthed by Dr. Karasaik?

Were President Bashar al-Assad ever to find the time to appear on "In the Now" together with Dr. Karasik, he would easily be able to show him up for what he is and cut his arguments to ribbons. I wish more journalists were as capable as the Syrian President.

For people who follow French politics, France's entry into NATO was a frank change of politics. France had previously maintained an independent interest in the Middle East and tended to align away from Israel. France's involvement in recent NATO 'interventions' in Syria seemed uncharacteristically naive. In this stand-out interview, Yvan Blot, a former Gaullist parliamentarian, and closely associated with Sarkosy, when President, says that he did not agree with joining NATO. He says that French conservatives tend to be friends with Russia, in part because of business interests, and that socialist governments tend to have strained relations with Russia, since Mitterand. This interview is one of those where the person interviewed has a lot of experience and an unusually wide and historical perspective. This video transcript was first published on Sophie & Co on RT on 8 Mar, 2016 .

The West planned to create rift between Russia & Ukraine long ago - French ex-MEP

Russia's military pullout out of Syria came as a surprise to most Western nations. That, and a successful though fragile ceasefire inside Syria between Assad and the rebels, have shifted the balance on the global chessboard. Europe is struggling with the refugee flow, desperate enough to negotiate a blackmail-style deal with Turkey. As people are growing tired of the unpopular measures taken by Brussels, the upcoming elections in France, the EU's major player, may change the stakes in diplomacy as well. In this rapidly changing situation will the attitude towards Russia change? Does the West even need to carry out such a policy? And what role is NATO playing in the rift between Russia and the nations of Europe? We ask a prominent French politician, close friend of ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy. Yvan Blot is on Sophie&Co today.

Follow @SophieCo_RT

Sophie Shevarnadze:  Yvan Blot, French scholar and politician, close to former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, author of “Putin’s Russia”, welcome to the show, it’s great to have you with us, sir.

Yvan Blot: Thank you for inviting me.

SS: So, from the latest, Russian troops are being pulled out of Syria, so we have the peace talks that are somewhat in progress right now. Truce is setting on the battlefield - do you think that Russian withdrawal, this move to pull out troops, will actually help the peace process, help de-escalate the situation, or will those who don’t want to find a compromise be emboldened by this move?

YB: It was a surprize in France to hear that Russian troops are leaving Syria, but I think it’s a good thing for the peace process, naturally.

SS: Why?

YB: It shows clearly that big powers want to seize the war and because Russia attacked the Islamist movement in Syria, some people would think that Russia wants to be in the East, and would invade, like America invaded Iraq.

SS: Make it it’s sphere of influence, basically.

YB: So we have a proof it’s not the case.

SS: How do you think the West will react to Russia’s move? Will West’s attitude towards Russia change after the withdrawal of the troops.

YB: I think, probably, Mr. Obama was informed about this decision, President Putin’s decision, so I think, normally, the West would have a good reaction, because if Washington agrees, the rest of the Western countries will agree, because America is the leader of the Western coalition in Syria.

SS: French economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, proclaimed that France is actually supporting the end of anti-Russian sanctions, but all of the EU members have to be OK with that. Except France we have Hungary, we have Greece, we have Italy who do not want to extend, to renew the sanctions. What do you think will happen? Will their voices be heard? Is it possible to actually go against the EU will and not renew the sanctions individually?

YB: It’s difficult to say. I know that business circles in France are against the sanctions, they want to get rid of the sanctions, and there’s a big discussion, private discussion, between the government and the business circles. I think, Mr. Hollande is not really in favor of sanctions, but he has to take into account the American position, naturally, and for that reason, it’s difficult to say what he will do, because if for him the American pressure is too strong, he will say: “We continue the sanctions”.

SS: So it’s really more the American pressure than the fact that all EU members have to be OK with not renewing the sanctions?

YB: It’s another reason, I would say. Nothing forbids France to get rid of the sanctions if France wanted to. I think, with somebody with character, as was General De Gaulle, we would stop the sanctions, whatever the consequences. Our President is an intelligent man, but I’m not sure he wants to have these difficult relations with Washington, so I’m not sure France will be very independent in that…

SS: You often talk about America’s influence over Europe, and you have mentioned that these are American sanctions more than European sanctions… I mean, you really believe that America’s influence over Europe is so big that it can actually pressure Europe into imposing sanctions on Russia?

YB: Yes, I have examples. For instance, we have a big bank, BNP Paribas,  who had to pay enormous sums to the American Treasury because they made business with Iran, for instance. I know it was the same for Mistral, for instance. The American government told the French government, in private, naturally, that if we give Mistrals, these warships, to Russia, the sum that bank,  BNP Paribas, must pay will be much higher and, at the same time, they say that American judges are completely independent. I don’t think this is the case. There are contacts between the judges and the American government. I have some experience with this. Western countries always say that their judges are completely independent, but it’s not the case if it is a question which touches national interests. For little private conflicts the judges are independent, but it’s linked with politics, the government says “I hope you will give good sanctions against this bank”, for instance.

SS: So you think if Europe, on a larger scale, was to reset relations with Russia, then America will actually torpedo it or sabotage it?

YB: The strategy of America was clearly explained in the book by Mr.Brzezinski, “The Big Chessboard”. In this book, Mr.Brzezinski says: “The problem of America is the competition with Eurasia.” Eurasia - that is to say Europe, Russia and China and India, perhaps - and he says: “If all these countries are against us, it’s going to be terrible for us, we are not the first power in the world, so we have to divide Eurasia, to colonize Western Europe, to survey China and Russia. For us it makes really a problem, and the best thing would be to have weaker Russia and to organize conflict with Ukraine”. It was written 10 years ago, and now you see the implementation of this strategy. I think it is an American strategy.

SS: But I want to talk about Europe’s position - why do you think it’s stuck in this choice between partnership with Russia and partnership with NATO. It seems like it’s one or the other - why? Why is it stuck in this position?

YB: First, NATO has no reason to survive, because NATO was created, in the beginning, to fight against communism and against Soviet Union. There’s no longer a Soviet Union. It would have been logical to destroy NATO and to create a new order for defence and security issues, new organisation, probably, and probably without the U.S.. It was not the case, naturally, and major part of our political leaders have strong personal links with American government, it’s a fact.

SS: You think there’s no reason for NATO to survive, you’ve also said that America’s influence on Europe is in large done through NATO - now, former French PM Dominique de Villepin.

has proposed, once again, pulling France out of the NATO military command structure. Do you think it’s a good idea, do you think France should pull out? Is it even possible?

YB: I think he’s right. I know him very personally, I think he’s right. It is technically completely possible, because we have a  big industry of armaments, we have nuclear forces, so France can be independent.

SS: So why are you with NATO then? Is it just, like, symbolic, is it a question of French pride and prestige?

YB: It was a discussion between me and President Sarkozy about this, because I didn’t agree with him. It was Sarkozy who…

SS: Returned France to NATO.

YB: And he said: “We are in the same family”, his argument was “the same family, we have the same values”. Perhaps we have the same values, but since, perhaps, 10 years, all French presidents ask Americans to have one commander-in-chief of NATO. There are three staffs in NATO: for North of Europe, for Center of Europe and for South. France wanted to have the general-in-chief of the South, and the American said “No, no, no”. They said “No” to Mitterrand, they said “No” to Chirac, and they said “No” to Sarkozy. But, in spite of this Sarkozy said that it doesn’t matter, “we will integrate into it”, but I’m not sure it was a good idea.

SS: So, if France is part of the same family, as the NATO members, then why did the president Francois Hollande, after the horrible terrorist attacks, actually called on its fellow EU allies to help fight terrorism, help France, and not the NATO members?

YB: Politically, the EU is more important in France than the NATO. We don’t speak very much about NATO. But EU, yes, because it’s the same currency, it’s same economic policy, and so on. For that reason Mr. Hollande wants always to have good relations with the members of the EU, but in the future, I don’t know what we will have because it’s possible - it’s not sure, but it’s possible - that the UK leaves the EU.

SS:  So, you have studied Russian for many years, you’ve wrote a book that’s called “Putin’s Russia”. It decries a lot of myths about Putin, it also argues against looking at Russia as if it was still a Soviet Union. Are there are lot of people in the French establishment who share your view on Russia?

YB: There are part of the establishment.

SS: What’s the ratio?

YB: Partly, it’s a question of generation. Older people in France very often think that Russia is always a Soviet Union, older people. But with younger people, it’s not the case at all. So, younger people in general are much more in favor of cooperation with Russia, even within the government, or within the Parliament, and this situation, I think, it’s improving for the future cooperation between France and Russia.

SS: But, French government mostly consists of young people, so you would think that they don’t really remember the Soviet Union, yet they are for the sanctions and they still decry Putin as a dictator…

YB: Yes, the French government is socialist, you know. It is a socialist tradition in France to have bad relations with Russia, I must say, because after the WWII, the Americans gave a lot of money to socialist party to fight against the Communist Party in France. For that reason, Socialist party had always very good links with America. Especially now, they have very good links with ms. Clinton, for instance. Ms. Clinton said once, I think she didn’t want to say this, but she said it to Juppe, “Mr. President Juppe” - but a journalist told her: “But he’s not President!” - he was PM, but he wasn’t a President - “Oh yes, I am sorry, I made a mistake” - but in fact, she would like to have Mr. Juppe as partner for future.

SS: We’ll talk about the Presidential elections that are coming up. So you have part of French establishment that is very anti-Russian, and you have part of it that’s very pro-Russian.

YB: Especially, business circles.

SS: So which side will prevail?

YB: In the short run, it’s, perhaps, the anti-Russians who are rather mainstream, especially in the media, but I think in the longer run, it would be completely different. You have only to look at the geography - it’s very difficult for Western Europe not to have a special links with Russia, because it’s the same continent, in fact. So, I think it’s artificial - this fight against Russia. In fact, the majority of people who come from France to Russia can see it’s not a dictatorship. I was, in the past, in the Soviet Union, and in my hotel, I could read some Russian papers in English - there was no criticism against Mr. Brezhnev, for instance, or of the Soviet government. But now you can read articles against Mr. Putin - so it’s very clear, there’s more freedom than before.

SS: So you have Presidential election coming up, right around the corner. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy was in Russia, you’re close to him, I believe you’re his friend. If his party wins the vote, do you think there will be a rapprochement between Russia and France?

YB: I’m sure.

SS: Really?

YB: Sarkozy always told me he wanted to have good relations with Mr. Putin. He has, I think personal good relations, and he thinks it’s very necessary, because Sarkozy is linked with business circles very much, much more than the socialists, and he wants to have better relations with Russia because they want to expand trade with Russia in every sectors of the economy. I think with Sarkozy the relations would be better, I’m sure, and even if we would have some tensions with the U.S.. We had tensions already in the past, with Sarkozy, when he went to mingle with Georgian war, for instance, Washington was not very happy about this. But he did it.

SS: Do you think he will run for Presidency again? What do you think? In your personal opinion?

YB: I think so, except, if he has such bad polls, he could perhaps say: “It’s over, it’s not possible”, but except in that extreme situation - we cannot know exactly the future so much early - I think he will be a candidate. He wants to be a candidate.

SS: But do you think the French are ready to choose again between Hollande and Sarkozy?

YB: Frankly, I’m not sure, because part of the French people would prefer to have new personalities, probably.

SS: It’s been 2 years since the Crimean referendum, pro-Russian referendum, and you have said that it’s impossible to reverse the Crimean situation. The EU however, is saying that the control over the peninsula needs to be given back to Ukraine. President Poroshenko is ordering Ukraine’s military to focus on Crimea, you have Kiev that is getting military aid from the U.S. - I mean, it does seem like the West cannot come to terms with that. Do you think that'll ever happen? When?

YB: I think Crimea will be Russian in the future. It’s not possible to change that. In France, we are not in a good place to think against it, because we made exactly the same with Mayotte in Africa, you know it’s some islands which form a Comorrean state and when they got their independence, one island said “We want to be French”, and this island is French. For that reason, France was condemned by the UNGA, we were condemned by the African Assembly of Nations, and it doesn’t change anything. We had no sanctions, because we are friends with the U.S.

SS: But we have sanctions, so if the Crimean situation is irreversible, and the sanctions are linked to the Crimean situation, does that mean that the sanctions against Russia are here to stay forever?

YB: It is a U.S. position now, with President Obama, but you cannot see future. I’m not sure, for instance, Mr. Trump, I think, perhaps, he would lift the sanctions, I’m not sure that he’s in favor of the sanctions. He’s like everybody, in general, in business circles - they don’t like sanctions. They think politicians mingling with economics is not a good thing, it’s better to be separated. With ms. Clinton, perhaps, we would have the same sanctions. So we have to wait for the American elections.

SS: Maybe, even harsher sanctions with ms. Clinton. So, let’s talk about the EU situation. The EU isn’t aligned in its relations with Russia, it has the migrant crisis, there’s the financial problem in the Eurozone, there’s  terrorism problem - a serious problem. So, if countries weren’t obliged to follow one common EU policy, do you think they would be able to deal with these issues better, individually?

YB: I’m not sure. For instance a lot of people say because we are in the EU we could have more opportunity for economic growth, but it’s not in fact the case. Switzerland or Norway are not in the EU, and their economy is much better. I’m not sure the Euro, for instance, is a good thing for French economy. Probably, it’s a good thing for German economy, but we have not the same competitiveness to have the same money - I’m not sure it’s a good idea. A lot of economists, professors of economics - I am the professor of economics -  we think the Euro is not a good idea, probably, a symbolic or a political idea, but from an economic point of view, it’s probably a mistake.

SS: So Britain is planning to have a referendum this summer on the EU exit, and according to the survey that’s been conducted by the university of Edinburgh, majority of France wants to have the same referendum. What do you think? Could the British experience set an example to follow for other members?

YB: Probably. It’s a reason for why a Commission in Brussels is a bit frightened of this situation, because if the UK leaves European Union, other countries could do the same and could be encouraged to make the same move. Perhaps, the Scandinavian countries who are very linked with the UK, perhaps, Czech Republic…

SS: Well, you have France, you have Sweden, Spain, Germany - they all want EU membership referendum. I’m not saying that they want to leave the EU, but they want to have the right to vote for it. Do you think they should be able?

YB: The people want to be consulted on this sort of issue, and one of the big problems with the EU is that it is not democratic at all. It was built not to be democratic. The power in Brussels is not in the hands of the Council of ministers and is not in the Parliament. I was for 10 years in the EU Parliament, I can tell you  that all the power, in fact, is in the Commission. It’s a government of civil servants, who have no responsibility towards different countries, and they do what they want, and for that reason, more and more people are against this sort of technician government, which is not a democratic government. I think it was a mistake at the beginning of the European Union, to create this super-Comission above all. So, it doesn’t mean we have to get rid completely with the EU, but perhaps it is necessary to re-write the treaty to suppress this Commission in Brussels, it was a bad idea. It would be Europe, naturally, if we did that. Why not?

SS: So, you have said that you are worried about the massive flow of refugees into Europe, but do you feel like, maybe, Europe has a moral obligation or responsibility to accommodate these refugees from the Middle East. I mean, are European policies partly to blame for wars that are causing this mass exodus? I mean, intervention in Libya produced a failed state right on border of Europe, you know.

YB:  You are right. I think there are some governments that have a responsibility because of the disorder they created in the MidEast, and it was one of the causes of the movement of refugees towards Europe. But the public opinion is really against it, and so, if you are in democracy, you have to take into account the opinion of the people. I think it’s necessary to have more peace, naturally, in the Middle East - that’s one of the questions, but otherwise, it’s necessary, really, to control our borders which is not the case, because we have created this Schengen area, and the Schengen area is not very well protected against illegal immigrants, and that’s really a problem. You must add to this problem the fact that among the refugees, it’s possible that you have some terrorists. Our Secret Service is persuaded it is the case, I must say.

SS: Yvan Blot, thank you very much for this interesting interview. We were talking to Yvan Blot, French politician, who used to sit in the French and the European Parliament's, past terrorism advisor to the French government, author of “Putin’s Russia”, talking about seemingly dead end of West’s relations with Russia and the future of Europe. That’s it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time.

Tanya Plibersek's article is Australia deserves a seat at the table in Syria negotiations, (15/12/15) | the Guardian

We must ask whether the Turnbull government acknowledges Turkey’s support for the Islamic State, and what action it intends to take against the Erdogan regime’s aggressive and destabilising behaviour. We must also ask whether the Australian airforce will continue to conduct bombing runs in coordination with the US coalition. Not only have Turkish actions put us in conflict with that coalition, operating out of Incirlik, but there is another danger. Russia has stated that there no further threats to Russian servicemen and assets will be tolerated, from unauthorised foreign parties.

Dear Ms Plibersek,

This is a follow up email to a brief conversation I had with a staffer in your office, and is a response to the article you had published in the Guardian yesterday.

I have previously made representations to you on the question of Australia’s policy on Syria and that of the Federal Labor Party, in particular through a media release on behalf of Australians for Reconciliation in Syria (AMRIS), for which I am a spokesman.

I have also presented ‘my case’ – which is Syria’s case – to the Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, in correspondence over the last two years. My main concerns expressed in that correspondence have been regarding the false allegations over the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons, the improper recognition of external Opposition groups known as the ‘Syrian National Council’ as the ‘legitimate representatives of the Syrian people’, and Australia’s refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy and sovereign rights of the current Syrian government and its President Bashar al Assad, freely elected by a majority of the whole Syrian population in June 2014.

These concerns remain unchanged, as the position of the government and the Australian Labor Party remains the same, and lie at the heart of the current crisis.

There is however a reason why this problematic position must be challenged again, resulting from recent developments, and in particular Turkey’s provocation of shooting down the Russian bomber on November 24th, which Russia rightly regards as an act of war.
I would draw your attention here to a very detailed analysis by an aviation expert which proves to any sensible person that Turkey’s act was preplanned.(*1)

Following this strike, Russia responded in several ways, all of which must now be considered in relation to Australian involvement in the campaign ‘against Da’esh/IS’.

Firstly it deployed S400 missile systems in Syria, which enables Russia to shoot down any foreign aircraft which operate in Syrian airspace without authorisation from the Syrian government. Secondly Russia took immediate action over trade and relations with Turkey, including over the vital issue of gas supply contracts. And thirdly, President Putin very publicly revealed to an international audience in Paris the extent of the Turkish government’s involvement with the Islamic State, both in the export and marketing of Syrian and Iraqi oil with a tanker pipeline through Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, and with the purchasing and supply of shipments of arms over the border into Syria.

These startling revelations from Moscow, which were backed up with multiple sources of evidence of the illegal Oil trade, were vigorously denied by President Erdogan, who also refused to apologise for the downing of the Russian plane and killing of Russian servicemen by Turkish insurgents in Syria. While this was unsurprising given that Russia’s allegations were directly against Erdogan’s son Bilal, as well as against the Turkish intelligence service MIT, which has been exposed assisting with arms shipments as well as chemical weapons into Syria, the failure of Western leaders or Western media to react and respond appropriately to Turkey’s blatant support for IS and other terrorist armies in Syria was shocking.

It is however also bemusing, to find that the position of Western governments, particularly those of the US, UK and Australia, has become so contradictory, and still essentially unchanged. While we call for a global campaign against Islamic State, and prepare to send more military resources into Syria and Iraq to destroy it, we are effectively allied with Turkey, who has been supporting Da’esh and other terrorist groups – Jabhat al Nusra and Ahrar al Sham, for the last four years in Turkey’s campaign against the Syrian state. Meanwhile Russia, which operates legitimately in Syria at the invitation of the government, and in coordination with the Syrian army, has made huge gains in pushing back both the Turkish/Saudi backed ‘Army of Conquest’, and in destroying the Oil refineries and tanker pipelines of Da’esh.

The effectiveness of Russia’s bombing and cruise missile strikes on the Islamic State’s dirty trade not only raised the ire of its benefactor – Erdogan’s family business – but raises questions about the US ‘campaign against IS’ of which we are nominally a part.

There has however been another significant development, which raises particular questions about Australia’s current military deployment in Iraq. Apparently in cooperation with the Iraqi Kurdistan ‘regional government’, and its leader Barzani, Turkey moved 1200 troops and tanks and other assets into Mosul. This drew an immediate demand from the Baghdad government’s Haidar al Abadi that Turkey withdraw its forces, or face military action. Shiite militias who are operating in coordination with the Iraqi Army out of Baghdad, were particularly vocal in their protests against Turkey, as well as against the US. The Iraqi government was vigorously supported with mass public protests in the south of the country, and calls for direct action against Turkey’s invasion. Erdogan however not only refuses to withdraw his troops, which he claims are there to ‘train peshmerga forces to fight IS’, but has threatened to cut Iraq’s water supply through the Euphrates and Tigris rivers unless Iraq changes its position on support for Syria and Russia.

The Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has repeatedly made clear that our commitment in Iraq and in Syria is strictly ‘in defence of Iraq’ but is also operating with the consent and at the behest of the Baghdad government. As the development outlined above now effectively puts Australia at odds with the ‘US coalition against Da’esh’ there is an urgent need for a clarification of Australia’s position, both on Turkey and on the Russian campaign supporting the Syrian army against ALL the terrorist groups fighting the Syrian government.

We must ask whether the Turnbull government acknowledges Turkey’s support for the Islamic State, and what action it intends to take against the Erdogan regime’s aggressive and destabilising behaviour. We must also ask whether the Australian airforce will continue to conduct bombing runs in coordination with the US coalition. Not only have Turkish actions put us in conflict with that coalition, operating out of Incirlik, but there is another danger. Russia has stated that there no further threats to Russian servicemen and assets will be tolerated, from unauthorised foreign parties.

Even if Australia limits its activities to strikes on Islamic State targets in Eastern Syria, this may bring us into the line of legitimate Russian fire. Other unidentified coalition partners last week struck a Syrian army base near Deir al Zour, in an act which enabled IS forces to overrun a long-protected village. As with Turkey’s illegal incursions, this attack on the SAA , which killed three men and injured a dozen, drew an immediate protest to the UN, but no action has been taken to identify the country or countries responsible. Neither has there been any explanation of why a member of the US coalition launched a strike on the SAA base which facilitated the operations of the IS terrorist group in the area where its Oil assets are located.

I trust that you will consider the case that I have made, and in the light of it perhaps reconsider the apparent support of the Labor party for the US led campaign, which quite evidently aims to replace Syria’s legitimately elected government with some group of Sunni officials approved by the very countries supporting the terrorist groups in Syria – Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar.

I also urge you to give this matter urgent attention, despite the imminent Christmas break.

I have copied Julie Bishop into this letter, and would welcome a further response from her.

kind regards,

David Macilwain,

Sandy Creek, Victoria

*1 http://harpers.org/blog/2015/12/mountain-ambush/

I also recommend this article from Mike Whitney on today’s meeting between Kerry and Putin in Moscow, stating it as it is:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/15/putin-gives-kerry-a-chance-to-pull-back-from-the-brink/

video inside:In a huge stunning announcement yesterday by the Russian Foreign Minister, Russia presented direct evidence of Turkey buying illegal oil from the black market supporting terrorists. In this video change.org goes over the important revelations by the Russians, their consequences and the shift of the geopolitical field. The western mainstream media is simply not reporting this because it runs totally counter to their spin. If the western media were to properly bring this news to their readers, they would have to explain the torrent of lies they have issued forth so far in order to justify war. The western media is historically pro-war and Australians, Americans, British and Europeans who rely on the mainstream media alone never hear both sides.

The comments of the Russian Ambassador to the UK are worth noting. On the sidelines of the Valdai Club conference, Russia’s ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, said the “only logical way” to explain Britain’s behaviour in Iraq and Syria was a desire that Isis would depose Assad.

“The idea was to remove Assad using force, and to use force to seize Damascus. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but this is the only way to explain why de facto neither Britain nor the US has ever properly fought against Isis,” Yakovenko said.

He said with the number of airstrikes Britain had carried out in Iraq, “you could have destroyed the whole region”, but instead Isis had only grown in strength.

An analysis by Reuters of Russian defence ministry data *claimed* to show this week that almost 80% of Russia’s declared targets in Syria have been in areas not held by Isis. Perhaps responding to these claims, subsequently, Yakovenko said he had a meeting at the Foreign Office in London last week in which he asked for intelligence to be shared on the location of Isis targets in Syria, but was rejected. He also asked for information on the Free Syrian Army.

“We are looking closely at the Syrian Free Army. We understand there is not a single command centre, and that some of these divisions have different goals. But if among the FSA there are divisions that are really ready to fight with Isis, who is our main enemy in Syria, and if you think there are people or commanders or other contacts which could be useful and to cooperate with them, we would be grateful for such information,” he said. “We were again rejected.”

This of course was the same message as was shared around the Western media yesterday as ‘Putin says ready to work with Free Syrian Army’ – but stripped of its essential details such as Putin asking the West to ‘tell us where we can find this ‘free syrian army’...

Shaun Walker’s pathological Russophobia means that things are often in quotes, because Walker can’t be seen to be endorsing such things as ‘Playing with words’ and ‘double game’. Surely we all know what a double game is, so that it doesn’t need to be in quotes? – but then we might think that what Putin said was actually true, and that there IS a double game, and we hadn’t been told!

Of course this ‘working with the FSA’ [Free Syrian Army] won’t go anywhere, because there is no such thing as a ‘patriotic’ FSA – all the men who were in the ‘FSA’ but who were patriots have taken amnesty and are maybe now fighting with the SAA anyway, or just keeping quiet.

It doesn’t matter how many times or how loudly Putin or Lavrov talk about the non-existence of the ‘moderate opposition fighters’ or that such a concept itself is ridiculous – what can be moderate about someone who shoots to kill the soldiers of his own country? – but one statement from a Western leader about ‘discussing with FSA leaders’ or some such just reconfirms the lies we have been told by our own media so many times...

The mainstream media have created a chasm here at everyone's peril and we badly need a bridge across it.