Siria: ¿Ahora qué?

La siguiente nota de Aram Mirzaei para el sitio web The Vineyard of the Saker da cuenta de tres aspectos de los acontecimientos que se desarrollan en Siria en estos momentos: (1) la naturaleza del cese de hostilidades, (2) su ruptura por parte de los EEUU, y (3) lo que cabe esperar de ahora en más:
  

Título: Syrian Ceasefire failed, what now?

Texto: 

The “Ceasefire”

One week ago I and many other analysts predicted that the ceasefire agreement brokered by the US and Russia last week was doomed to fail. I said this because of the fact that there are no “moderate” rebels, and that any group trying to disassociate itself from Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham (formerly Jabhat Al-Nusra) would commit both political and military suicide. Right from the first day of the implementation, Western backed Jihadists and their allies declared that they would not take part in the cessation of hostilities, which really rendered the whole agreement useless since it became clear that they would use this opportunity to regroup and rearm.

This week long ceasefire was also supposed to allow for humanitarian aid to reach besieged areas such as East Aleppo which is currently under the control of Washington’s “moderate” rebels. Despite the Syrian Army withdrawing up to 1 km north of the imperative Castillo road leading into the eastern parts of Aleppo and handing over the control over the checkpoints in this area to Russian Marines and Syrian Red Crescent Society, the humanitarian aid destined for eastern Aleppo were severely delayed due to constant attacks on the Russian Marines by the Jihadists.[1] [2] In a video posted by RT on their Youtube page, one can clearly see the Russian personnel coming under attack by Jihadist fire, yet despite this, mainstream media in the West shamefully reported that the “Assad regime” were the ones who were guilty of both violating the ceasefire and disrupting the delivery of humanitarian aid. [3] [4]

The Jihadists and their supporters refused to allow for humanitarian aid to be delivered because they refused to acknowledge the ceasefire, instead claiming that both the ceasefire and the humanitarian aid being sent to them was part of a “UN conspiracy” and that they “refuse to accept this humiliating and pathetic aid”. In a video posted online, a rally takes place in eastern Aleppo where Jihadists and their supporters declare that they refuse to accept this “humiliating” aid in the name of the religion (of Islam).[5]

It should clearly be concluded then that these Jihadists and their supporters were not interested in any kind of reduced violence, not even for a week it would seem, with Jihadists clearly showing their intentions of using this ceasefire to break the siege of Aleppo by even attacking Russian Marines.

This ceasefire was doomed from the start because Washington will not and cannot separate any “moderates” from the rest of the Jihadists. In an Op-Ed posted on RT in June, experts agree that Washington has no control over its proxies in Syria, with Journalist Willy van Damme saying that Al-Nusra and “moderate rebels” have been cooperating for about five years fighting together against the Syrian government. “To think that they would split from Al-Nusra is dreaming,” he added.

In another video posted online last week, the “spiritual leader” of the Jihadist Jaysh Al-Fateh coalition Abullah Muhaysani, a renowned Saudi Wahhabi cleric who illegally entered Syria in 2013, declared that “the other factions’ [moderates] rejection of the ceasefire is not only a slap in the face of Kerry and Lavrov, but it is also a slap in the face of all those who are trying to incite the factions against each other”. He goes on to reiterate the unity among the plethora of Jihadist factions working together as one against a common enemy, the Syrian government. [6]


The US-led Coalition massacre of Syrian Army personnel

As if the rejection of the ceasefire and the blocking of humanitarian aid wasn’t proof enough that the ceasefire was doomed to fail, Washington also did its utmost to make sure that it didn’t by flagrantly attacking the Syrian Army in the besieged city of Deir Ezzor. Although I was shocked, I was not surprised to read on Saturday night that the US-led coalition had struck the Syrian Army with phosphorous bombs over the Jabal Al- Thardeh area in southwestern Deir Ezzor, killing at least 62 and injuring over 100 Syrian Army soldiers.

Washington being used to dishonesty, immediately tried to put the blame first on Russia with the Pentagon claiming that they had informed Russian of the upcoming strike and that he bombardment only concluded when Russia had told Washington that it was possibly targeting the Syrian Army and not the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Some hours later Russia flatly denied the earlier CENTCOM press release claim of Russian knowledge about the bombardment beforehand with Major General Igor Konashenkov of the Russian Defense Ministry adding that “If the airstrike was caused by the wrong coordinates of targets then it’s a direct consequence of the stubborn unwillingness of the American side to coordinate with Russia in its actions against terrorist groups in Syria”. [7]

Russia, furious with the Americans, immediately summoned the UN Security Council for an emergency meeting on the matter with the Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova being blasting Washington as she said that “If previously we had suspicions that Al-Nusra Front is protected this way, now, after today’s airstrikes on the Syrian army we come to a really terrifying conclusion for the entire world: The White House is defending IS [Islamic State, formerly ISIS/ISIL]”

“We demand a full and detailed explanation from Washington. That explanation must be given at the UN Security Council,” Zakharova added.[8]

But there was no explanation from Washington. Instead, Washington offered us the despicable US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power. Instead of explaining the actions of the US-led coalition’s massacre of Syrian Army soldiers, she walked out of Russian UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin’s speech and later on went on to address reporters with nonsense about “the crimes of the Assad Regime and Russia”. She even mocked the Russians decision to call for an emergency meeting, calling it a “stunt”.[9]

“It is clear that the United States must come up with some very serious actions. What actions, I can not say now, but what I saw today, unfortunately, was very concerning, as my American colleague Samantha Power behaved very strange at the least,” – said Russia’s permanent representative to the UN Churkin about the results of the consultations of the Security Council.[10]

Churkin was correct to say that “in all my years in the United Nations, that is over 10 years, and all my years in international life, which is over 40 years, I have never seen such an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness as we have seen today”.

And I understand him. One look at Samantha Power is enough to understand that she is mentally deranged. Her behaviour was shameful for a representative of a leading country at the highest international body, behaving as a teenager that has just been dragged out of bed with a hangover.

If it wasn’t clear before this incident, it should be clear by now that Washington cannot be trusted, ever. Moscow should now understand that it can never reach a deal with Washington that will hold, because Washington is only interested in weakening Syria as much as possible, and will go to lengths unimaginable to achieve it, one way or another.

It therefore comes as no surprise that according to an Iranian military source, ISIL launched an offensive on the Jabal Al- Thardeh area just 7 minutes after the US led airstrikes, who added that that the air and ground assault were highly coordinated. Initially ISIL captured the Jabal Al-Thardeh area but were later repelled after a Syrian Army counterattack backed by Russian airstrikes, that same night. The source said the simultaneous raid of the ISIL terrorists immediately after the coalition airstrikes is the best evidence of the high coordination done between the US and the terrorists.[11]

In Iran’s view, this flagrant attack on Syrian Army personnel violated the truce; “We strongly denounce the US measures, and do not believe that it was a military mistake,” said Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Iranian Parliamentary Director General for International Affairs on Sunday during a meeting with Syria’s Ambassador to Tehran, Adnan Hassan Mahmoud.“Attacking an army which is battling terrorism means backstabbing and helping Daesh,” he added.

Iran reiterated its support for Syria on Monday when deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Jaberi Ansari travelled to Damascus to meet with Syrian officials. “Iran is determined to provide Syria all the possible facilities in its fateful fight against terrorism,” Jaberi Ansari said in a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. He added that “strategic and one-of-a-kind” relations between Iran and Syria go beyond the two nations’ interests and are based on common views and understanding of the threats facing all regional nations such as terrorism and extremism.[12]

One can conclude that the attack on the Syrian Army by the US-led coalition was indeed intentional, which leaves us with the question of why they would do such a thing? A quick look at a map of who controls what in the Deir Ezzor province gives us a clue. The province of Deir Ezzor in northeastern Syria (see map) is mostly controlled by the ISIL terrorist group except for parts of the city of Deir Ezzor that has been under siege for years now, with ISIL facing stiff resistance from the Syrian Army comprised of the heroic 104th Brigade of the Republican Guard, led by the iconic Druze Major General Issam Zahreddine and the 137th Artillery Brigade. To the northeastern part of the province, there is a Kurdish/FSA presence as a result of the US-backed Kurdish-led “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF) largely expelling ISIL from the neighbouring Al-Hasakah province earlier this year.

SDF has since made their intentions publicly clear that they intend to advance on both the province and city of Deir Ezzor. This is something that Washington sees as an opportunity to carve up the country in order to achieve its ultimate goal; to separate Syria from Iran indefinitely. Washington has previously made it clear that if it cannot achieve its plan A; regime change, it will go for its plan B; to balkanize the country and help to create a Kurdish and/or Sunni state in eastern Syria. Achieving this will “isolate” the Syrian government and its Lebanese allies Hezbollah from Iran, thus protecting Israel, Washington’s main imperial ally in the region.

Attacking the Syrian Army, and allowing ISIL to capture the city will make Deir Ezzor a probable target for the US-backed proxies to attack and annex. It does not matter for Washington if 100 000 civilians are trapped along with the Syrian Army personnel stationed there, and that they will meet a fate far worse than anyone of us can imagine if the city falls into terrorist hands, as long as Washington achieves its goals, it is content with whatever price the Syrian people must pay for Washington’s imperial ambitions.


What happens now?

The Syrian Arab Army’s High Command announced on Monday that the nationwide ceasefire is over after a 7-day period. “Rebel forces committed more than 300 violations by targeting residents and the Syrian military around the country,” the High Command added. Several civilians and military personnel were killed as a result of these ceasefire violations committed by the Jihadist forces. The High command also declared that Jihadist groups had taken advantage of the ceasefire to regroup and attack Syrian military positions, while the Army had done its utmost to implement the truce with the highest degree of professionalism, but that ultimately it had to respond to the provocations against the Syrian Armed Forces.[13]

As soon as the ceasefire expired at 7 pm Damascus time yesterday, fighting began to rage on in the Aleppo, Hama and Damascus provinces, with both the Syrian Army and the Jihadist groups launching offensives on different fronts. The Russian Air Force also began targeting Jihadists in Aleppo who led by Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham were trying to launch a new offensive. Meanwhile on Monday, new accusations were made by Washington and its vassals against Russia and Syria, claiming that they had struck a UN aid convoy heading for Aleppo City, an incident that the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed as an attempt to distract attention from the US-led coalition’s bombardment of the Syrian troops on September 17. [14] “We are considering, with resentment and indignation, attempts by some foreign curators of rebel units and terrorists in Syria to put the blame for the incident on the Russian and Syrian Aerospace Forces who allegedly bombarded a relief convoy,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

“Such attempts, which are unconfirmed by any facts, are designed, among other things, to distract attention from a strange ‘error’ made by pilots of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition on September 17 when its planes bombed the Syrian government troops positions near Deir ez-Zor,” the Russian Foreign Ministry stressed.

In fact, it has been established that this was not even a UN aid convoy that had been attacked, but rather it was a Syrian Red Crescent convoy that was attempting to deliver weapons to the Jihadists. The humanitarian convoy that was attacked on Monday in the Syrian province of Aleppo was followed by a militant group’s pickup truck carrying a large-caliber mortar launcher, the Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Igor Konashenkov said on Tuesday.

“Analysis of video records from drones of yesterday’s movement of the humanitarian convoy across Aleppo’s territories controlled by militants has revealed new details. It is clearly seen in the video that a terrorists’ pickup truck with a towed large-caliber mortar is moving along with the convoy,” he said.[15] I am in agreement with the Russian Foreign Ministry in their analysis over the situation. It is clear that these accusations are intended to lay the blame for the failure of the ceasefire on Russia and the Syrian government, and try to divert attention from their own crimes in Deir Ezzor last week. It therefore comes as no surprise that a senior Obama administration official speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity said that “We don’t know if it can be salvaged,” when speaking of the collapsing ceasefire.“At this point the Russians have to demonstrate very quickly their seriousness of purpose because otherwise there will be nothing to extend and nothing to salvage,” he added.

Washington was never interested in a ceasefire, rather it wanted to give its Jihadist proxies time to regroup and regain their strength after a month of hammering by the Syrian Army, especially in Aleppo. During this entire week, Washington and the Western mainstream media have been looking for excuses to lay the blame on Russia and the Syrian government for the failure to implement the ceasefire. From an Iranian point of view (and my own), these ceasefires have always been useless because Iran has always maintained that Washington can never be trusted. Instead of benefitting the Syrian Army and its allies, the ceasefires have served to not only benefit the Jihadists, but also to sow discord between Russia and Iran who on several occasions have made it clear that Moscow’s constant faith in Washington and Secretary Kerry endangers the war effort against terrorism.

It remains to be seen now what will happen with this ceasefire agreement, but from the looks of it, it is all but over as the Syrian Army and its allies have restarted their operations across the country. Hopefully, Moscow have proved once and for all that there is no way to separate any “moderate opposition” from Jihadist rebels and that they must now all be deemed as legitimate targets for aerial bombardment. Moscow must hold nothing back and coordinate more than ever with its Syrian and Iranian allies on the ground in order to defeat this terrorist plague that has been wreaking havoc in Syria for almost six years now.


Notas: 

1. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-rebels-open-fire-russian-marines-aleppo/

2. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-returns-strategic-aleppo-highway-rebel-attack/

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFhgpWyoT98

4. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/13/syrian-regime-is-blocking-aid-from-entering-eastern-aleppo-claims-un

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN70jXkc_LM

6. https://twitter.com/walid970721/status/776895742589931520/video/1

7. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-denies-knowledge-us-airstrikes-killed-tens-syrian-soldiers/

8. https://www.rt.com/news/359686-un-security-urgent-meeting/

9. https://www.rt.com/news/359686-un-security-urgent-meeting/

10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bID01gIEIOY

11. http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950628000914

12. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/09/19/485451/Iran-Syria-US-Bashar-alAssad-Hossein-Jaberi-Ansari

13. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-command-declares-ceasefire/

14. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-calls-us-accusations-aleppo-aid-attack-outrageous

15. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/red-crescent-convoy-followed-militant-groups-aleppo-russian-mod

Simulacro de paz

Nueva nota de  Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire, esta vez sobre el fin del alto el fuego pactado en Siria, y las miserias humanas que llevaron a este desenlace.


Título: Simulacro de paz

Epígrafe: Cuando parecía que subsistía el alto al fuego pactado en Siria por el secretario de Estado John Kerry y el ministro ruso de Exteriores Serguei Lavrov –con excepción de la agresión israelí del primer día–, el Pentágono también agredió al Ejército Árabe Sirio. Ahora asegura que se trató de un error, pero la reacción de la embajadora de Estados Unidos en la ONU hace pensar más bien en la ejecución de un plan. ¿Cuál es el juego de Washington?

Texto: Al negociar con Estados Unidos un alto al fuego en Siria, Rusia estaba consciente de que Washington no lo respetaría, como ya sucedió con los anteriores. Pero Moscú esperaba avanzar así por el camino del reconocimiento de un mundo multipolar. Washington, por su parte, utilizaba el próximo fin del mandato del presidente Obama para justificar que se trataba de la última posibilidad de suscribir un acuerdo.

Dejemos de lado la intentona israelí de aprovechar la tregua para atacar Damasco y el Golán. El resultado fue que los aviones israelíes fueron blanco de misiles antiaéreos de nueva generación, Israel perdió un avión y tendrá que reparar otro. Al parecer, Siria está ahora en condiciones de poner en duda el predominio aéreo de Israel en la región.

Dejemos de lado también el hecho que los jefes de Estado y de gobierno europeos aplaudieron el acuerdo, aún sin conocer su contenido, con lo cual quedaron totalmente en ridículo.

Concentrémonos en lo fundamental. En definitiva, el convoy “humanitario” de la ONU –repleto de armas y municiones– sigue en espera del lado turco de la frontera, oficialmente porque no está garantizada la seguridad de la carretera, en realidad porque las autoridades sirias quieren hacer valer su derecho a verificar la carga de los camiones antes de dejar pasar el convoy. El hecho es que la actitud de la ONU confirma las revelaciones del ex jefe del antiterrorismo turco, Ahmet Sait Yayla [1], actualmente en fuga fuera de su país: el Pentágono y Turquía utilizan los convoyes humanitarios para enviar armamento a los yihadistas.

También es fundamental el hecho que el Pentágono atacó una posición fija del Ejército Árabe Sirio en Deir ez-Zor. Detuvo los ataques cuando Rusia le señaló el “error”. Y después permitió que los yihadistas se lanzaran al ataque aprovechando el “error” que les había abierto el camino.

En el plano estratégico, impedir que el Ejército Árabe Sirio libere toda la gobernación de Deir ez Zor es mantener al Emirato Islámico (Daesh) en su papel de barrera sobre la ruta terrestre Damasco-Bagdad-Teherán. Anteriormente, el Pentágono permitió que el Emirato Islámico se instalara en Palmira, la etapa histórica de la «Ruta de la Seda». Actualmente los yihadistas siguen cortando la ruta del lado iraquí, pero es posible evitarlos pasando por Deir ez-Zor si los iraquíes liberan Mosul.

Desde el punto de vista de Estados Unidos, el acuerdo de alto al fuego sólo era una manera de ganar tiempo, reabastecer a los yihadistas y proseguir después la guerra. Llevando la situación al plano diplomático, Rusia convocó una reunión urgente del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, con lo cual puso a correr a todo Washington. En efecto, el momento no corresponde solamente al final del mandato de Barack Obama, también está la apertura de la Asamblea General de la ONU.

Evidentemente muy inquieta, la embajadora de Estados Unidos, Samantha Power (ver foto), abandonó la sala del Consejo de Seguridad, en medio de la reunión urgente, para hablar con la prensa. Su objetivo era que los primeros despachos de las agencias mencionaran solamente el punto de vista de Estados Unidos. Se refirió con ironía a la «puesta en escena» rusa alrededor de algo que supuestamente no pasaba de ser un simple «incidente» (¡62 muertos y un centenar de heridos!). Y luego se lanzó en una diatriba sobre los crímenes mucho más graves del régimen de Damasco.

Al ser alertado sobre la manipulación, el embajador ruso, Vitali Tchourkine, salió de la sala del Consejo para explicar a la prensa su punto de vista. Los periodistas, a quienes la Cámara de los Comunes del Reino Unido acaba de recordar las mentiras de la señora Power sobre los supuestos crímenes de Muammar el-Kadhafi, reportaron las dos intervenciones.

Ahora, Rusia hará valer su ventaja en el plano diplomático: Estados Unidos ha sido sorprendido en pleno delito de traición. Moscú tendrá por tanto la oportunidad de anunciar, en plena Asamblea General de la ONU, su voluntad de acabar con los yihadistas. La manipulación estadounidense se vuelve, como un boomerang, contra quienes la concibieron.

Washington no tendría más que dos opciones: enfrascarse en una confrontación abierta, que no desea, o aceptar que sus protegidos pierdan la partida.

Parlamentarias rusas: gana Putin

El presidente de la Federación Rusa y líder del Mundo Libre, Vladimir Vladimírovich Putin, ha obtenido una importante victoria en las elecciones parlamentarias celebradas recientemente en ese país. Así lo cuenta el portal informativo Al Manar. Tal vez, la frase más importante sea la última.


Título: Partido pro-Putin arrasa en las elecciones legislativas rusas

Texto: El partido pro-Putin Rusia Unida ha obtenido una aplastante mayoría en la Duma después de las elecciones legislativas del domingo, un resultado saludado por el presidente ruso, Vladimir Putin, que puede ahora prepararse tranquilamente para obtener en 2018 su cuarto mandato presidencial.

Rusia Unida consiguió el 54,3% de los votos, según la Comisión Electoral Central. Esto le permitirá obtener al menos 338 escaños de los 450 en la Duma, la Cámara Baja del Parlamento, frente a los 238 de que disponía anteriormente.

Con más de dos tercios de los diputados, el Kremlin posee ahora un control sin precedentes en la Duma y podría llevar a cabo más fácilmente cambios constitucionales.

“Podemos decir con exactitud que el partido ha obtenido resultado muy bueno”, dijo Putin durante una visita a la sede en Moscú del partido que él contribuyó a crear en 2001, saludando la “creciente madurez política” de los electores rusos.

Este extraordinario resultado avala también la candidatura del presidente ruso para las elecciones presidenciales de 2018, donde él obtendrá su cuarto mandato. El presidente disfruta de un apoyo popular del 80% de los ciudadanos rusos, según las encuestas.

El segundo partido en las elecciones fue el Comunista, que obtuvo un 13,45% de los votos y el tercer lugar fue para el ultranacionalista Partido Liberal Democrático de Rusia, liderado por Vladimir Zhirinovski, que obtuvo el 13,24%. El Partido Una Rusia Justa, de tendencia socialdemócrata, obtuvo un 6,4% de los sufragios.

Los partido liberales de tendencia pro-occidental, que dominaron en la época de Yeltsin, no obtuvieron ni un solo escaño en el Parlamento.


***

Mientras tanto, así intenta ensuciar los resultados de las elecciones en Rusia la prensa corporativa de Occidente. Leemos, por ejemplo, esta nota de Pilar Bonnet (cuándo no) en el diario español El País:


Título: El partido de Putin recupera la mayoría absoluta del Parlamento

Subtítulo: La participación electoral, la más baja en la historia de la Rusia postsoviética, empaña el resultado

Texto: Rusia Unida (RU), el partido de los seguidores de Vladímir Putin, venció en las elecciones a la Duma Estatal (cámara baja del parlamento ruso) y tendrá una mayoría cualificada (con 343 escaños del total de 450) que le permitirá llevar a cabo reformas constitucionales, según los datos provisionales que divulgó este lunes la jefa de la Comisión Electoral Central, Ella Pamfílova, basándose en más del 93% del escrutinio. La participación electoral fue del 47,81%, la más baja en la historia de la Rusia postsoviética, y fue más baja todavía en las grandes ciudades de Moscú y San Petersburgo. RU había perdido la mayoría constitucional en 2011, después de mantenerla desde 2003. En las Legislativas de 2011 participó un 60,21% del electorado ruso.

La Duma Estatal tiene 450 escaños, de los cuales 225 se reparten por el sistema proporcional de listas de partidos y 225 por circunscripción mayoritaria. En la nueva Duma estarán los cuatro partidos que componían el parlamento saliente. Además de RU, cuya lista obtuvo un 54,28% de los votos, permanecerán el Partido Comunista (PCR), el Partido Liberal Democrático del populista Vladímir Zhirinovski (PLDR) y Rusia Justa (RJ). El PCR y el PLDR que a lo largo del recuento compitieron por el segundo puesto, obtuvieron el 13,45 y el 13,24%, respectivamente, y RJ el 6,17%. Yábloko y Parnás, los partidos liberales de corte occidental, obtuvieron resultados que en conjunto sumaban en torno al 2%, es decir muy por debajo del listón del 5% necesario para obtener representación parlamentaria. A tenor de los datos provisionales, en la nueva Duma los comunistas tendrán 42 escaños (35 por lista de partido y 7 por circunscripción mayoritario) y el PLDR, 39 (34 más 5).

El domingo por la noche, el presidente Vladímir Putin junto con el jefe del Gobierno, Dmitri Medvédev, acudió a la sede del partido RU a celebrar la victoria, que ha resultado mayor de lo que pronosticaban los analistas. Medvédev, el cabeza de lista de RU, dio las gracias a Putin en tanto que fundador del partido y Putin, bromeando sobre la frecuencia con la que su imagen aparece en televisión, dijo: “yo me canso de mi mismo”.

El líder del PCR, Guennadi Ziugánov, acusó a las autoridades de falsificar los datos electorales con el fin de situar al partido de Zhirinovski en segundo lugar, por encima de los comunistas. Ziugánov dijo también que los electores habían sido desorientados por otros pequeños partidos, entre ellos uno de comunistas, que habría sido especialmente creado para quitarle votos.

En Moscú y San Petersburgo el porcentaje de votantes se redujo prácticamente a la mitad en relación a los anteriores comicios parlamentarios, celebrados en 2011. A las seis de la tarde, en Moscú había votado 28,62% del electorado y en San Petersburgo, el 25,70%. Los índices mayores de asistencia se daban en regiones donde también se elegían órganos y gobernadores locales. En el Cáucaso, el dirigente local Ramzán Kadírov, lideraba con más del 98 % de los votos (cuando se habían contabilizado el 25%), desafiando así la afirmación de la jefa de la Comisión Electoral Central, quien había dicho que los porcentajes del 90% “no están de moda”. En su conferencia de prensa este lunes, Pamfílova ha recomendado a los partidos insatisfechos (que denuncian pucherazos en distintos lugares) que “contengan sus emociones” y las traduzcan en quejas basadas en hechos documentados. Reconociendo que había habido escaso número de observadores, Pamfílova prometió estudiar todas las quejas basadas en argumentos y hechos y afirmó también que se ha incoado una causa penal por falsificación en un colegio de la provincia de Rostov del Don y que las autoridades de Daguestán y Rostov habían invalidado las elecciones en otros colegios.


***

Finalmente, ofrecemos el análisis siempre interesante del personaje "The Saker" sobre estas mismas elecciones. La nota apareció originalmente en UNZ Review:


Título: Elections to the Russian Duma in 2016: relevant or a waste of time and money?

Texto: Judging by the reactions in the western corporate media, the 2016 elections to the Russian Duma are basically a non-event: evil Putin kept his “grip on power”, all the parties in the Duma are basically under his control and no real opposition was allowed to emerge. Even in Russia, there are some who agree, but for different reasons. They say that everybody knew that United Russia (the party of Putin and Medvedev) would win no matter what and that the entire election was therefore a rather boring event. Actually, there is some truth in all of the above, but this also completely misses the point.


Problem number one: Russia ain’t Switzerland

The single most important thing to understand about Russia is that she is not a western or European country. If the Ukie nationalists like to say that “the Ukraine is Europe”, then I would paraphrase them and say that “Russia is Asia” (the Ukies agree with that, by the way). This is not quite true, in reality Russia is Russia, but it is much closer to the truth than most observers care to admit. In the case of elections, for example, Russia is much more like Japan: she has that mandatory external veneer of democracy, but in reality, the Russian people’s attitude to authority and power is much more similar to the attitude of the Japanese: they understand that the real power and authority in Russia (or Japan) does not really depend on election results and that the real centers of power in these countries are either vested in individuals (such as Putin or the Emperor), or in informal groups of people (state security and business people in Russia, old families and industrialists in Japan).

That does not make elections irrelevant, however, far from it. They are, in fact, a key way to get a sense of what the public opinion and, depending on the outcome, they can send a very powerful message to those who “have ears to hear”.


Problem number two: the real opposition in Russia is not in the Duma, it is in the Kremlin

There is a lot of truth to the accusation that the Duma is just a rubber-stamping club and that all of the parties which made it into the Duma (United Russia, Communists, Liberal Democrats and Fair Russia) are pro-Putin. They are! But that misses the point. The real point is that while United Russia is generally pro-Putin and pro-Medvedev, the other three are very strongly anti-Medvedev, anti-Russian government and, especially, anti-the economic-financial ministers of the Medvedev government. The truth is, the real opposition to Putin is precisely that, the economic-financial ministers of the Medvedev government and all the factions which they represent: bankers, IMF-drones, corrupt businessmen from the 1990s who hate Putin because he does not allow them to steal like in the past, all the ex-Nomenklatura and their kids who made a killing in the 1990s and whose heart is in the West, the Atlantic Integrationists à la Kudrin who are basically “Washington consensus types” and who hate the Russian people for voting for Putin. That is the real opposition and that opposition is far more dangerous than the US and NATO combined. And for that opposition the result of the elections are a crushing defeat. Why?

Because besides the hyper-official “power party” United Russia, all the other parties in the Duma are far more anti-capitalist and anti-American than Putin. For the Empire, “United Russia” is as good as it will ever get. Any alternative will be far, far worse.

As for the overtly pro-US political parties (like PARNAS or Iabloko), they barely got 3% together, way less than the minimum of 5% (for each party) that they needed to get into the Duma. This basically confirm what I always said: there are no real pro-US forces in Russia, none.

What does this all mean? Simple:

The Russian people got a rubber-stamping Duma, which is exactly what they wanted!

Maybe this is not great in terms of “democracy”, but in terms of real “people power” this is a fantastic result.

What about the turnout? Does the roughly 48% (provisional figure) participation indicate that the boycott proclaimed by some liberals worked? Hardly. For one thing, this level of participation is actually pretty good, ssimilar to what Swiss parliamentary elections typically score. Furthermore, a lot of United Russia voters were so sure of their overwhelming victory that they did not even bother to vote. Had they shown up the United Russia score would have been even bigger.

What about fraud? Yes, there were instances, but since the new system makes it possible to for every citizen to monitor every single polling station live, they were rapidly caught and dealt with. To its great chagrin, even the OSCE had to give these elections a “mixed review” which in plain English translates into “oh shit, we ain’t got nothing!”.


Conclusions:

These elections were a huge personal victory for Vladimir Putin. Conversely, they are a major faceplant for the Atlantic Integrationists and the AngloZionist Empire. This was also the ultimate proof that the idiotic western plan to destabilize Putin by means of economic sanctions has had the exact opposite effect, thank you: the Russians have circled their wagons around their President and the mood in Russia is one of extreme resolve.

There is one risk for Putin here, but it is minor. The electoral system in Russia means that while the United Russia party got something in the range of 54% of the votes, it will take 238 343 seats out of 450, giving it a comfortable absolute majority. Some observers say that if things do not go well and if the economic crisis does not get better, the Kremlin (both Putin and Medvedev) will not be able to blame it all on the Duma. This is true, but this is also no big deal. First, both Putin and Medvedev can always blame the West for everything even when, like in the case of the frankly idiotic economic policies of the Russian government, even if, in reality, it is the Russian government which is entirely responsible for the crisis and when the West’s sanctions are having only a minor effect on the situation. But far more relevantly, United Russia is not really-really Putin’s party. His *real* party is not a party at all, but rather a movement, the All-Russia People’s Front or “ONF” (I described that organization and its role here: http://thesaker.is/is-putin-preparing-a-governmental-purge). Should things get really tough or should the Atlantic Integrationists try to overthrow Putin during, say, an extraordinary United Russia Congress, Putin would just have to turn the ONF into a regular political party, blame the 5th column for the attempt at regime change and crack down on his opponents with the full support of the Russian people.

The truth is simple: Putin personally and the interests he represents have never been more powerful than today. The overwhelming majority of the Russian people are fully behind the Kremlin and the writing on the wall for the Empire is simple: “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate”!

La cumbre de la mezquindad

Thierry Meyssan resume hoy en Red Voltaire los resultados de la reciente cumbre europea de Bratislava. "La Unión Europea opta por el estancamiento", concluye. Pasen y vean:


Título: Bratislava: la cumbre de la mezquindad

Epígrafe: Los 27 países que aún quieren mantenerse en la Unión Europea acaban de realizar en Bratislava (Eslovaquia) una reunión cumbre sin la participación del Reino Unido. Supuestamente iban a reflexionar juntos sobre su proyecto común, pero se limitaron a retomar las mismas cantinelas que todo el mundo conoce. El mundo está cambiando. El Reino Unido se adapta a ese proceso de cambio. La Unión Europea opta por el estancamiento.

Texto: Tres meses después de la decisión de los electores británicos de salir de la Unión Europea, los jefes de Estado y de gobierno de esa entidad –con excepción del primer ministro del Reino Unido– acaban de reunirse en Bratislava con intenciones de dar un nuevo impulso a la UE.

Se esperaba de ellos una reflexión sobre los factores que condujeron al Brexit y sobre lo que habría que hacer con la Unión Europea. Pero no fue eso lo que sucedió en Bratislava. Los 27 países miembros de la UE se limitaron a mencionar lo que pudiera acelerar la disolución de esa entidad regional mientras que se hablaba del terrorismo sin entender que ese peligro es de carácter interno, mientras que Alemania y Francia desenterraban nuevamente el proyecto de creación de un ejército común y mientras que Jean-Claude Juncker defendía los intereses de los banqueros de Luxemburgo.

En el momento del Brexit, explicamos en estas columnas que Buckingham Palace y un sector influyente de la clase dirigente británica deseaban distanciarse de Washington y acercarse a China en el plano económico y a Rusia en el plano militar [1]. Pero Downing Street no ha mostrado ninguna de sus cartas y mantiene en secreto sus intenciones hasta la apertura de las negociaciones con vista a la salida de la Unión Europea.

Sin embargo, Londres ha dado dos pasos importantes en materia de política internacional. Primeramente, la publicación del informe de la comisión Chilcot sobre la guerra contra Irak y del informe de la comisión de la Cámara de los Comunes sobre la guerra contra Libia. El informe de la comisión Chilcot sobre la guerra contra Irak, redactado en 2009-2010, dormía desde hace años en una gaveta. El informe de la Cámara de los Comunes sobre la guerra contra Libia data de este verano. Ambos informes critican el alineamiento de Downing Street con la política de la Casa Blanca, primeramente bajo el mandato del laborista Tony Blair y después bajo el mandato del conservador David Cameron. En un estilo netamente británico, los autores de ambos informes ponen de relieve la inutilidad de ambas guerras y resaltan las mentiras que permitieron justificarlas. Pero no dicen ni una palabra sobre los acuerdos secretos entre Londres y Washington, ni sobre el papel del MI6 en la fabricación de esas mentiras. Los secretos deben seguir siendo secretos. En todo caso, esos informes ponen fin a la actual versión de la «relación especial» entre Gran Bretaña y Estados Unidos.

Pero los jefes de Estado y de gobierno de la Unión Europea parece que no han leído esos informes y no se plantearon por tanto la interrogante de saber lo que planea Londres. Algunos incluso aseguraron que los británicos acabarán renunciando a salir de la Unión Europea si los presionan lo suficiente durante las negociaciones del Brexit.

Todos advirtieron a Angela Merkel contra la organización de una segunda oleada de migrantes y repitieron que están dispuestos a aplicar las medidas ya tomadas para impedirla. Pero nadie preguntó si la primera ola de migrantes bastará para resolver el problema demográfico de Alemania o si Berlín cree que tendrá que organizar un segundo acto, como había anunciado anteriormente.

Lo cierto es que si Berlín reedita la operación de los migrantes, las amenazas de los otros 26 miembros de la Unión Europea contra Alemania no serán más que palabras al viento. El primer ministro de Luxemburgo –o sea, el sucesor de Jean-Claude Juncker en ese cargo– propuso la exclusión de Hungría, que se niega a aceptar su cuota de refugiados. ¡Curiosa manera de evitar la disolución de la UE!

Los participantes en la cumbre de Bratislava se plantean tres  proyectos [2]:

- Primeramente, en materia de lucha contra el terrorismo, poner cuidado en no permitir que cualquiera entre en Europa. Se trata de una necesidad evidente, pero eso no resolverá el problema dado el hecho que gran parte de los terroristas son… europeos. La UE sigue sin tener ningún tipo de reflexión sobre el terrorismo de masas que hoy se observa en el «Medio Oriente ampliado», ni sobre las contadas acciones terroristas que le han tocado en su propio territorio. Nadie se ha molestado en leer los libros estratégicos del Emirato Islámico (Daesh), comoAdministración de la barbarie, y ni ha observado por tanto que la manera actual de luchar contra el terrorismo es precisamente lo que los terroristas quieren que haga la UE.

- En segundo lugar, el proyecto de ejército común europeo se discutirá en la cumbre de diciembre. Ese proyecto recuerda el proyecto de Comunidad Europea de Defensa (CED) de los años 1950 que supuestamente uniría a Francia, Alemania Occidental (RFA) y los miembros del Benelux. En aquella época –o sea en el contexto de la guerra de Corea–, París se oponía al rearme de Alemania Occidental pero era favorable a la integración de un ejército “alemán occidental” en el seno de un ejército común. Aquel proyecto nunca llegó a concretarse porque fue rechazado en París por una alianza conformada por los gaullistas y los comunistas franceses. Hoy existe de nuevo un ejército alemán que incluso ha desplegado unidades que participan en operaciones de «mantenimiento de la paz» sin que París se oponga. En el contexto actual, caracterizado por las guerras de Siria y del Donbass, la Unión Europea finge creer que existe una amenaza de invasión rusa. Hace año y medio, la UE se dotó de una East StratCom Task, o sea un discreto buró de propaganda anti-rusa que “alimenta” a miles de periodistas con sus “informaciones”. Como en 1954, es evidente que ese proyecto responde a los deseos de Estados Unidos de enrolar a los europeos en próximas guerras. Y no sería sorprendente que ahora encuentre la oposición del Reino Unido post-Brexit.

- Para terminar, en 2017 se desarrollaría el Fondo Europeo de Inversiones Estratégicas. Ese fondo se conoce a través del «plan Juncker». En realidad es un viejo proyecto del Banco Europeo de Inversiones (BEI), institución que también tiene su sede en ese paraíso fiscal que es Luxemburgo. Ese fondo no ha hecho otra cosa que acrecentar los medios de la BEI y su burocracia. En realidad, si ha reactivado las inversiones en Europa ha sido sólo marginalmente y, paradójicamente, ha acentuado los desequilibrios. Por ejemplo, casi no intervino en Grecia, el país que más lo necesitaba, pero eso no es lo que interesa a los banqueros, que sólo ven a Grecia como un deudor.

En definitiva, la cumbre de Bratislava mostró la voluntad de los 27 miembros de la Unión Europea de no cambiar absolutamente nada. Según ellos, todo puede seguir como antes, con tal de que Alemania no traiga más migrantes. Así que Europa puede continuar su «lucha contra el terrorismo» viéndolo desarrollarse, puede seguir preparándose para seguir dócilmente las órdenes de Estados Unidos en la próxima guerra que Washington decida convocar y dejar que los banqueros decidan sobre nuestras inversiones.


Notas:   
    
[1] «El Brexit redistribuye las cartas de la geopolítica mundial»; «La nueva política exterior británica», por Thierry Meyssan, Red Voltaire, 27 de junio y 4 de julio de 2016.

[2] «Declaración de Bratislava».

Mensaje a Occidente: tomen la píldora roja o prepárense

La siguente nota es una entrevista de Katherine Frisk publicada recientemente en The International Reporter. En ella se vuelve sobre el tema de la estrategia del Imperio para con Rusia. El entrevistado es el bloguero ruso conocido como "The Saker". Acá va:

Título: Take The Red Pill Or Fight World War 3. – Interview With The Saker

Prólogo: Only those with their head in the sand are not aware that NATO, the western allies and the Wall Street bankers are determined to follow a course that will lead to World War 3. With Russia in particular and any other country that stands in their way. In a recent interview Vladimir Putin chided western journalists for the false narratives that are being published in the Main Stream Media press. He said:

 “We know year by year what’s going to happen, and they know that we know. It’s only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. You people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger – this is what worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don’t know how to get through to you anymore.”

More recently the highly respected film director Oliver Stone said:

 “We’re going to war — either hybrid in nature to break the Russian state back to its 1990s subordination, or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this, but they don’t because our media is dumbed down in its “Pravda”-like support for our “respectable,” highly aggressive government.”

What I would like to do in this interview is focus on cycles of time, repetitive narratives from one century to the next that replay over and over again like the film Groundhog Day. This is in a sense, a Matrix with the myth, the story line passed on from one generation to the next, and each generation in turn performs the same stage show. As Shakespeare said, ‘each has their entrances and their exits.”

On the 9th of May 2015, Russia celebrated the Victory over Nazi Germany in World War 2. Saker wrote the most touching and deeply moving article Something truly amazing happened today and I quote:

“Defense Minister Shoigu made the sign of the Cross before the beginning of the celebrations: This is an absolutely momentous moment for Russia.  Never in the past history had any Russian Minister of Defense done anything like it.  True, the old tradition was to make the sign of the Cross when passing under the Kremlin’s Savior Tower, if only because there is an icon of the Savior right over the gate.  However, everybody in Russia immediately understood that there was much more to this gesture than an external compliance to an ancient tradition.

The Russian journalist Victor Baranets puts it very well when he wrote:

”At that moment I felt that with his simple gesture Shoigu brought all of Russia to his feet.  There was so much kindness, so much hope, so much of our Russian sense of the sacred [in this gesture]“.  

He is absolutely correct.  To see this Tuvan Buddhist make the sign of the Cross in the Orthodox manner sent an electric shock through the Russian blogosphere: everybody felt that something amazing had happened.”

Saker  also pointed out: “For centuries Russian soldiers have knelt and asked for God’s blessing, before going into battle and this is, I believe, what Shoigu did today.  He knows that 2015 will be the year of the big war between Russia and the Empire (even if, due to the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides, this war will remain 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% military)”

Entrevista: So let’s go back to World War 2. Almost 30 million Russians died during that war. That is almost half of the total number of people killed on both sides, military and civilian from 1939 to 1945. A horrific figure that is not often quoted in western media or history books.

Question: What parallels do you see between Russia in 2016 and over 70 years ago?

Saker: The most disturbing and frightening parallel which I see between, say, 1938 and 2016 is the total arrogance and sense of superiority of the leaders of the Western world.  I know that this will sound crazy to many because Russians and Europeans are supposed to be of the same “race”, but my entire life experience has brought me to the conclusion that many, maybe most, westerners are deeply racist towards Russians, even if it is at an unconscious level.

Most westerners are deeply convinced that western civilization is the pinnacle of mankind and that while others have their good and even interesting features, westerners are still the most sophisticated, developed, evolved, refined, skilled, etc. and that those who do not belong to that so-called “western civilization” are inherently inferior, even if exotic or even charming.

Now think of Russia which was born from a rejection of the West (rejection of the Papacy in favor the the traditional Christianity of the early Church) and which then beat back wave after wave after wave of western invaders, be it military, or cultural or political.  This adds to the element of fear and the already existing racism and results in a deep seated phobia of everything truly Russian.

There is only one type of Russia which the West likes: a weak, subjugated, bleeding, disorganized and poor Russia to which the western Herrenvolk  can send humanitarian aid, advisors and other “bearers of civilization” (just like Hitler’s Kulturträgers)  to the eastern masses of Untermenschen.

You think that I am exaggerating?  Look at the way the American leaders are trying to treat Russia: like some kind of bad boy who did wrong and who must now face the consequences of his bad behavior.  The fact that all that grandstanding and lecturing has zero effect on the Kremlin or the Russian people does not seem to dissuade the Empire’s rulers who now sound like a broken record.  But this goes far beyond just leaders. There is a cultural, moral and even technological assumption of Russian inferiority which permeates the entire political discourse in the West.  This is why when a US built Boeing or a European built Airbus crashes the media speaks of a Boeing or Airbus crash. But when a Russian aircraft crashes, it is always a Russian built Antonov or Russian built Ilyushin which crashes, as if that explained anything.

This is one of the reasons why the folks in the West simply cannot wrap their minds around the current day reality that the Russian armed forces are substantially superior and generally more capable than their western counterparts.  Right now, not only does Russia have better submarines, better tanks, better aircraft, better air defense system, better electronic warfare, better artillery, better tactical missiles, etc but also a far better infantryman. True, the Russians are behind in other fields (surface ships, communications, satellite technology, etc.) and the superior Russian systems are only being introduced now and are still few in numbers, but they are more than enough to make it impossible for the US/NATO/EU to militarily “defeat” Russia in any conceivable conflict.

So what I see is this: the West is on a collision course with Russia and yet nobody seems to discuss this and when they do, they express all the confident optimism of a drunken idiot who wants to take on a Grizzly bear in a fist fight: the bear might not show any reaction until the drunken idiot jumps over the fence, but once he enters the bear’s territory his life expectancy will be measured in seconds.

An infinite arrogance which completely blinds the western leaders to the immense risks of their policies is what I see in common between 1938 and 2016.  And I find that very, very frightening.  There is also a major difference: in 1938 Russia was not ready for war and the regime in power did not enjoy anywhere near the 80%+ Putin enjoys today.  But today Russia is ready for war, it seems that at least 80% of the talkshows are about the confrontation with the West and the risks of war, while the military is almost constantly involved in very large scale strategic exercises preparing for major war.

On all levels, the Russian society is being prepared for war while in the West, nobody seems to be paying any attention to this (other than absolutely imbecile talks about a Russian invasion of Latvia or Estonia…).  There is also a consensus in Russia that if Hillary gets into the White House the chance of a real war will sharply go up.  I agree with that assessment.

_______________________________________

Katherine: 2017 will be the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. What most people are unaware of, is that the same Wall Street bankers who funded the 2014 Ukrainian coup and funded Hitler in World War 2, even though the USA was supposedly on the side of the Allies, were the same group of people who funded Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks. To quote from The Creature From Jekyell Island:

The cartoon “..portrays Karl Marx with a book entitled Socialism under his arm, standing amid a cheering crowd on Wall Street. Gathered around and greeting him with enthusiastic handshakes are characters in silk hats identified as John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, Morgan partner George W. Perkins and Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

What emerges from this sampling of events is a clear pattern of strong support for Bolshevism coming from the highest financial and political power centers in the United States; from men, who supposedly were “capitalists” and who according to conventional wisdom should have been the mortal enemies of socialism and communism.”

I have heard from other sources that somewhere around 100 million people died under the Bolsheviks between 1917 and 1939, or is that an exaggeration?

Question: Why did the USA, a country that supposedly believes in freedom and democracy, support communism in Russia?  Their anti-communist stance was after all, the raison d’être for funding wars, coups and revolutions to overthrow communist inclined governments in South America, Africa, Europe and other countries around the world through overt and covert CIA and Operation Gladio involvement for the next 100 years, and replace them with fascist military dictatorships. (A few examples Brazil – Branco; Chile- Pinochett; Argentina- Videla; Indonesia- Suharto; Congo- Sese Seko; Greece’s – “reign of the colonels”; Zimbabwe-Mugabe;) What political and economic parallels do you see from 100 years ago that are applicable today?

Saker: First, the issue of the real number of victims of the Communist regime in Russia is an extremely contentious one.  Those interested could look at this article where I touched upon this issue.  I think that the 100 million people figure is absolutely ridiculous, that is for sure.  The real figures are much much less than that, but they are still horrible and should not be dismissed either.  Frankly, this is an issue for historians to decide and I don’t find it helpful to insist on a specific figure.  What we can say for sure is that the victims of the Bolshevik regime were counted in the millions, that is for sure.  This “in the millions” is both safe enough and vague enough to be useful for discussion purposes, especially when covering the entire period from 1917 to 1991.

Second, US Jewish bankers did finance and support Trotsky just as the British supported Lenin.  The former did that as an act of revenge against and hatred for Russia due to what they perceived as the anti-Jewish policies of the Russian Czars.  The latter wanted to subvert Russia from the inside to weaken her on the outside.  This is pretty straightforward.

The concepts of “Freedom and Democracy” versus “Communism” were always just facades, a facade to make the US imperialism look noble and a facade to justify interventions worldwide.

What is taking place today is not very different: we do have an imperial financial system which seeks to subvert Russia from the inside to make her weak on the international stage.  We also have US Jews, now rebranded as “Neocons”, pursuing a hate-based racist crusade against Russia as an act of revenge for what they perceive was the anti-Jewish policies of the Soviet Union, especially under Stalin.  Those interested can read about this here: http://thesaker.is/how-a-medieval-concept-of-ethnicity-makes-nato-commit-yet-another-a-dangerous-blunder.

So just as we had an AngloZionist conspiracy against Russia 100 years ago we have a different variant of the same AngloZionist conspiracy today.  What changed most over the past century is the rest of the planet, especially the emergence of China and the general collapse of the EU.

__________________________________

Katherine: Now let’s go back to over 200 years ago. The  Patriotic War of 1812 when Napoleon invaded Russia. He had as allies the Duchy of Warsaw, Kingdom of Italy, Naples, Confederation of the Rhine, Baden, Bavaria, Berg, Saxony, Westphalia, Austria, Prussia, Swiss Confederation, Napoleonic Spain, Denmark–Norway.

That was a formidable united front against one country. The line up looks very similar to the current European Union and the NATO allies today.

Question: Who funded this army and why? And what parallels do you see 100 years later with World War 1 ,the Bolshevik Revolution, World War 2 and the current tinder box that Russia and Europe find themselves in 2016?

Saker: You are right, this all looks very similar doesn’t it?  I would just toss in the Crimea war, which I like to call the “Grand Ecumenist War” against Russia in which you had secular Freemasons, Papists, Protestants and Ottoman Muslims all united against Orthodox Russia.

The main reason for the regular re-emergence of anti-Russian coalition is the mistaken belief in the West that there is safety in numbers.  The Russians know the exact opposite: in military terms, coalitions suck.  Badly.  The western leaders are fundamentally cowards who rule over people who have long lost the warrior-culture which is so central to any society which can stand up and defend itself, even against a superior enemy. The people in the West have come to believe that high-tech wins wars and they have forgotten that what wins wars is not high tech, but willpower and the help of God.  Those interested in this topic can read this article.

The main advantage the US had over, for example, the Iraqis was the fact that they succeeded in convincing Iraqi of the futility of resisting the almighty USA.  But with nations and cultures like Russia, Iran, Hezbollah or even Vietnam, the USA is faced with an enemy who is not at all convinced of the US superiority and who is willing, sincerely and truly willing, to die for his country and people.  That is something which the US military has never learned how to cope with.

And then, consider this: during WWI Russia imploded due to the combined effects of the February and October revolutions.  During WWII, the Soviet regime was largely unpopular and much of the ruling elites were themselves russophobic (this would change during the course of the war).

But today Russia is united.  And ready in military and civilians terms.  Even Russian banks have recently completed a series of exercises on how to continue to function in case of war.  Will the West try again, one last time or will cool heads prevail in the West?  I don’t know.

____________________________________

Katherine: Now let’s go back to almost 1,000 years ago. I first interviewed Saker in July 2015. Orthodox Christianity is by and large not understood in the West, least of all by me at the time, though I am learning. Saker enlightened both my readers and myself in  An Insight Into Orthodox Christianity (https://theinternationalreporter.org/2015/07/01/an-insight-into-orthodox-christianity-interview-with-the-saker/).

Another very informative article that he wrote was : Another Crusade? : Ukrainian nationalism – its roots and nature (https://theinternationalreporter.org/2015/06/22/another-crusade-ukrainian-nationalism-its-roots-and-nature-2), in February 2014 during the coup in Kiev and the beginnings of the outbreak in the civil war between western Ukraine and eastern Ukraine. In that article he went back to 1204, Pope Innocent III, the fourth crusade and the sacking of Constantinople by mercenaries who were funded by the Jewish Del Banco bankers in Venice. He said:

“Most people mistakenly believe that the Crusades only happened in the Middle-East and that they were only directed at Islam.  This is false.  In fact, while the official excuse for western imperialism at that time was to free the city of Jerusalem from the “Muslim infidels” the crusades also were aimed at either exterminating or converting the “Greek schismatics” i.e. the Orthodox Christians.  The most notorious episode of this anti-Orthodox crusade is the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, during the 4th Crusade, in which the city was subjected to three days of absolutely grotesque pillaging, looting and massacres by the western “Christians” who even looted and burned down Orthodox churches, monasteries and convents, raped nuns on church altars and even placed a prostitute on the Patriarchal throne.  This outpouring of genocidal hatred was hardly a fluke, but it was one of the earliest manifestation of something which would become a central feature of the mindset and ideology of the Latin Church.

1242 – The Northern Crusades of Pope Gregory IX:

Unlike his predecessor who directed his soldiers towards the Holy Land, Pope Gregory IX had a very different idea: he wanted to convert the “pagans” of the North and East of Europe to the “true faith”.  In his mind, Orthodox Russia was part of these “pagan lands” and Orthodox Christians were pagans too.  His order to the Teutonic Knights (the spiritual successors of the Franks who had pillaged and destroyed Rome) was to either convert or kill all the pagans they would meet (this genocidal order was very similar to the one given by Ante Pavelic to his own forces against the Serbs during WWII: convert, kill or expel).  In most history books Pope Gregory IX has earned himself a name by instituting the Papal Inquisition (which has never been abolished, by the way), so it is of no surprise that this gentleman was in no mood to show any mercy to the “Greek schismatics”.  This time, however, the Pope’s hordes were met by a formidable defender: Prince Alexander Nevsky.”

Today what was the Byzantine Empire and Orthodox Christian Russia is currently under attack by Daesh, or commonly known as ISIS. Syria has some of the oldest Orthodox Christian communities in the world going back to the 1st century A.D. who still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus. Russia in turn, since September 2015, has given President Assad full military support in fighting these terrorists.

Question: What parallels do you see almost 1000 years ago, including the vast tapestry of The Patriot War of 1812, World War 1 ,the Bolshevik Revolution, World War 2 and the current situation that could very well lead the whole world into World War 3?

Saker: The West has always been more than happy to try to use Islam against Russia, there is nothing new here.  This is the old divide and rule technique – the Russians and the Muslims fight each other down to the last Russian and Muslim and then we, the western 1%er will finally get to rule the world unopposed.

In a way, Islam and Russia present a very similar type of threat not only to the West’s international and financial order, but also to the western social, political and moral order too.  Both Russia and Islam present an alternative civilizational model, one which is based on values fundamentally different to the ones truly underlying the western political order.

I would argue that China and Latin America also have this potential, that they are developing it right now, but that they have not yet reached the “political escape velocity” to openly dare reject the West with it’s so-called ‘values’.

This is why pitting Muslims against Russia and vice-versa is so important for the Empire.  I would say that to some degree, this has been an effective policy with the Srebrenica pseudo-genocide as a cornerstone, but this policy is now hitting a number of walls.

The first one is that the Muslim world is extremely diverse and hard to unite.  Next to Wahabi liver-eaters you will find a myriad of other non-Wahabi Sunnis, Shia, Sufis who all reject the Wahabi model and for whom the Wahabi model is, in fact, no less a mortal threat than for non-Muslims.

Second, people like Vladimir Putin, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Nursultan Nazarbaev, Ramzan Kadyrov, Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar Assad and many others are seeing through the Empire’s ploy and are refusing to be baited by it.  Historically, the Ottomans have always been a rabid and even genocidal enemy of Orthodoxy, and the modern Saudi-inspired Wahabis are no better, but the rest of the Islamic world is objectively an ally of Russia just as Russia is an objective ally of the Islamic world.

Both sides here need to “clean house”: the Russians need to free themselves from the toxic influence of the pro-US Atlantic Integrationists inside the Kremlin and “liberal” supporters in Russia (less than 5% of the population) and the Sunni Muslims need to sever their often too cozy ties with both the Wahabis and the Ottomans.

This process has already begun in Russia and I have high hopes that it will also take place inside the Muslim world.

____________________________________________

Katherine: Last question. Do you think Europe and Russia will ever reach the stage where they abandon the script, take the red pill, escape the matrix and walk away from this repetitive groundhog dog narrative that has been so destructive to so many people for over 1,000 years?

Saker: Yes, of course this is possible, even likely, but only in the future.  For that to happen the Europeans need to liberate themselves from the ideological claws of the AngloZionists and their propaganda machine.

Second, the Europeans need to give up their artificial European identify and see themselves for what they really are: north Europeans, Central Europeans, Eastern Europeans and Mediterranean Europeans. The Mediterranean one, is one which is especially dear to me and it immensely saddens me that it is now diluted into this ridiculous and faceless “EU European” pseudo-identity.

Furthermore, a new European identify, far more diverse and religious than today, will eventually have to emerge from the chaos following the collapse of the EU.  At this point in time, the Europeans might possibly re-embrace their racist and imperialist worldview, but I doubt it.  I find it much more likely that Europe will give up its dreams of grandeur and embrace a much more low-key but human worldview which will accept diversity and pluralism without feeling threatened.

Last, but most definitely not least, the entire capitalist economic model and ideology will have to be replaced with a sustainable and socially civilized economic model.  This will take time, a lot of time, but I don’t see Europe, or the US, for that matter, sustaining their current delusional policies forever and ever.

Eventually reality, in the form of a Russian missile or simply of massive economic collapse, does catch up to everybody, no matter how deep their delusions.

In truth, in its 1000 years long history (yes, modern Europe was born in the Middle-Ages, not from the Roman or Greek civilizations) the Western civilization has shown itself to be both magnificent and abhorrent.  It is sometimes hard to believe that J.S. Bach and Adolf Hitler were born of the same civilization, but it is true.

The peoples of Europe will have to find their way, a new way, from these contradictions and this will be hard, but the good news is that if they give up their messianic delusions they will have the rest of mankind as an ally and a friend.