Military Review

Article by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov “On the Right Side of History”, published in The Huffington Post, 15 June 2012,

28
Article by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov “On the Right Side of History”, published in The Huffington Post, 15 June 2012,

In the past year and a half, events taking place in North Africa and the Middle East have come to the forefront of world politics. They are often called the most prominent phenomenon of international life in the new XXI century. The fragility of authoritarian regimes in Arab countries and the likelihood of sociopolitical upheavals have long been noted by experts. However, the scale and rapidity of the wave of change in the region was really difficult to predict. Along with the accumulation of crisis phenomena in the world economy, these events became one of the most obvious signs that the process of the formation of a new international system entered the zone of turbulence.

With the growth of mass social movements in the countries of the region, the topic of which line should be chosen by interested external players and the international community as a whole has become increasingly relevant. In numerous expert discussions on this topic, and then in practical actions of states and international organizations, two main approaches emerged - to help the Arab peoples themselves determine their own destiny or, using the softening of the previously overly harsh power structures, to try to "blind" the new political reality at their own discretion . The situation continues to evolve rapidly, and it is important that those who are most dependent on the progress of affairs in the region finally join forces, and do not continue to pull in different directions, like the characters of the famous fable I. Krylov.

I will try to summarize the arguments that I have repeatedly had to express in connection with the evolution of the situation in the Middle East region. First, Russia, like the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world, is on the side of the Arab peoples in their quest for a better life, democracy and prosperity, ready to contribute to these efforts. That is why we, in particular, supported the initiative of the Deauville Partnership at the G8 summit in France. We strongly oppose the use of violence during the transformations taking place in the Arab states, especially against the civilian population. We understand that transformations in society are complex and, as a rule, a lengthy process that almost never takes place without serious consequences.

Russia — perhaps better than most other states — knows the true price of revolutions. We are aware that revolutionary changes are always associated not only with a rollback in socio-economic development, but also with human sacrifice and suffering. That is why we support the evolutionary, peaceful way to bring about urgent changes in the Middle East and North Africa region.

The question arises - what to do if the “showdown” between the authorities and the opposition nevertheless assumed a violent, armed character? The answer seems obvious - external players must do everything in their power to stop the bloodshed and ensure a compromise with the participation of all parties involved in the conflict. In deciding whether to support resolution 1970 of the UN Security Council and not opposing the approval of resolution 1973 on the Libyan problem, we proceeded from the assumption that these solutions will limit the possibilities of excessive use of force and open the way to a political settlement. Unfortunately, the actions of the NATO countries to implement these resolutions resulted in their gross violation and in support of one of the parties in the civil war in order to overthrow the existing regime, damaging the authority of the Security Council.
There is hardly any need to explain to people experienced in politics that “the devil is in the details” and rude power solutions are in most cases not capable of ensuring a lasting and lasting settlement. And in modern conditions, characterized by the repeated complication of international relations, the futility of the use of force to overcome conflicts has become apparent. There is no need to go far for examples. This is both a difficult situation in Iraq and a crisis in Afghanistan that is far from being resolved. There is a lot of evidence that things are not going smoothly in Libya after the overthrow of M. Gaddafi. A wave of instability rolled further along the Sahara-Sahel region, the situation in Mali sharply aggravated.
And Egypt, where the change of power was without major outbreaks of violence, and H. Mubarak, who ruled the country for more than three decades, voluntarily left the presidential palace soon after the start of mass protests, is still far from a safe coast. In particular, reports of the growing number of sectarian clashes and violations of the rights of the Christian minority cannot but cause concern.

The grounds, in general, are more than enough so that with regard to the most acute situation in the region today - the Syrian crisis - to approach as carefully as possible. It is clear that after what happened in Libya, it was impossible to follow the path of making insufficiently clear decisions of the UN Security Council, leaving the "free hand" to their performers. Any mandate issued on behalf of the entire international community should be as clear and specific as possible, leaving no room for ambiguous interpretation. Therefore, it is important to understand what is actually happening in Syria and how can this country be helped to overcome the current difficult phase in its stories.

Unfortunately, a qualified honest analysis of the events in Syria and their possible consequences is still in short supply. Often it is replaced by a cheap popular picture, black and white propaganda clichés. Leading world media for months replicated the thesis of a corrupt dictatorial regime, ruthlessly overwhelming impulse of their own people to freedom and democracy. At the same time, the authors of the reports did not seem to be bothered by the question of how the government, which has no support among the population, has managed to remain in power for more than a year, despite the extensive sanctions imposed by its main economic partners? Why did the majority of voters vote for the new draft constitution proposed by the authorities? Why, finally, retains the loyalty of their commanders, the bulk of the Syrian soldiers? If only fear explains everything, then why didn't he help other authoritarian rulers?

We have repeatedly stated that Russia is not the defender of the current regime in Damascus, it has no political, economic or other reasons for this - after all, we have never been the leading trade and economic partner of this country, whose leaders communicated mainly with Western European capitals. We are no worse than others, seeing that the Syrian leadership bears the main responsibility for the crisis that has engulfed the country, it did not take the path of reform in time, did not draw conclusions from the deepest changes taking place in international relations. All this is right. But really, and more. Syria is a multi-confessional state, besides the Sunni Muslims and Shiites, there are Alawites, Orthodox and Christians of other faiths, Druze, Kurds. At the same time, during the secular Baathist rule over the past few decades, the principle of freedom of conscience was implemented in Syria, and representatives of religious minorities fear that this tradition could be broken if the regime is broken.
When we say that these concerns must be heard and tried to be dispelled, we are sometimes accused of almost anti-Sunni and generally anti-Islamic sentiments. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Russia, various confessions peacefully coexist for centuries, leading among them are Orthodox and Muslims. Our country has never waged colonial wars in the Arab world, but on the contrary, has consistently supported the independence of the Arab peoples and their right to independent development. And, by the way, is not responsible for the consequences of colonial rule, during which the social texture of society was changed, which often led to the emergence of lines of tension, which still manifest themselves today. It's about something else. If some part of society has concerns about the possibility of discrimination on the basis of religion and nationality, then these people should be given the necessary guarantees in accordance with the generally accepted international standards in the humanitarian sphere.

As regards the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in the Middle Eastern states there have traditionally existed and there are quite a few serious problems - this was one of the main reasons for the current “Arab revolutions”. Syria, however, historically was not the last in this ranking, and the degree of citizens' freedom there was immeasurably higher than in some of those countries whose rulers are trying today to give Damascus democracy lessons. In a recent issue, the French Le Monde Diplomatic led to a chronicle of human rights acts of a major Middle Eastern state, including, in particular, the execution of death sentences by 76 only during the 2011 year, including on charges of witchcraft. If our goal really is to promote respect for human rights in the Middle East, then let's say it openly. If the main thing we want is to stop the bloodshed, then this is what we need to do, that is, we must first achieve a cease-fire and help start an inclusive, all-Syrian dialogue in order to develop the Syrian formula for overcoming the crisis peacefully.

Russia called for this from the very beginning of unrest in Syria. We, as I think, and to everyone who has enough information about this country, it was clear that the demand for the immediate departure of B. Assad despite the will of that considerable part of Syrian society, which continues to associate its security and well-being with the current regime, means pushing Syria into the abyss of a protracted and bloody civil war. The role of responsible external players should be to help the Syrians avoid this, to ensure that the political power system in Syria is reformed in an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, way through a national dialogue, and not by force from outside.

In the real circumstances of today's Syria, an orientation towards unilateral support of the opposition, and even more so only its most militant part, does not lead to the rapid achievement of peace in this country, and therefore contradicts the tasks of protecting civilians. It seems to be dominated by aspirations to achieve a regime change in Damascus as part of a large regional geopolitical game. Undoubtedly, Iran takes into account these developments, and a wide conglomerate of states, including the United States and NATO countries, Israel, Turkey, and some countries in the region, has become interested in weakening its regional positions.

Today, they talk a lot about the prospect of a military strike on Iran. I have repeatedly stressed that such a choice would have dire, disastrous consequences. It is still impossible to cut the knot of accumulated problems in one fell swoop. In this connection, we can recall that at one time the US military invasion of Iraq was announced as a “golden chance” to quickly and decisively reshape the political and economic realities of the “big Middle East”, turning it into a region that embarked on the development path “on the European model ".

But even if we abstract away from the situation around Iran, it is obvious that the unwinding of the internal Syrian civil strife can trigger processes that would have a very negative effect on the vast surrounding space, which would have a serious destructive impact not only on regional, but also on international security . Risk factors include the loss of control over the Syrian-Israeli border, the complication of the situation in Lebanon and other countries in the region, weapons into “unwanted hands”, including terrorist organizations, and, perhaps most dangerous of all, the aggravation of interfaith contradictions and contradictions within the Islamic world.

* * *

In his book The Clash of Civilizations, published back in the nineties, S. Huntington noticed a tendency to increase the significance of the factor of civilization, religious identity in the era of globalization, convincingly demonstrating the relative reduction in the capacity of the historical West to project outside its influence. Of course, it would be an exaggeration to try to build a model of modern international relations only on such premises, but today it is impossible to deny the existence of such a trend. It has been brought to life by a number of factors, including increased transparency of national borders, an information revolution that highlighted the glaring inequalities in the levels of socio-economic development, and the peoples' desire to escalate against this background to preserve their originality and not to get into the red book of history.

The desire to return to their civilizational roots can be clearly seen in the Arab revolutions, turning around at this stage with broad public support of parties and movements that are under the flag of Islam. And the matter was not limited to the Arab world. Suffice it to mention Turkey, which is increasingly positioning itself as an independent center of power, a major player in the Islamic and regional spaces. The Asian states, including Japan, declare their identity more boldly.

Such a situation is one of the signs that a simple (not to say “unpretentious”), “binary” construction that fit into East-West formulas “capitalism-socialism”, “North-South” existed during the period of the “cold war” , is replaced by a multidimensional geopolitical reality, in which it is no longer possible to isolate one factor that dominates others. The global financial and economic crisis has finally put an end to the reasoning about the possibility of any single system dominating in any areas - be it economics, politics or ideology. There is no doubt that within the general framework that defines today the development of the overwhelming majority of states and consists in recognizing the principles of democratic government and market economy, each country will choose specific political and economic models independently, taking into account its own traditions and cultural and historical features. And this is likely to mean a further increase in the weight of the factor of civilizational identity in international affairs.

From the point of view of practical politics, such conclusions can only mean one thing: attempts to impose their own scale of values ​​on others are absolutely unpromising and can only lead to a dangerous increase in inter-civilization tensions. From this, of course, it does not follow that we must completely refuse to influence each other, to promote the objective perception of our country in the international arena. But this must be done by honest, open methods, expanding the export of our culture, education and science, but with unconditional respect for the civilizational values ​​of other nations as a guarantee of preserving the diversity of the world and respect for pluralism in international affairs.

It seems obvious that the calculations can not be justified in using modern means of disseminating information and communications, including social networks, in order to format the consciousness of certain peoples and create a new political reality - the modern market of ideas is too heterogeneous, and the rate on virtual methods creates only virtual reality. Of course, if you do not think in terms of the Orwellian “big brother” - but then you can forget about democracy, not only in the countries-objects, but also the subjects of such influence.

The development of a common value, moral scale, which could become the basis of a respectful and productive inter-civilization dialogue, whose starting point would be a common interest in reducing the level of instability, which arose at the stage of creating a new international system, and ultimately achieving a reliable, effectively working polycentric world order. At the same time, success can be achieved only if extreme approaches are excluded - whether it is a question, for example, of a hypertrophied understanding of the rights of sexual minorities or, on the contrary, attempts to raise the political level of a narrow moral concept that corresponds to the concepts of only one group of the population and infringes upon the natural rights of other citizens, including those belonging to different confessional communities.

* * *

In international relations there is a certain limit to crisis situations that cannot be crossed without prejudice to global stability. Therefore, work to extinguish regional fires, including domestic conflicts, should be carried out as seriously as possible, without the use of double standards. Using a “sanctioning club” every time is a way to a dead end. All parties to internal conflicts must be confident that the international community will act on the basis of firm principles, speaking with one voice and striving for an early end to violence and a mutually acceptable settlement through a comprehensive dialogue.

Russia is guided only by such principles in relation to domestic crises, and this is precisely the reason for our position on what is happening in Syria. Therefore, we fully and sincerely supported the mission of UN / LAS Special Envoy K. Annan, aimed at the early search for a mutually acceptable compromise. In the statements of the President of the UN Security Council and the resolutions of the UN Security Council in this regard, the approaches that we promoted from the very beginning of the internal shocks in Syria were recorded, the same ideas were reflected in the agreed March 10 of this year. our joint statement with the League of Arab States.

If it were possible to ensure that these approaches worked in Syria, then they could become a model of international assistance in resolving future crises. The essence of K. Annan’s “six principles” is to ensure the cessation of violence, wherever it comes from, and to start a political dialogue led by the Syrians themselves, which must find answers to the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the Syrian people. Its result should be a new political face of Syria, reflecting the interests of all groups of its multi-religious society.

It is necessary, without getting up to either side, to contribute to the elaboration and implementation of agreements on the settlement of the conflict, to encourage the one who performs them, and to directly name the true opponents of the peace process. This requires an impartial monitoring mechanism, which was created by UN Security Council resolutions 2042 and 2043. Russian military personnel is a member of a group of international observers.

Unfortunately, the process of implementing the plan of K. Annan in Syria is very difficult. The whole world was shocked by the cases of reprisals against unarmed civilians, including the 25 incident of May this year. tragedy in the settlement of Hula, the subsequent massacres in Hama. It is necessary to find out who is responsible for this and punish those responsible. No one has the right to usurp the role of a judge and use these tragedies to achieve their own geopolitical goals. Only the rejection of such attempts will stop the unwinding of the spiral of violence in Syria.

Those who say that Russia "rescues" B. Asad are mistaken. Once again, the choice of the political system and the leaders of this country is the business of the Syrians themselves. We are not trying to conceal the numerous mistakes and miscalculations made by Damascus, including the use of force against peaceful demonstrations at the initial stage of the crisis. For us, it’s not the main thing who is in power in Syria, it is important to ensure the cessation of the death of the civilian population and the commencement of political dialogue, while all external players respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the country. No violence can be justified. The shelling of residential neighborhoods by government forces is unacceptable, but they cannot be considered as an indulgence for terrorist acts in Syrian cities, for murders committed by militants opposing the regime, including "al-Qaeda".
The logic that dictates the need to break the vicious circle of violence prevailed in the unanimous support of K. Annan’s plan by members of the UN Security Council. We are depressed by the statements and actions of some of the players involved in Syrian affairs, who clearly saw a stake on the failure of the special envoy’s efforts. In this series - and calls for the leadership of the Syrian National Council (SNA) for foreign intervention. It is not clear how such statements can contribute to the efforts of the SNA sponsors to unite the Syrian opposition under its “roof”. We are in favor of uniting the Syrian opposition solely on the basis of readiness for political dialogue with the government, in strict accordance with the plan of Annan.

Russia almost daily continues to work with the Syrian leadership, persuading him to fully comply with K. Annan’s “six points” and resolutely abandon the illusory calculations that the domestic political crisis in Syria will evaporate by itself. We work with representatives of almost all branches of the Syrian opposition. We are sure that if all of our partners act with the same concentration, without “hindsight” and double standards, there is a chance to achieve a peaceful settlement of the situation in Syria. It is necessary to “lean on” everyone together on the regime and on the opposition and make them stop fighting and sit down at the negotiating table. We consider it important to undertake urgent collective efforts for this by convening an international conference of states directly involved in the Syrian crisis. We carry out close contacts with K. Annan and other partners for this purpose.

Only by acting in this way can the Middle Eastern region be kept from slipping into the abyss of bloody wars and anarchy and thus remain, as it is now fashionable to say, on the right side of the historical process. We are confident that other schemes involving external intervention in Syria - from blocking television channels that do not suit someone to increasing arms supplies to opposition groups and air strikes - do not carry peace to this country or the region as a whole. So, they will not be justified by history.
Originator:
http://www.mid.ru
28 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Timonf
    Timonf 18 June 2012 14: 22
    +19
    Annan's plan is a one-goal game. We went like this to the First Chechen.
    1. lcalex
      lcalex 18 June 2012 15: 02
      +15
      In this article, the author chews snot.
      And I must say: the capture of Syria and Iran threatens our national security! angry So whoever twitches - hang yourself!
      1. Larus
        Larus 18 June 2012 17: 12
        +3
        He is a diplomat, and this diplomatic evasion resulted in what is written.
      2. Sergeant Air Force
        Sergeant Air Force 18 June 2012 17: 47
        +2
        if everyone spoke so bluntly, diplomats would not exist. But I think those to whom it was intended there over the hill (their deep representation) understood everything and so. No need to become like them. If you meet a boor on the street, you will not be rude to him in return. At first you politely explain the culture, but if you touch it, then without further ado at the butt. So it is here. I hope that when the time comes, we will not be afraid of decisive action.
        1. Larus
          Larus 18 June 2012 21: 04
          0
          For me, it’s time for us to make the jackals of the world community fall ... and the Amers themselves will fall off. It’s time to support the democratic processes in America ourselves, help Texas, put missiles on the cube to protect America from the outcast countries. exactly the same thing that the states are doing now, because when the boor feels his impunity, he begins to think that everything is allowed to him.
    2. alexng
      alexng 18 June 2012 15: 14
      +6
      It's time to stop these one-goal games. It’s time and surrender to give - at the same end and in the same place. Well done Larov, a very competent politician-diplomat.
      1. 755962
        755962 18 June 2012 21: 13
        -4
        Russia - perhaps better than most other states - knows the true value of revolutions.
        A revolution is good when everything is done quickly and in a timely manner. All the horrors and blood attributed to the revolution, in fact, is the "merit" of the counter-revolution. Resistance of an obsolete formation, regime, and power grouping engenders violence. In the whole world, dozens, if not hundreds of revolutions have occurred, and most of them were painless, even inconspicuous, and went for good, but the “great ones” remained in history, that is, those where there was a desperate resistance of the authorities or counter-revolutionary saboteurs within the revolutionary masses.
        1. 755962
          755962 19 June 2012 00: 20
          0
          Quote: 755962
          All the horrors and blood attributed to the revolution is actually a “merit” of the counter-revolution

          They haven’t read it before.
  2. Igarr
    Igarr 18 June 2012 14: 40
    +19
    Correct, competent, balanced article.
    And ... absolutely toothless.
    "... Russian military personnel are part of the group of international observers."
    Well, of course, come in. There is someone to blame, that thread. And there, whoever gets the word out, is in the means of SMRAD.

    At one time, with Mongolia, the USSR declared - we will protect the territory of Mongolia as our own.
    They all wiped off. This is Mongolia - the "original territory" of the USSR. They didn't even rock the boat.

    And here .. we ... guided by humane, universal values ​​- let us fuck ourselves ... in a particularly humane form.

    It’s probably right that I’m not there, at the top of the power.
    The god of horns does not give a vigorous cow.

    He wrote in the posts of this day - that is why they do not reckon with Russia. Because she doesn’t want to bang her fist on the table.
    Well, here, the same.
    But it's time. It is high time.
    1. Goga
      Goga 18 June 2012 15: 02
      +13
      Igarr - Namesake, welcome! Politics is the art of the possible. Of course, you should "bang your fist on the table", because for this you need a serious fist - and with that, it's not very ... A simple thing - the same Moscow, how many percent is supplied with imported food, and how much domestic? Well, "bang with our fist" and in response, simply by sanctions, imports will be blocked and not only "hamsters" will climb into our streets ....
      So our Foreign Ministry is struggling - just as much as the country's forces allow.
      1. Fox 070
        Fox 070 18 June 2012 15: 14
        +4
        Quote: Gogh
        So our Foreign Ministry is struggling - just as much as the country's forces allow.

        I think that today the country's forces are capable of more and there is no need to be afraid of sanctions, they simply will not be. Not a single European government would dare to impose sanctions against Russia. The economic situation is not the same.
        Well, the fact that politics is the art of the possible is absolutely fair, as well as the fact that a bad world is better than a good quarrel.
      2. Ross
        Ross 18 June 2012 17: 25
        +8
        Goga,
        Politics is the art of the possible

        Hi Igor! Your words are right to the point.
        Here is an interesting article about the current moment: http: //digest.subscribe.ru/economics/kris/n851925382.html.
        Author - V. Pavlenko, Doctor of Political Sciences, Full Member of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems

        And the last frontier is Russia V.V. Putin.

        Having renewed the strategic alliance of Rosneft with the American Exxon-Mobil to 2011 (instead of British Petroleum), which was helped by the scandal in TNK-BP, the Russian leader gave a clear and unequivocal sign.

        It was understood and heard: that is why in January 2012 of the year, despite all the noisy reports of the State Department and the American embassy in support of street protests, in favor of V.V. Putin, as the future head of state, has expressed the patriarch of Russian politics, Academician EM. Primakov. A week later, such a significant figure as G. Kissinger appeared in Moscow.

        Interestingly: a day before the promulgation of the agreement between Jacob Rothschild and David Rockefeller, TNK-BP left M. Friedman, head of Alfa Group, a consultant to the International Council of Experts of the US Council on Foreign Relations (his 2009 conflict with the aforementioned business Partner Rothschild Deripaska).

        Before Friedman, the current head of BP left the British, Dudley, who in London is considered the main victim of the “conspiracy of the Russian oligarchs”, and then V. Vekselberg, etc.

        Two days later, British Petroleum itself withdrew from the TNK-BP project, leaving the comments of the British state information corporation BBC to the memory of their stay in Russia with biting sarcasm.

        What does this mean?

        That the Rockefellers did not reconcile with their defeat, consider it an intermediate stage of intergroup struggle and are ready to fight further.

        For this they need Russia. Moreover, a united, consolidated and strong Russia (without “orange” excesses): not by chance, even before the inauguration of V.V. Putin’s representatives Exxon-Mobil in his presence signed an agreement with Rosneft on oil production on the shelf of the Black and Kara Seas.

        United Shipbuilding Corporation and Russian Technologies are connected to the agreement. This means that the Rosneft-Exxon-Mobil alliance is far from being limited to oil issues.

        Appointment I.I. Sechin’s president of Rosneft in this situation is a step of strategic importance.

        The alignment of forces now is one to one repeats the end of the 1920-s, when Stalin took the Baku oil fields from the concession from the Nobels (partners of the Rothschilds) and gave them the 50% concession to the Rockefellers - in exchange for financial and technological support for Soviet industrialization.

        At each new stage History repeats itself!

        Russia, on the one hand, has a unique chance: to play in the global “Big Game” on an equal footing with a partner (albeit temporary), who is vitally (vitally!) Interested in our success today. (What will happen tomorrow is another conversation: this is a policy in which, along with a strategy, there is a tactic).

        On the other hand, the realization of this chance will be in every way hampered by the Rothschild agents. (Already it prevents: not by chance, VV Putin was met with a custom protest sensation both in Berlin and in Paris).

        The question is how quickly and efficiently the Russian leader will be able to suppress the “fifth column”, pushing the necessary reforms forward and making the new alignment of forces irreversible

        This is a matter of country survival. For in the strategy of the Rothschilds of the Russian Federation it is necessary to be dismembered, as Gorbachev has been achieving (and still is) achieving his whole life.

        In conclusion, we are anticipating a legitimate question: what is necessary for a complete exit from these layouts and independent, sovereign development?

        Let's be honest: at this stage it is necessary to resist and build up state power, consolidate society and acquire (no matter how scary it might seem to anyone) state ideology. And not abstract (“for all good - against all bad”), but design. Able to present to the country and the world the Russian vision and plan for building a just world order, alternative to the current "world of money", which today "eat people" in much the same way as their English sheep at the time of the industrial revolution.

        In addition, the “pluralism” encouraged today does not form a system of value coordinates — a norm that, reflecting and fixing a civilizational idea at the household level, would allow to distinguish good from bad social behavior (politics) from asocial, etc.

        A new elite is urgently needed - national, not comprador.

        In the future, when these initial requirements are met, sooner or later there will be (should be) a question about leaving the enslaving conditions of our country's membership in the Basel club and the currency board mechanism it establishes - pegging the money supply to the amount of gold and foreign exchange reserves. That is, the transformation of the “Central” Bank, which is today an instrument of external control, into a “State” one, carrying out currency, including issuing, policies in national rather than globally oligarchic interests. (After all, having heard this, it is not by chance that the liberals invariably entertain with a heart-rending screech: a thief and a cap are burning!)

        Note: the central bank had neither the Russian Empire nor the USSR. It appeared only in the times of “developed democracy”. In them, he should remain as an integral attribute and symbol of the neocolonial “yoke” of the “golden horde” associated with this “democracy” (in its modern, literal, and not historical reading).
        1. Cadet787
          Cadet787 18 June 2012 18: 35
          +3
          Ross
          Very intrestny post. Thank.
          1. Ross
            Ross 18 June 2012 19: 08
            0
            Cadet787,

            I am glad to help.
    2. darkman70
      darkman70 18 June 2012 15: 09
      +3
      The article is toothless, the same as all of Russia's foreign policy.
    3. Tomato
      Tomato 18 June 2012 19: 26
      +2
      He wrote in the posts of this day - that is why they do not reckon with Russia. Because she doesn’t want to bang her fist on the table.

      Recently my wife, who is very far from politics, said to me, "We would have such a person, even like Khrushchev, at least knock with a shoe."
      And that is true, although not Stalin, so Khrushchev. But then the Yankees were afraid of us. From that they came up with the Cold War, poured into the hot one.
  3. ShturmKGB
    ShturmKGB 18 June 2012 14: 50
    +10
    Is there really evidence of NATO assistance to the rebels? Video filming, witnesses? Why is our intelligence dormant and hosted by the CIA everywhere? Do all of our claims take the form of excuses? You need to be tougher, to identify evidence of US guilt!
  4. vladimir64ss
    vladimir64ss 18 June 2012 15: 09
    +6
    Lavrov is a strong man. He has a lot to add to hardness. Just do not pull the cat by the ... tail. And then about ... we sleep Syria.
  5. AIR ZNAK
    AIR ZNAK 18 June 2012 15: 50
    +1
    Like all professional diplomats. The article is long, and the essence is hidden in a pair of phrases. What? everyone guesses for himself
  6. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 18 June 2012 15: 50
    +3
    The article is correct. The teeth must be shown in practice (the span of the "Bulava" and "poplar"). The paper very accurately conveys the meaning of what is happening and Russia's interests in this matter. A kind of "armed neutrality" in favor of the Syrian people and the current leadership.
    1. Sergeant Air Force
      Sergeant Air Force 18 June 2012 17: 49
      +3
      very accurate statement)))) armed NEUTRALITY .... IN FAVOR Syrian people and the current arm.
  7. Volkhov
    Volkhov 18 June 2012 16: 09
    0
    Last year, Syria was still a neutral state and gravitated towards Russia, but the Russian Federation refused full support, and Syria was able to find protection only among the Nazis, who in May 12 outplayed the Zionists. Now there are no Russian interests there, it makes no sense to climb into the bickering of Nazism and Zionism. There are enough of their problems, and in relations neutrality and trade, support of the people themselves will do.
  8. htpm100
    htpm100 18 June 2012 16: 42
    +3
    The most interesting thing is that the Anglo-Saxons themselves determine which side of history is right and which is not, and therefore Russia must definitely be on the wrong side.
  9. vorobey
    vorobey 18 June 2012 17: 34
    +4
    The Interfax news agency distributed a message confirming the fact of sending Russian troops to Syria. The agency refers to an officer of the Russian fleet who wished to remain anonymous. According to him, the Marines were sent to Syria on two landing ships. Their task is to protect the Russians in Syria, as well as the naval base in Tartus. The Russian Ministry of Defense has not yet commented on this message.

    http://warfiles.ru/show-8840-rossiyskie-morpehi-otpravilis-v-siriyu.html

    18.06.2012 12:15

    Russia is sending a detachment of warships with marines to Syria: the large landing ships Nikolai Filchenkov and Caesar Kunikov are preparing to leave for the Syrian port of Tartus, where the civil war continues amid disputes between Russia and the West over who to support. ... The General Staff of the Navy did not hide the fact that the ships were sent to Syria "unscheduled": an anonymous source said that, CT, "the task of preparing ships to carry out tasks to protect state interests off the coast of Syria was suddenly set." Landing ships do not leave empty: a large group of marines from the Black Sea Fleet will be accommodated on board. How many Russian marines are sent to Syria is not specified, but it is known that

    "Caesar Kunikov" can take 150 airborne soldiers and 25 tanks with crews. Officially, the dispatch of Russian marines to Syria has not yet been commented on, and there has been no reaction from Western countries. In January, during the next exacerbation in the country and the West's attempts to push through the UN Security Council good for a military operation, the Russian large anti-submarine ship Admiral Chabanenko visited Syria, but then the military said that the visit was planned.
    http://www.silver.ru/news/37188/

    http://rus.newsru.ua/world/18jun2012/rosjasyria.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_
    medium = twitter
    1. vorobey
      vorobey 18 June 2012 18: 00
      +2
      I’ll correct Kunikov a little 10 tanks takes in tweed.
  10. black cat
    black cat 18 June 2012 17: 46
    +1
    Quote: darkman70
    The article is toothless, the same as all of Russia's foreign policy.

    But there is no foreign policy at all.
    What are our priorities?
    China?
    Europe?
    Latin America?
    The simplest questions.
    Is there any program to promote the Russian language in these countries? Can student quotas in Russia be allocated for students from these regions?
    Maybe something like that in our schools, programs taking into account priorities in relations with these regions have been developed?
    Well, for example, the history of Venezuela, Nicaragua.
    Putin’s entire policy is to respond to what has happened. Plugging holes. However, what to expect from the KGB / FSB colonel. The mind was not even enough to reach the general.
    1. Tomato
      Tomato 18 June 2012 19: 44
      -1
      The mind was not even enough to reach the general.

      Did not have time. Became president.
  11. USAsha42
    USAsha42 18 June 2012 18: 13
    -3
    Quote: lcalex
    In this article, the author chews snot.

    Quote: lcalex
    So whoever twitches - hang yourself!

    We’ll choke cabbage soup with our bast shoes and let's go toss our hats ...
    1. vorobey
      vorobey 18 June 2012 18: 49
      +4
      if the information is confirmed, then they have already gone and not with caps.
      1. sergo0000
        sergo0000 18 June 2012 21: 28
        0
        vorobey,
        Thank you Sasha for the info! +++
        Really positive!
  12. Timonf
    Timonf 18 June 2012 18: 29
    -1
    Quote: USasha42
    We’ll choke cabbage soup with our bast shoes and let's go toss our hats ...

    Straight bast shoes and straight hats ?!)) They made fun. We have something to answer, there would be political will!
  13. bubla5
    bubla5 18 June 2012 18: 59
    +1
    And what is our national idea all the same inside and outside the country, etc., etc., we say one thing, and we do the other, everything is clear with Syria, it will still be crushed, unless 3 forces specifically intervene
  14. Afftar
    Afftar 19 June 2012 01: 25
    0
    Lavruha in his repertoire. He said nothing, but had to read so much ...
  15. survivor
    survivor 19 June 2012 03: 20
    +1
    oh cautious laurels! oh cautious .......
  16. Prophet Alyosha
    Prophet Alyosha 19 June 2012 07: 10
    -5
    Mister Lavrov, what about the Russian hostages taken by Libyan terrorists on the orders of Washington ?! We Russians remember them and see what you and Mr. Putin are actually "doing" for the Russian people! And the language ... you all know one word - Trotsky's heirs!
  17. Che
    Che 19 June 2012 07: 32
    0
    In the past year and a half, events taking place in North Africa and the Middle East have come to the forefront of world politics. They are often called the most visible phenomenon of international life in the new XXI century. The fragility of authoritarian regimes in Arab countries and the likelihood of socio-political upheavals have long been noted by experts. However, the scale and swiftness of the wave of changes in the region was indeed difficult to predict. Along with the accumulation of crisis phenomena in the global economy, these events have become one of the most obvious signs that the formation of a new international system has entered the turbulence zone
    Everything is planned by amers and is slowly executed by rats in the regions. Everyone understands everything perfectly, but they pretend that something unusual and uncontrollable is happening.
  18. Ilyich
    Ilyich 19 June 2012 15: 14
    0
    Lavrov’s speech is the voice of one crying in the wilderness ....
    all this is not interesting to democrats. No one is going to extinguish fires and raise fighting. Goals are the exact opposite.