Expert's view on the coverage of the Syrian conflict by the Russian media and the explanation of the technology of the Arab revolutions
The wave of Arab revolutions, which carries global political and social upheavals, has now come to Syria, is today one of the most popular topics, which is given a lot of space in the Russian information space. However, the way this happens is sometimes puzzling. If relatively recently it was completely obvious to the Russian reader and listener that another coup, if it happened in Syria, catalyses extremely negative processes, then recently the domestic media are increasingly serving the opinions of opposition representatives, increasing sympathy for the Arab Spring affair in the mass audience. If the ultra-liberal denies, the average person simply does not think, then for a specialist it is obvious that stability in Syria is also related to the issue of the security of our country. Russian Herald appealed to such a person to explain the essence of the situation. Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Matuzov, president of the Society for Friendship and Business Cooperation with Arab countries, is an extremely sought-after expert on Middle Eastern, in particular, Syrian issues. Both Arab and American TV channels turn to him when they need a reasoned opinion, based on a subtle knowledge of the subject matter and the specifics of diplomatic work. You can’t take this from Vyacheslav Nikolaevich: 20 spent years studying the Middle East in the International Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU; he was cultural attaché in Lebanon for five years, he was an adviser to the Russian Embassy in Washington; led a group of Arab-Israeli negotiations. He told Russian Bulletin in detail about information sabotage in the Russian media, the background of the Syrian conflict and the technology of the Arab revolutions.
- How does the position you set out correspond to the official position of the state?
- In recent years I have received a rare opportunity to speak in the world media, not because I myself strive for this, but because the media themselves turn to me with this request. These are the American Arabic-language TV channel Al-Hurra, Qatar’s Al-Jezira, Saudi Arabia TV channel, and Syria’s state television channels. Also a number of channels from Tehran in Arabic and English.
In total, I currently have 447 speeches, of which 141 is live broadcasts, including discussions with high-ranking US diplomats at the level of the US Under-Secretary of State. There was a dispute over “Jezire” with John McCain, the senator, the former presidential candidate of the United States; another opponent, David Pollak, a former White House military analyst, State Department expert, now works at the Washington Institute for Middle Eastern Studies (funded by the AIPAC American-Israeli Committee), the leading US think-tank on the Middle and Middle East.
All appearances before the world television audience require me to state the position of the Russian Federation, because the world does not need my personal point of view, it needs the position of Russia, the Russian leadership. It is in this that I see my mission - the need to convey the true position of my country to Arab television viewers and radio listeners.
To do this, one has to stay on the Internet, following all official statements of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the Foreign Ministry’s website or speeches of the President of our country. Of course, as a person not connected with state structures, I could say everything that comes to my mind, even to some fantastic conspiracy theories, but I see my task precisely in reflecting the real position of Russia, which, by the way, is until December 2011 of the year I myself had to understand, then to clearly and clearly state. Indeed, up to this point, the position of the state was simply not always clearly expressed, and sometimes simply blurred: there is only one information on the Foreign Ministry’s website, and in parallel with it - statements by officials, the same Mikhail Margelov - Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation for Africa - completely contrasting with the position of the Ministry foreign affairs.
Such discord was intolerable. After all, both the Foreign Ministry and the Presidential Administration should be guided by two factors: Russia's national security and Russia's national interests at the global level. If they deviate from this course, they do not protect the national interests of the country. At that time, I proceeded from my life and professional experience to determine these interests. Subsequently, I have already seen that the Foreign Ministry takes exactly this position. For me, this meant one thing: official assessments of the situation in the region are built on the basis of the same principles that guide myself.
Something just a miracle, one might say, happened in December 2011, when the Russian foreign policy began to show itself clearly on key issues, faded into the background of the controversy of politically engaged figures, replicated by the Western media, and the real role of the Russian foreign minister “came to life” noticeably. Apparently, this is due to a clearer indication of the country's political course, when it became clear that V.V. Putin becomes President of the country and that he will determine the foreign policy of the Russian Federation.
But the struggle for the Russian position as it was, and continues to go now. The United States now realized that the Libyan variant with respect to Syria does not work in the UN Security Council, that is, Russia will not repeat the rash step that was allowed when we missed UN Security Council Resolution No. 1973 of March 17 of 2011 of the year authorizing foreign military intervention states in the civil war in Libya. Then a step away from the veto opened the door to the defeat of an independent state by NATO troops. Subsequently, at our highest level, this error was recognized, but the train, as they say, left. With Syria, this factor has already been almost leveled out.
Ralph Peters Maps — Borders of the New Great Middle East
This is what the Middle East looks like today ...
- Today we can already denote the current position of Russia?
- As Sergey Lavrov correctly noted, this is not a local, not regional problem, it is a global problem of reorganizing the world order in the 21st century. If we today allow just so calmly to tear apart the country - one of the most influential in the Middle East - by treating it not on the basis of international legal norms and the UN Charter, but on the basis of the jungle law, then we can put an end to all United Nations activities. The official position of Russia is based on preventing interference in the internal affairs of Syria, and not only military intervention. After all, it is also about political and informational interference. Washington is now betting on the demand for regime change in Syria and the lifting of powers from President Bashar al-Assad.
At the same time, even such American think tanks as Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting Inc. is an American private intelligence and analytical company. - Ed.), And this “shadow CIA”, sees the background of what is happening more realistically. Its leader, George Friedman, one of those analysts whose services are used by major American corporations and the government, writes in one of the latest articles that the Syrian government relies on the support of the people, and without this support it would have been overthrown long ago. And this is recognized by the largest US analyst! Then the question arises: who is fighting this power in Syria, which is supported by the majority of the people, on the basis of what right are the arms supplies of the Syrian opposition and the information war against the government?
When you participate in TV shows, you are faced with the dominance of crying, the roar of genocide and accusations against the Syrian authorities. Although it is really important to establish, so who kills people, who cuts the head of babies and women in the village of Hula near Homs? This is clearly not government troops. But all the sins of America and personally Hillary Clinton are trying to impose on the Syrian government. This is an open monstrous lie.
... And so it will look after the completion of the "Arab revolutions"
As the latest TV debates on all channels from “Jezira” to the BBC and the American “Hurra” show, today everyone is in anxious expectation that Russia is about to change its approach to the Syrian theme - agree with the arguments of the Americans and join to demand the removal of Bashar al-Assad from Syria, to agree to the overthrow of the regime. There is a clear attempt of external pressure on the Russian leadership, argued that it is impossible to spoil relations with the US administration because of Syria, which pushes Russia not only from the West, but also allegedly from the Arab world, because it supports the "losers" - the losing side in the form of Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar al-Assad, and in order to maintain ties with the Arab countries, it is necessary to urgently reconsider their views, to recognize claims to the power of Islamic fundamentalists in Syria. And this propaganda campaign does not meet any resistance on the external information field. The pressure from the outside is enormous! I can give the highest marks to the courageous position of the presidential administration, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, our representative in the UN Security Council, Vitaly Churkin, who clearly fulfills the instructions of the minister and the president of the country, speaking or voting on this topic. This is a highly professional work, thought out from the perspective of the development of the situation in the Middle East and in conjunction with global development.
- Let's clarify for those who still do not understand: why is it advantageous for Russia to maintain stability in Syria?
“This is a very important question, because they are trying to blame us for the reason for our support for the Syrian regime lies in the mercenary economic interests, in the contracts for which Russia insists on its position. Such an approach is already encountered: if so, then it must be bought - to offer other contracts in the military field, for example, procurement weapons countries of the Persian Gulf so that it moved away from Syria and left it to America. They also talk about a naval base in Tartus, which can only be saved under the Assad regime.
For all these insinuations, I will say one thing: today Russia has no serious economic interests in the Middle East. They were in the days of the Soviet Union, but not now. But we have direct geopolitical interests based on the protection of national security throughout the southern borders - from Sochi to Gorny Altai. Our relations with the same Syria in the field of military-technical cooperation are largely not based on the principle of material gain, although an important aspect is the return of previous loans and debts: the Syrians owe us huge sums of money.
We have no real income from Syria, it is not an oil country. When it comes to the naval base, I remind you: Russia today, except for Sevastopol, does not have any bases abroad - neither sea, nor air, nor land. We left the maintenance of military bases: we closed the base at Lourdes in Cuba, closed the base at Cam Ranh in Vietnam, we surrendered Somali at one time. In the Horn of Africa, we had one of the most powerful bases that controlled the Indian Ocean. But now we have no bases.
In military cooperation with Syria, we have a maintenance station on our floating base - a dock, which is on the roadstead in the Syrian port of Tartus. There is actually a Syrian naval base, and we have only a logistics point for the passing ships of the Russian Navy.
Back in Soviet times, our ships used not only the PMTC of Tartus. Under international law, military ships can call at any port in the Mediterranean, and we often used the port of a pro-American state like Tunisia, and in Bizerte we also had a technical support point, where we replenished food supplies, water, and seamen went to land. This is a common international practice for which it is not necessary to have military bases. That is what we have in Syria, close to what services any other state can provide, as, for example, it has recently been in Italy. Therefore, when we are told that we cling to the naval base, it is a lie and slander.
All rhetoric comes down to Russia's accusations of a mercantile foreign policy and attempts to influence Arab leaders to convince: you cannot rely on Russia - it will betray you and sell you tomorrow. But the issues that are being solved in Syria are very far from purely economic interests. This is not a bazaar! This is the national security of the Russian Federation. When we stand for preserving the Assad regime, we proceed completely from other principles, which Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said very clearly before one conference: Russia does not defend the regime of the Syrian President - Russia defends existing international law, because if it is destroyed, the world will be plunged into chaos and will be guided only by the law of power.
This applies not only to Syria, but also to Saudi Arabia, and to Qatar, which is now a clear champion of the war. In fact, all the countries of the region are already lined up, and tomorrow, after Syria, their turn will come. I see only one excuse for the leaders of the Arab countries: they are under the US Damocles sword - they are afraid and try to curry favor with the Americans to save their necks. That is why today the League of Arab States of the organization that protects the interests of the Arabs, has passed almost into the hands of Americans and has become a tool of the policy of the United States in the Middle East - this is already obvious.
Therefore, there is such a fierce struggle for the decision of Russia, for its position. If she does not approve of the military actions of the Americans against Syria in the UN Security Council, I think that they will not bypass it, because it will be a serious challenge not only to Russia, but also to China and all the SCO countries. This will be a challenge and the destruction of existing norms of international law and the entire system of international relations. They undermine them in secret, but they are not ready to do it openly, in my opinion. The firm position of Moscow is the main brake on American arbitrariness in the Middle East.
- It is obvious that this is a serious international conflict, and its adequate media coverage is simply necessary. What is your assessment of the work of the Russian media in this direction?
- The Syrian subject to a certain point surfaced very rarely, and suddenly from June, literally on the eve of the 20 meeting in Mexico, as if on cue, at the same time, all channels simultaneously hold a talk show on this issue. The first channel - “In context” of Maxim Shevchenko, the third channel - Roman Babayan organizes the same discussion, the “Duel” on the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company - Nikolay Svanidze and Dmitry Kiselev.
When I watch all this, I am horrified by what is happening! I see Svanidze’s bench of our analysts, on the side of Kiselev - the second, where Alexander Prokhanov, Anastasia Popova and another deputy from the Caucasian republic are sitting. It says generally correct things, but more importantly, what I see on the opposite side! Georgy Mirsky is the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexander Shumilin is the Institute of the USA and Canada, the director of the Center for the Analysis of Middle East Conflicts, and also a columnist for Moscow News»Elena Suponina and Nikolai Zlobin - Director of Russian and Asian Programs at the US Institute for World Security.
It is clear that on this issue all the contradictions go along the line of dividing the position of Russia and the position of America. Therefore, today everything is determined by which bench you sit on - next to Zlobin or Prokhanov. And now I see that Mirsky, Vladimir Akhmedov from the Institute of Oriental Studies, and the same employees of Russian state analytical centers from the Russian Academy of Sciences have settled with the American analyst Zlobin! When I listen to their speeches on our television channels, I see American neoconservatives who are frantically demanding regime change in Syria.
I ask myself a question: dear scientists, analysts, political scientists who receive salaries from state pockets, and at least you know the policy of our state? Who allowed you to fight Russia's foreign policy on Russian television channels and defend the line and strategic positions of the United States of America, which our country faced head-on in the international arena? If you do not agree with the position of the Russian President and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, please surrender your certificates to the workers of the Academy of Sciences and engage in free political activity! But if you stay and fight with your state, it is immoral, unacceptable. If in the US one of the state-funded think tanks had allowed himself to oppose American policy, such centers would most likely be closed, and these people would not be there. The US government is closely watching how government funds are spent. I feel that this state control has been completely lost.
I am amazed when Vladimir Akhmedov, a senior researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies, openly states on the first state television channel: I completely disagree with the foreign policy position of the Russian Foreign Ministry. What does it mean? Within the framework of a closed discussion in the circle of specialists, he can express any - the most fantastic - theories, which then can be considered or rejected by the relevant department as recommendations. But when on the central channels, like the hell out of a snuffbox, these Mirskys, Akhmetovs, Shumilins jump out and give out their own point of view as the main one, but there is no alternative, you ask yourself: where, then, is the official position of the Russian Federation?
For all the time I heard only one phrase from Vyacheslav Nikonov, who nevertheless said that he supported the Foreign Ministry - very gently and carefully. We can invite Nikolai Zlobin, who will clearly and clearly state the position of the United States, if necessary, a tougher line, you can connect via the teleconference of Dmitry Simes or Ariel Cohen, as Maxim Shevchenko did. But why, instead of covering the position of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, are Russian experts engaged in protecting American interests? All this scum spills on the heads of Russian television viewers, who watch political discussions with interest. After listening to these speeches, they will see that most experts on the Middle East support and share the American approach.
In addition, I do not understand why so vigorously given the right to vote the Syrian opposition who are in Moscow? There are several Arab surnames that do not go off the television screen, moving from one channel to another. These are Syrians, Egyptians - Arabs who have Russian passports, work in news agencies or simply come in as representatives of the opposition. They are given the widest output through the media, which further increases the disorientation of the Russian public.
In my opinion, RIA Novosti also plays a clearly negative role here. From the end of May to June, all the “round tables” that take place there gather the same people who state the same concept, including the one opposing the foreign policy of Russia. In particular, a teleconference was organized with Beijing, where experts from the institutes of Oriental studies of Russia and China met. Moscow and Beijing are allies in confronting the US on the Syrian issue. These two countries coordinate their actions at the level of heads of state. And suddenly, on the RIA Novosti platform, scientists from the Russian Institute of Oriental Studies broadcast live on the Chinese that the Bashar al-Assad regime has exhausted itself and will fall in the next two weeks. That was two months ago. They said in plain text: Assad is a dictator, and he must be removed from office immediately. The president is trying to coordinate the foreign policy of Russia and China, the Foreign Ministry arranges regular consultations to create greater stability in international negotiations, and our research and analytical centers, together with the media, are simply subversive against our foreign policy.
I have a question: how can one pay such analysts if they work in favor of a foreign country, and specifically the United States of America? Institute of the USA and Canada, Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Institute of Oriental Studies - I tried to find some positive, but could not.
I remember one interesting conversation with the American television channel Al-Hurra. I was attracted to Syrian state television from 12 until one o'clock, I agreed. They rented a studio where I needed to drive up. Exactly at the same time, “Hurra” invites me to the “Hour of Freedom”, and I say that I do not have the opportunity, because I have already agreed to speak on Syrian television. To which they ask the question: “Tell me, Mr. Matuzov, who else in Moscow can clearly and clearly state the official point of view of the Russian state?”
They did not need hangers-on, but analysts, reflecting Russia's position. Of course, they can read the statements of the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Alexander Lukashevich - everything is clear. But for the live broadcast you need someone who can interpret everything, and not for the Americans, but through American TV channels to let this information into the Arab world - these broadcasts are in Arabic. They could not find such people in Moscow! All this our political science, analytical, near-scientific public reflects the US strategy. But the Americans have enough of their own analysts, for the discussion they need not a pro-American, but a Russian approach. And they can not find it in Russia.
How is it that the special representative of the President of the Russian Federation, Mikhail Margelov, arrives in Benghazi and declares that he, fulfilling the instructions of DA Medvedev, will act as a mediator between the opposition and the authorities? At the same time, he says that he is delighted, how everything is arranged here, what competent and intelligent people meet him at the airport, says the phrase: "The Gaddafi regime has become obsolete." And after that, he should go to Gaddafi and negotiate with him ... Muammar Gaddafi, of course, refuses - he simply does not accept Margelov. But on the eve of Sergey Lavrov openly said that Russia will not act as a mediator, that it relies on the African Union and will support him in the mediation mission. This foreign policy is one of the most dangerous phenomena of our time. By the way, the Syrians refused to accept the delegation of the Federation Council, which Margelov intended to lead, as one of the Syrian representatives in Moscow told me. Other people were sent, and the trip was very productive.
- So, besides the unfair work of the media and experts, can we talk about some officials?
- They, referring to their authority, lead a line that undermines the activities of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This causes enormous damage to Russia. I come across this daily. Every discord with our official position is recorded by the Western media and is immediately reflected in new questions for me as a person representing this position. Therefore, I am literally at the forefront of this conflict. It is necessary to say directly and openly that these people do not represent the official position of the Russian Federation, despite all the high posts and positions held. If you want to know this position - go to the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry. But, unfortunately, until recently, too, it was not so simple: you need to read carefully, understand the diplomatic language, think about what is of little interest to the general public. Since the new year, the situation has clearly changed in favor of Russia. Nevertheless, it is necessary to give detailed political comments with generalizations and explanations, but this is completely absent in our country.
I have questions: for what purpose did the aforementioned talk show shaft unfold on this topic and the actions of leading think tanks and political circles? What lies behind this opposition to our state policy? Can this opposition exist without any governance mechanisms, or does it arise spontaneously? After all, if these people gain courage to subvert the provisions of the course adopted by the country's leadership, it means that something is hidden behind this. What forces formulate this point of view? I can’t give an answer to this question: I gave only addresses, and let the Federal Security Service and those structures responsible for information work in the foreign policy area make a generalization. I feel the presence of opposition, but it is not I who should determine the source, but the appropriate authorities.
I remember that Maxim Shevchenko invited me to the program “In the Context” exactly one day before recording - in the morning. I warned that if this is again the “Oriental Bazaar”, where the 14-15 person is sitting and my voice will not be heard, I will not participate. It turned out to be a human 2-4, a watch program - in general, the appropriate format. And in 23.30, the representative of the channel calls me back and says: “The list of participants in the program was reviewed by the management of the First TV channel, and you, Mr. Matuzov, have crossed it out.” That is, some people with certain views on the Syrian issue have been replaced. I know that the ambassador of Syria was also offered to take part in this program, but when he learned that there he was to join the fight with the Syrian opposition members live, he simply refused.
All this is not by chance. The information shaft coming from the Russian TV channels, from RIA Novosti and other agencies is an attempt to influence the position of the country's leadership, and it was organized just a few days before the meeting of V.V. Putin with B. Obama in Mexico. Accident? Unlikely. In fact, this is not intended for the masses, but precisely for breaking the current foreign policy line of Russia. This fully coincides with the demands we hear from Hillary Clinton or the Syrian opposition. This is work in the interests of a foreign country, namely the United States of America.
- What steps should the country's leadership take to solve this problem?
- In my opinion, it is necessary to put forward a demand in front of our television channels, in front of news agencies, that their general direction of activity corresponds to the foreign policy guidelines of the Russian leadership. If Russia is in tough confrontation with the United States on the world stage - in the UN Security Council on Syria, in the IAEA on Iranian issues - then why do these areas remain completely free for us to interpret? For example, the Kommersant-FM columnist Konstantin Eggert, who positions himself as an expert in the Middle East (I personally do not belong to this category), has the moral right to say whatever he wants, he is an independent journalist. And if Channel One invited him to speak - then as a specific person with a particular position. But if experts from the United States and Canada Institute, the Institute of Oriental Studies, the Institute of World Economy and International Relations are invited, they are obliged to reflect and state the official line of Russia in their official position, and not to oppose it.
- Returning directly to the US position, I would like to mention the insinuations associated with the Russian anti-tank logistics in Tartus. It seems that Hillary Clinton has already announced the deployment of a whole division of Russian marines ...
- In the American influence on the Arab public opinion, the main direction is to prove: Russia has some serious interests in Syria, which led to its support for the existing regime. They have one thesis: the regime is overthrown by the Syrian people, while Russia clings to the dictatorial regime for its own benefit. In order to fix these “mercantile interests of Russia”, they focus the world's attention on supposedly military bases, military-technical cooperation, etc. How much I have to fend off charges, as if poor Syrian children, old men and women are being killed by Russian weapons! “You, Russians, accomplices of bloodshed, you are criminals, condoners of genocide!” They shout.
Now the Internet is being watched by the most powerful watch program from the Jezira channel, where my opponent was the former assistant to the mufti of Syria, Sheikh Abdel al-Jalil Said, who has now fled to Qatar. It was monstrous with what heinous accusations against Russia this former religious servant fell in! The plot of my conversation with Sheikh Al-Jalil was translated into Russian by Americans - we didn’t lift a finger. But what did the American translators do? They cut out all my counterargument, leaving only bare accusations that reached hooliganism. But they did not understand that it worked against them, because the normal population did not accept his words and manner.
“Russians need to be killed, cut! The Russian base in Tartus and all Russians in Syria will be the target of the liberation army. Russia will be crushed by the Islamic world! ”- approximately such theses were heard from him.
I just reminded that our military-technical cooperation with Syria did not begin today, but in July, 1967. And in what conditions? War, Israeli aggression against Arab countries. The West does not give any patron, and manages to survive only thanks to our support. 1973 the year when Israel bombed Damascus, and only our missile defense missiles saved the city from air raids. 1982 year - the invasion of Lebanon, and again protects our weapons.
Yes, we supplied weapons, but which one? In case NATO gets into Syria, they have modern missiles that neither Turks nor Americans have, such as the Bastion coastal defense system, which will not allow missiles, airplanes, or ships to approach the Syrian coast. Or anti-aircraft missile systems "Buk" and "Thor", providing air defense. These weapons guarantee national security and state sovereignty. As Sergey Lavrov correctly noted, Russia does not supply weapons for fighting demonstrators.
But America has flooded all the countries of the Persian Gulf with police means of suppressing demonstrations. And at the same time they are trying to beat the situation so that our marines are already landing in Tartus, ostensibly to suppress popular uprisings.
- If we turn to the US strategy in general, can we consider any specific scenario for the development of the situation in the Middle East according to their calculations?
- We generally can not consider the Syrian theme in isolation from the geopolitical plans of the United States. If we approach this conflict parochially: to be Bashar Assad or not to be, we will go into the jungle of petty contradictions, of which there is a huge amount within Syria, like in any other country in the world. We will lose sight of the main question: who manipulates these processes, for what are these Arab coups made? And the meaning is the same: to implement certain geopolitical plans for US foreign policy.
These plans have been published since the time of Condoleezza Rice and George Bush Jr. and are aimed at creating the “Greater Middle East”, as confirmed by the maps of military analyst Ralph Peters (ex-employee of the US National Military Academy), where there is a complete reshaping of state borders of the countries of the region in accordance with ethnic groups inhabiting different countries. And new frontiers are the years of new bloodshed, perhaps unprecedented since the Middle Ages.
- Are there any concrete forecasts in the worst case? Which of the countries supporting the American line might be next?
- A difficult situation in Saudi Arabia, where the ruler is seriously ill, and two heirs have already died. There are a huge number of competitors, the struggle for power is growing, but the country itself is divided into three regions. As shown by the maps of Lieutenant Colonel Peters, in the near future, Saudi Arabia will be divided into three states. All east coast will make the Shiite state. Kuwait, Bahrain, as well as the southern parts of Iraq and Iran, inhabited by Arabs, are the most oil-bearing. All this is already scheduled as part of the future state with its capital in Basra. That is, the borders are reformatted according to ethnic and religious principles. While the Arab Shiite states are being created, the Sunni ruling nowadays, Wahhabis remain in the desert, cut off from the east coast and oil resources, doomed to nomadic life. The western coast of Saudi Arabia - Mecca and Medina - become like the Vatican an independent state - a place of worship and pilgrimage for all Muslims. Saudi Arabia itself as a sovereign state disappears. That is the American vision of the future of this country.
Iraq scatters into pieces. Already mentioned is a southern state with a center in Basra, which is joined by oil-bearing Saudi and Iranian territories. The center is a Sunnite part cut off from the sea, and the northern part is Kurdistan, which already today has real economic independence: it does not share its oil revenues with the government. And on this map Kurdistan at the expense of the territory of Turkey gets access to the Black Sea. This is the sleeve that captures the Turkish city of Diyar Bekir, where the American military base is located, and extends to the border with Georgia.
Syria, in accordance with these ideas, having lost government, immersed in anarchy, civil strife, comes out of them, having lost the entire Mediterranean coast, which is diverted to Greater Lebanon. Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan are subjected to the most severe reformatting ...
All this could be attributed to the fantastic ideas of a crazy lieutenant colonel if his work had not become one of the fundamental teaching aids for NATO educational institutions. And ten years ago, when Turkish officers who were being retrained in Italy saw these manuals, a scandal erupted. All of this is part of the US strategy for creating a “Greater Middle East,” which Condoleezza Rice mentioned during the period when the United States blocked the discussion of Israeli aggression against Lebanon in the UN Security Council for a month. She then said historical the phrase that in the fires of the Israeli war against terrorism in Lebanon, a new Greater Middle East is born.
- New frontiers are focused primarily on oil fields?
- You know, it is very tempting to write off everything on a purely economic interest. I see another aspect here, because the Americans have long controlled all the resources of the Middle East at the expense of the oil companies. Even in the time of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi oil went to the United States. Therefore, we are talking about the geopolitical goals of the United States.
What happens as a result of this strategy? Islamic fundamentalists have come to power throughout the region. This large Islamic Caliphate is being built under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood - the radicals, which since 1930-s have been coordinated, first by British and then American intelligence. Then they were created as a religious barrier against world communism with the center in Egypt, but subsequently spread to different Arab countries and compete with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Therefore, all the fallen regimes will be replaced by one force, controlled from behind the scenes by the Americans.
I studied the biography of the new president of Egypt, Mohammed Mursi: he studied 10 for years in the USA. His two daughters also studied in the United States and are currently there. Once, during one of the conferences in Qatar, I spent a whole week having breakfast with the current president of Tunisia, Marzuki, and the leader of the local Muslim Brotherhood, Gannouchi. I looked at these Islamists and thought: what Islamists are they? Rashid Gannushi is a purely secular person. And he has two daughters studying medicine at a Canadian university.
All these games of religious fundamentalists are guided work for the purpose of control. Subsequently, this Islamic factor can be sent to Central Asia, at the same time to touch our Caucasus. But, above all, to countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan. This is not domination over oil resources and economic ties, but global strategic objectives.
Having created a lobby in the Arab world, America is now quietly allowing itself to make so-called revolutions, and in fact - coups, relying on its powerful economic presence in the region. There is no Arab revolution - there is a program developed by global American structures led by neo-cons (and this is the real Jewish lobby in the US, as determined by the French press), global corporations led by Baron Rothschild, where all major international companies are involved, such as Google , MacDonald's, American Airlines, to 20 educational institutions, in which many dozens of Arab "revolutionaries" leaders have been trained for 6-7 years. This is a carefully thought-out technology of political upheaval, which set in motion the entire Arab world, as a result of which Islamic fundamentalists ruled by the CIA came to power.
I do not exclude that Barack Cheating may be very far from these plans. To whom the threads of control lead, you can easily find out by carefully reading the materials on the Internet. Only our analysts, apparently, simply do not. Apparently, they face other tasks.
Information