Syria is now cleans the scum of not only themselves but the whole world
Exclusive interview with Russian journalist, editor of Syrianews.ru
- Western media confidently assert that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. How do you think, how thorough is this forecast and is there any political force that is able to restore order in this situation?
- First of all, I would like to say (and this is my firm position) that there is no “regime” in Syria. There is a legitimate government, there is a legitimate President, to whom the people have placed their trust in 2000, and overwhelmingly confirmed their confidence in 2007 in the elections. If the 7-year presidency seems long to someone, I can say the following about this: in France, the president is elected the same way for the 7-year term, but no one says that there is a “regime” in France. If Bashar Assad is accused of being the son of President Hafez Assad, then you can look at the United States, where Bush and Bush were senior. But, again, no one calls the US government a regime.
But these countries and other states hostile to Syria, and the media controlled by them all the governments they dislike are called “regimes”, sometimes adding the adjective “dictatorial”. Such rhetoric is used solely to justify criminal actions against countries that they do not like. They say, “we are not attacking the country, we are overthrowing the bad regime” ... Fascism under the wrapper of “democracy” and “protecting the people from the regime” ... How many people die during these actions are “fighters against regimes” absolutely do not care - they carry their banner pseudo-democracy, stepping over millions of human bodies.
Regarding the extent to which the predictions about the overthrow of the legitimate government in Syria are solid - these custom predictions very much resemble Goebbels' propaganda that Moscow is about to fall. But Moscow did not fall. Damascus will not fall.
Only the legitimate authority of Syria, its army in alliance with the people, can bring order to this situation. This would have been done a long time ago if external forces — the pseudo-democracy of the West and the medieval monarchies of the Gulf — would not have done everything possible to incite conflict, if they had refused to support terrorism and stop supplying weapon and money to outright bandits. And if the other countries that turn a blind eye to what is happening, not realizing that they may be next, would not join the campaign of pressure on Syria, thereby helping to create a negative image of Syria. The West simply uses this silent majority, obediently voting at the General Assembly, to say: they say, here, Bashar Asad was completely isolated, opposed by more than 100 countries. And more than 10 countries came out against anti-Syrian resolutions, but among them were such powerful powers as the largest state in the world — Russia, and the most numerous in terms of population — China. But Western propaganda is based on the fact that many small countries vote for anti-Syrian resolutions, which do not realize that tomorrow they may become the next victim of a western predator.
- How likely is forceful intervention by the United States in the Syrian conflict and an attempt to forcibly overthrow the Bashar Assad regime (or will the United States maintain a distance and not take the risk)? In terms of accepting such an opportunity, what consequences will it bring to America itself?
- This probability, of course, is. On the one hand, the United States just ended the war in Libya, which went completely out of pattern, not according to their rules. They hoped that they would win very quickly, that the legitimate leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, would get scared and leave, but everything turned out completely differently, he chose the way to fight to the end. The Libyan war dragged on for many months, the West spent much more money and weapons than planned. And this is despite the fact that the population of Libya is only 6 million, and the army was 20 thousand people.
Syria's army is an order of magnitude larger and stronger. In addition, Syria is well armed, Russia still managed to supply Damascus with a very good technique. Those in the West who are more sober understand that such a war will not be an easy walk, and they will have to pay a much higher price to capture Syria. Moreover, Bashar Assad, judging by his latest interviews and statements, chooses the same path as Gaddafi - victory or death.
On the other hand, the United States is never inclined to spare its enemies, and if this predator clings to someone with a bulldog grip, then it is impossible to open his teeth. The United States does not like to admit its defeat.
Now, thanks to the efforts of the United States and its allies, Bashar Assad has become a very large political figure, and, of course, the United States will try to do everything possible to remove a strong and authoritative leader. For this, the United States goes to any atrocities, sending its soldiers at risk - after all, it’s not those who sit across the ocean in the Oval Office who will have to take the risk.
Much also depends on the outcome of the US presidential election. If Romney wins, the likelihood of an invasion will increase significantly. If Obama remains, much will depend on the impact on him of the warrior Hillary Clinton. Perhaps Obama himself didn’t really want a war in Libya and is not eager to go to Syria. But there is too much pressure on him from his environment. Hillary Clinton, whose hubby barbarously dealt with our brotherly Yugoslavia, will not stop, for her this is personal, she will constantly raise and push the issue of war.
True, there is still a chance to avoid a NATO attack if the Syrian army succeeds in defeating the gangster underground in a short time. After all, if in the country, against the will of the United States, the militants will be defeated, then the United States will know that no one is waiting for them here with bread and salt, which means it is useless to climb.
Regarding what the consequences of aggression will bring America. It may be imperceptible to us, but with every war, even victorious, America loses a lot. All US military victories over the past two decades are Pyrrhic victories. After all, every time a huge amount of money and resources are spent on war. Of course, we can say that they will print more dollars, but this dollar soap bubble is inflated every time more and more, and each time the risk increases that it will burst once.
In addition, the USA with each new war, with each new atrocity and evil acts loses its image. More and more people in the world realize that the killing and bombardment of peaceful countries is not democracy, but a new fascism. If at first one can still hide behind the slogans of the “struggle for freedom”, then with each new war, with each new corpse, with each new bombardment, the myth of the “struggle for freedom” dispels more and more. For anyone trying to dominate the world, sooner or later the hour of defeat comes. And each new drop of blood is approaching the hour when the cup will be full. The United States, if they do not abandon militarism and plans for hegemony over the world, expects an end.
And perhaps it is Syria that will turn out to be the very country about which the “democratizers” will stumble, although it will have to pay a terrible price. She has already paid a lot, lost thousands of valiant defenders, has already suffered a lot of suffering. She deserved to win.
- How do you assess the position of Russia in this issue? Is it capable of making concessions by succumbing to the tricks of the West (for example, on the proposal of Hillary Clinton to create a demilitarized zone), despite the fact that she has already received very difficult experience in the situation with Libya?
- It seems to me that the Russia that supported the UN resolution on Libya and the Russia that is now blocking the anti-Syrian resolutions are two different Russia.
Outwardly, maybe this is not very noticeable, and too many people continue to repeat about the “tandem”. The truth is that the tandem is long gone, and he died at the very moment when the aggression against Libya was committed. This aggression revealed a colossal difference between Putin and Medvedev.
Medvedev supported the NATO aggression, despite the fact that the Foreign Ministry was strongly opposed. Lavrov even wanted to resign after that. Putin made several statements on Libya, and all of them were in defense of Libya and against the position of NATO. I am sure that it was after Medvedev gave Libya to be torn apart by predators, after Russia, for the first time in its life, supported the fascist massacre of an innocent country - the decline of Medvedev and the liberal elites associated with it began. It was after this that the rise of Putin and the relatively patriotic elites associated with him began.
As a result, these other people who are behind Putin and who are hostile to the liberal elites who are behind Medvedev - they already hold Syria, they veto and sometimes make very, very strong anti-Western statements.
However, it seems to me that the position of Russia could be even more decisive. The steps of Russia could be as follows. Take Syria to all international organizations where Russia “rules” the CSTO, BRICS, SCO. Put her newest weapons, including the C-400. Firmly state that an attack on Syria amounts to an attack on Russia. Send ships to the shores of Tartus, expand the base there, making it full-fledged and large, especially since the Syrian side is only for that. Maybe even send elite special forces to fight terrorists. Help in the protection of borders. To supply anti-terrorism equipment, to share our enormous experience in this field. Control their own media in which liberals are settled. After all, it is sometimes impossible to read what they carry about Syria, picking up any lies and giving out “loud”, “sensational” headlines, but not too giving way to the truth (although, of course, this is better than it was in times of aggression against Libya).
In the end, if Vladimir Putin would now make an official visit to Syria, this would raise the morale of the people, the army, and the leadership. They are waiting for him here as a dear guest.
But for the position that Russia has taken now, the Syrians are immensely grateful. With what enthusiasm the Syrian soldiers and officers meet people from Russia! I have repeatedly testified that the walls of houses in Damascus are covered with the words “Thank you to Russia”. Thanks also to China.
It is still difficult for me to say what Russia will do if the Western countries nevertheless decide to step over a double veto in the Security Council and start unlawful aggression, as it was in Yugoslavia. If Russia swallows it, it will be a shame. I still hope that I will not swallow, and then more decisive steps will follow.
But so far Russia has been supporting Syria at the diplomatic level, and for that, thank you so much. This position, it seems to me, can change only if Russia itself changes, if liberal elites triumph here and the “orange revolution” scenario is fulfilled, soft or hard - then, of course, there will not be the slightest chance that Russia's position will continue. But such a scenario, it seems to me, is not very likely.
- How, in your opinion, will the situation develop after the overthrow of Bashar Assad? Judging by the information disseminated through the media, there are already dozens of disastrous scenarios.
- I believe that if there is no open external aggression, the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad will not happen. On 97% sure of this. If external aggression occurs, it will not be the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, but simply the destruction of the country that is leveled with the ground. The overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and the murder of the country are still different things.
However, I take one percent to the following options:
1. The West can go on tacit aggression under the guise of a "popular uprising" in Damascus. For example, dressing their own special forces in Arab clothes and taking Damascus according to the Tripoli variant, a coup under the guise of the “Arab spring”, carried out by high-class professionals, with the support of internal traitors. But it will be much more difficult to implement, since Damascus is larger both in territory and in population. There is no sea, on which you can deliver a naval landing. And, again, the Syrian army is stronger than the Libyan one. Such an attempt has every chance of failure.
How will the situation develop in this case? Most likely, according to the Libyan version. Alawites awaits genocide, Christians - exile or massacre too. Or they will find the strength to resist, and then there will be a real civil war, when not a single calm hearth remains.
2. I'm scared to write about this option, but the West may try to physically eliminate the President. The West has repeatedly eliminated unwanted state leaders.
As for Bashar Assad himself - there is such an aphorism that the people whose lives are most valuable, as a rule, do not value it enough. Prior to these events, Bashar Asad generally walked down the street without protection and could easily go into any store to buy groceries. On many shots and videos, you can see how he communicates with the people - any person approaches him. Even after the start of all events, the President could sit behind the wheel of a car and without any protection come to the rebellious Ham. In January of this year, almost immediately after one of the terrible terrorist attacks, the President came to the rally and spoke freely with the people. In March I drove to the barely cleaned Homs, where it was still very disturbing, and talked to the residents of the city without a bulletproof vest. And then again, without protection, he got behind the wheel and drove to the south of Syria. When I was lucky to get an appointment with him from the Russian delegation (it was last November), they didn’t search us, didn’t inspect the bags, or even led us through a metal detector.
The president, contrary to many rumors and misinformation, did not leave Damascus on the hardest days, when the coup was most likely - these were the days of the operation of the insurgents "Volcano in Damascus", which was an attempt to storm the capital, and the terrible terrorist attack, which, unfortunately, was a success enemies and claimed the lives of the defense minister and other leaders of Syria. The calculation of the enemies was just that the President was running, chaos would arise in the army ... But the new Minister of Defense was appointed on the same day, there was no panic. Perhaps it was in those days that the operation to destroy the President was being prepared, since there were too many conversations on this topic in the hostile media, which often did this: they reported an explosion or terrorist attack, and this act of terrorism did happen. But, fortunately, in the plans of the enemies of Syria, something broke, and the state survived.
But, of course, one cannot rule out such attempts in the future. I hope that the security service has taken appropriate security measures, and no one will allow the President to act heroically, because his life belongs not only to him, and too much depends on him.
But, of course, no one can predict the outcome of such special operations ... No one knows the perfidy of enemies and where the traitor will come from ... I don’t want to assume this, but in this case the power struggle between different clans can begin and the state can disintegrate.
3. The third option is if Russia stops supporting Bashar Assad even at the diplomatic level, and starts persuading him to leave, as was the case with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000 of the year, and with President of Adzharia Aslan Abashidze, as it was in the spring of 2003. Bashar Asad may not heed such hostile advice, but on the other hand, he is faced with the choice that either resignation or bombardment from the UN sanction and the loss of all allies - as a patriot, he can leave by sacrificing himself. Slobodan Milosevic. In this case, perhaps a milder version of care will occur, perhaps even without much blood, but it is unlikely that even a milder variant will benefit Syria. It will just be a creeping coup. And if the successor of Bashar Assad also turns out to be a firm and authoritative person, the United States will want to remove it already, and everything will start over.
But I think that this option is possible only if Russia changes its position for the worse. And this will happen only if the belolentochny are successful in Russia itself, which is unlikely.
- One of the likely scenarios for the development of events is the territorial division of Syria into three parts. Chagry Erkhan, director of the Center for Strategic Studies of European Nations, believes that the Baath regime, who is being removed from power, will try to create a new state based on its membership in the Latkhia-Tartus mazhab, which may entail deciding whether to destroy or assimilate the Sunni population. In addition, a similar course (the creation of a new state) can be taken by the Kurds. And here a difficult question arises, how to prevent the division of the country? Erhan believes that as soon as the government intervenes in the process, resorting to violent measures, this will lead to even more bloodshed. How likely, in your opinion, is this scenario?
- It seems to me that such a scenario is possible if events develop according to the Libyan scenario. In Latakia and Tartus, support for legitimate authority is currently the highest. If Damascus cannot be held, and it will be taken according to the Tripoli variant, while Bashar Assad will be able to escape, just as Gaddafi managed to get out alive from the burning Tripoli - then Latakia will become Syrian Sirt. And on the coast there could be such a fortress, such a bastion, where Bashar will retain power and influence, where the Alawites and Kurds will move, and if Russia helps this enclave and fails to crush it, then this little piece of land will be the last unconquered bastion of the East.
But the fact that there will be the destruction of the Sunni population is absolutely impossible. Alawites adhere to a soft, moderate Islam, they do not call for cutting Sunnis. Unlike the Sunnis, who succumbed to the propaganda of even more radical and cruel currents in Islam - the Wahhabis and the Salafis. In areas that are now captured by the rebels, it is very often possible to find inscriptions on the walls: “Alawites in the coffin, Christians in Beirut”.
Alawites never called on anyone to destroy on the basis of faith, it is contrary to their religion.
The Kurds can also take advantage of the situation and separate part of Syria in the northeast, near the city of Kamyshly. It is then that serious consequences await Turkey, which, while supporting the rebellion, does not calculate the consequences that are destructive for themselves.
You write that "Erhan believes that as soon as the government intervenes in the process, resorting to violent measures, this will lead to even more bloodshed." On this occasion, I can say that the antiterrorist operations conducted by the government, on the contrary, prevent such a scenario. If someone contributes to the collapse of Syria and even more bloodshed, then this is by no means the government of Syria. These are the forces that sponsor the terrorists, help them - the most brutal gangsters - at the diplomatic level, use them as cheap cannon fodder and throw them at the recalcitrant country. The government, on the contrary, is struggling with this scum recruited from all over the world. There are the same bandits who once fought in Chechnya, in Kosovo, in Afghanistan, and in Libya. And who at any time can incite Moscow and St. Petersburg. But those gangsters who will find their end in Syria - they will not go to cut people in Russia. Syria is now cleans the scum, not only themselves, but the whole world. This country should not collapse, it should stand and win!
Information