What is really happening in the Middle East and what do they want to feed us?
Often commenting on the articles in the "VO", I draw attention to the increasing informational stuffing directed against the interests of our country. The last material that I noticed was published in the article “Western allies are negotiating with Syrian Islamists. Who will be their next victim? ”.
I would like to express my opinion on this issue in this article.
The article is like a quilt, no logic of events and connections between different regions. Plain porridge. But after reading, there remains an unpleasant aftertaste associated with the conclusions about the final "collapse of the Assad regime." Russia is unprofitable the fall of the Syrian state, because such a "processing" of the consciousness of Russian inhabitants is harmful in the long term.
About Syria. The regime has just resisted and really is killing terrorists. This is an obvious fact. No one took a break, just the resources of Turkey, the USA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not infinite, as some are trying to show, intimidating the whole world with their “power”. The Islamist forces are actually very modest, because they achieved victory only in Libya and only with the intervention of NATO. And the financial and human resources of CA and Qatar are very limited. Of course, they can send tens of thousands more militants from the "poor" of the Islamic world, the same Yemen, for example. But you need to understand the real costs and the effect of such a policy. Not all people can be fighters. Indeed, Assad has already grinded inexperienced Islamists, at least reduced their numbers so much that he has deprived them of their strategic initiative. That "meat", which is driven to replace, just does not have time to gain combat experience and become a "pro", they just grind hundreds. And the costs of “buying”, arming, transferring and supplying such “meat” are not much lower than for the “pro” group. In turn, even at the initial stage of the war, when there were more professional terrorists, the ratio of losses was not in favor of the militants. Because it doesn’t matter how well trained and equipped you are if you are opposing an army with heavy weapons in open combat aviationyou still suffer big losses. Moreover, the loss of "cannon fodder" against the army is growing even stronger.
Sunni monarchies have also begun to understand such mathematics lately, and therefore they are changing their strategy. They tried to draw the US into the war against Syria, but it did not work either. Now they really took a pause, but in order to think about how to avoid responsibility. After all, the "Shiite crescent" will want to continue the showdown, but in the territory of the Sunnis.
Now about chemical weapons. After its total diplomatic failure, the West is trying in every way to reduce moral damage, raising the hype in the media that Asad is a fool, that he himself is disarming and this is in fact a secret victory for the West, not Russia. Some cite the example of Saddam and the destruction of his tactical complexes, also with the participation of the Russian Federation. Then, as a result, Saddam was still attacked, and there was really no sense of disarmament. However, this is a mixture of concepts and distraction. The fact remains that the US was really ready to strike at Syria back in September, and they would have done so. It is necessary to look at all the events in the complex, and not separately. In the United States, then the default was just about to come up, and they had to devote attention to it in every way, show their power to the world and thereby support their policies of enormous waste “for the good of democracy”. And so that all countries become thoughtful about their behavior and continue to buy candy wrappers. So only for this reason, not to mention the Jewish and Sunni lobbying of this war and even the payment of the costs of this campaign. So the initiative of the Russian Federation frustrated these plans and caused great damage to the prestige of the United States. As a result, the latter launched a show about “not raising the national debt ceiling” and kept the “intrigue” until the last moment, even sending the government “on vacation” for several weeks. However, as a result, the ceiling was raised as usual, but, in contrast to the first scenario, they were forced to start cutting down many programs. It did not turn out to show its strength, they were forced to show that they “listened” to the opinion of international donors. This is the second plus of the victory of Russian diplomacy, in addition to saving Syria itself and increasing Moscow’s influence in the region.
Now about the defense of Assad after the elimination of chemical weapons. Defense will only increase! The fact is that Assad, even in 2005, offered to get rid of all the chemicalsenal that he inherited. At the same time, the “chemical warfare” was disbanded, and all arsenals were mothballed. At that time, this disarmament proposal was tied to similar actions by Israel, but the United States rejected the deal. So Assad himself wanted to get rid of chemical weapons long before the outbreak of war. In tactical terms, the presence of chemical weapons from Assad weakens his position. Since he cannot use it against militants: he will poison his own country and his own population. A significant part of the forces of the army is leaving for the protection of objects, besides provocations with chemical weapons on the part of the militants put Syria’s statehood at risk. That is why Assad so easily agreed to disarm because it benefits him, even without taking it away from NATO. What will happen next year is not clear, but at least there will be no “legitimate” grounds for a “humanitarian” strike on Syria, and this is the victory of Assad and the Russian Federation.
Regarding the stability of Assad and the economic situation. Damage to the economy was really enormous, but it is not lethal for Assad. This is a somewhat controversial statement, but pay attention to where and how clashes occur and who suffer damage. In Syria, more 70% of the population are Sunni, and this is a fact, not all are radically minded, but many. During the fighting and stripping crumbling residential and industrial buildings. But to whom did they belong? The toughest battles and destruction are in loyal militant settlements. This indirectly leads to the impoverishment of the Sunni population and the weakening of their potential power in the country. The Alawites and Shiites have external sponsors, such as Iran, which means that Assad will require far fewer resources to maintain power than to ensure the entire country, including the Sunnis. I repeat that this is a very controversial conclusion, but it seems to me that he has the right to be voiced. I never said that Assad is a saint, but he is a patriot of his country and the society that existed in the country before and during his rule. But objectively, it is the dictatorship of the Alawite minority against the radical Islamization of the Sunnis with the support of the monarchies of the Gulf. Indeed, in the case of a “typical” democracy, 70% Sunni may decide that Allah said to them that they need to exterminate all the infidels, which they will do, as some of them are trying to do today. Not all Sunnis are such, but the compromise that allowed representatives of many religions and nationalities in Syria to coexist peacefully is not based on the Sunni majority, but on the sanity of the Alawites.
What is the power in such countries? On the economic, military and political dominance of the minority. Such examples are not an exception, the same Saddam's Iraq and its Baath party, as well as Israel. Which before the mass migration was in fact one Palestinian people. But the Jews, with external support, created a military and economic fist that allows them to dominate the absolute majority of Arabs in the region.
So, the stability of the Assad regime with external support of at least one Iran is beyond doubt. And the fact that a huge part of the country and its economy is destroyed is a dual factor. For a large number of Syrian Sunnis has become even more economically dependent on the support of the state, having lost, including housing and work. And who pays, that and orders music.
Now further. The West does not control the Middle East and continues to lose its influence there. What is the breakdown of secular regimes? Where did it happen? From all over BW and North Africa? Only in Libya, which became a shame of the West and deprived them of the most important weapons - trust in their media. Adventure and the bloodbath, arranged in Libya, the West took off the last mask of virtue. Now no one will believe the West until the end of days. Many recent events and echoes about Libya, as well as 888 events. When the Fox channel for the whole world revealed manipulations in the information space from the USA, when a little girl was silenced during the live broadcast, when she was telling the truth. Then everyone understood the falsity of all Western values, which are presented to the aborigines as glass beads. It was with 2008, the trust in the West began to crumble. The financial crisis that began at the same time is a consequence of a drop in confidence in the Western “virtual” economy. Snowden and Manning are a consequence of the fall of the Americans' faith in the lie that their own authorities instil in them. Americans themselves are tired of living in a lie, and therefore go to such actions.
But if you go back to the article, where, besides Libya, the Islamists have been successful with the support of the West? The biggest victory was in Egypt, but there everything was already rolled back. To a much more secular regime than under Mubarak. Where else did the Islamists succeed or where did the secular regime fall? What state, except Libya, was torn apart? None and anywhere else. The whole "Arab Spring" failed, not justifying billions in investments in this project. Moreover, the sponsors themselves are now under attack.
So I do not agree with the fact that the West and the Islamists met in order for the West to decide where to send "bearded men" further. Look closely at the general background, and the real purpose of the meeting will become apparent. In the information field, Russia delivered a crushing blow to the West in Syria. But the consequences of this blow have not yet passed. In addition, following a “chemical” deal, it was decided to convene a “Geneva-2”. For its part, Russia has shown the world that Assad is willing to compromise, that is, this is a person with whom you can deal. In addition, Russia has shown the world that it controls Asad and can convey to him their decisions. In turn, the same is required from the opposite side. But it is here that the West has a problem. The West and the United States do not control the militants and terrorists they themselves have created. As with the Taliban, this is a failure of the US intelligence services. Who will deal in this context with the United States? They expose themselves completely incapable. They draw the “red line”, through which they themselves step over, recognize the militants as legitimate authorities, but are not able to agree and influence a bunch of uneducated savages. It is for this reason that the Geneva-2 is constantly being transferred. And the US is losing its influence every day, until the world community sees their weakness and uncontrollable situation. Against this background, China began to move and began to actively promote its interests, including through the creation of an air defense zone. Iraq and Egypt began to look at Russia as a more reliable partner than the United States. And the same movements are going around the world, although for some reason this is hushed up by many media.
So at this meeting, the West, in the person of the United States, is trying to save its authority by offering “gifts” to bearded men, so that they at least formally come to Geneva-2. That's the whole intrigue. The owner pays his creature to obey him.
In principle, everything else in the article is an awkward mess, which is not worth commenting on. For where is Afghanistan or Yemen? Or Iraq and Northern Kurdistan? The destabilization of Yemen is unprofitable, first of all, to the West and, of course, to Saudi Arabia. For if Yemen turns into a second Somalia, then world trade will suffer huge losses. Passing through the Red Sea will be an eternal walk with pirates. Especially since wild tribes with weapons will threaten stability in Saudi Arabia itself. Moreover, this development is also beneficial for Iran, which has already established relations with Oman and is beginning to project its influence on Yemen to create a second front against the Saudis.
As for Northern Kurdistan, its success is based on the actions of the United States. Since during the Iraqi company, it was the Kurds who bet on the United States. As Iraq becomes increasingly Shiite and US influence over this state will decline, Shiite authorities can also take over the north of the country. Yes, and play on the side of the Kurds for the West is very dangerous. For Turkey is a member of NATO, and if the Kurds suddenly feel their strength, then a united Kurdistan will want, then the Turks will have to shed a lot of their blood.
The same is true about Afghanistan. US negotiate with the Syrian terrorists, so that they went to fight in Afghanistan against the US and NATO? Where is even a drop of logic in the conclusions of the author? Most Islamic groups are outright bandits who came to Syria to plunder and enrich themselves. Who will they rob in Afghanistan? Who is waiting for them there? Will Afghan warlords want to share narco-dollars with "strangers"? Will British special services miss their drug project?
All sorts of provocateurs, 10, for years, want to add to the Russian consciousness the idea of a threat from the south in order to divert from the real threat from the west, which is now being manifested in Ukraine. Then we are frightened by the expansion of China, which for some reason develops mainly only the fleet and moves south towards Australia. We are frightened by the fact that if NATO leaves our underbelly, the Taliban will rush to Siberia ... Where are there any facts or prerequisites for such a movement? When the Taliban or Afghans threatened Russia or the USSR? The Narcovoy - only after NATO arrived in Afghanistan, but not earlier. Why would anyone think that the Afghans, remembering the past, would want to indulge again with the Russian soldier? After all, the Taliban lead their main activity not in the north, but just in the south. They are interested in Pakistan, they have bases and influence there and want to expand it. In a pinch, get a nuclear weapon and a sufficiently rich country, go into the Indian Ocean and support the co-religionists in the confrontation with India. What are their interests in the north? Only those that are invented for them in London and Washington. Afghanistan is a threat to the Russian Federation, but only as long as NATO is in charge of it. Strengthening the border is, of course, necessary and all the more necessary to fight the drug mafia, but one should not overestimate the threat of the Taliban. It is better to strengthen in the west and north, since, while they want to pull us to the south, some countries begin to become impudent in the Russian Arctic.
In general, I would stop at this. I just want to ask fellow citizens and readers of “VO” to be more independent in their judgments, and not to rely on other people's thoughts. I am deeply worried about the passivity of our people and their habit of “hawking” information on faith, without their own analysis and understanding of what is written about. Russia does have enemies, and they want us to stop thinking and believing. This should not be allowed, you need to constantly keep your consciousness on guard.
Information