Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Ukraine: since 2011, more or less spontaneous and national “revolutionary” movements came into being in five of these countries, which were designed to transform states and change their lives for the better. Now it remains only to recognize their complete failure. Yes, the regimes that became the object of popular anger were indeed authoritarian and dictatorial, police and repressive, in most cases corrupt. These are the facts. Therefore, the protest and the desire for change were fully justified.
Nevertheless, we have already shown that the spontaneity of the “revolutions” was false, and that they were part of a strategy developed in America to assert the power of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East. No one can deny the fact that they succeeded only in those countries whose current regimes did not like Washington. The allies of the Americans (first of all Saudi Arabia and Qatar) did not have anything of the kind, and the popular revolution in Bahrain was brutally suppressed with the complete silence of the West. Double standards are obvious.
But what do we have four years later? What gave these revolutions? In truth, nothing. After all, although life in these countries was not idyllic before, now everything has become much worse (with the exception of Egypt): the states are disorganized, destroyed and divided. Revolutions have undermined security (civil war, terrorism), led to a rampant crime (murder, kidnapping, smuggling weapons), economic collapse (stopping production, leaving of foreign enterprises, destruction of infrastructure, etc.), mass population flight (departure of foreign workers, refugees, migration to Europe), expulsion of religious minorities (mainly Christians) and destruction of world heritage sites.
Although it is hardly worth shedding tears over the overthrown autocrats, it is impossible not to recall that, despite all the vileness of the Ben Ali clan, life in Tunisia was better before the revolution. Tourism flourished, and the work of European enterprises in its territory contributed to the development of the country.
Under Gaddafi, Libya led the whole of Africa in per capita income, women's education reached the highest level on the continent, there were 3-4 million foreign workers in the country, and she participated with us in the fight against terrorism.
Syria was slowly moving away from the dictatorship of Hafez Asad, although the attempt to liberalize after his son Bashar came to power in 2000, and turned into nothing. The situation in Iraq after the illegitimate intervention of the United States in 2003 fits into this category, has the same features and shows similar results.
“Revolutions” touched not only North Africa and the Middle East, but also Ukraine, where, paradoxically, with the support of the West, the legitimately elected president was overthrown (European observers confirmed compliance of the elections with the norms) with a gross violation of the rules, which he himself likes to condemn. At the same time, if the Ukrainian opposition waited for the end of Yanukovych’s term, he would most likely have a crushing defeat in elections next year, and there would be peace in the country instead of a civil war in the eastern regions and the rise of ultra-right neo-Nazism with the support of Europe and the CIA.
Thus, the results of the emergence of pseudo-democratic movements that the West so actively supported (not to say, “manipulated” them) turned out to be disastrous for the countries, their people and the very ideals of democracy. However, no one clearly learned any lessons from this, because the dynamics continued further. For example, in the past few months we have seen an increase in criticism towards states that are dissatisfied with a similar bias in Western policy and do not support it (Hungary, Czech Republic). Therefore, it is possible that the “people's revolution” may soon erupt in them, since they did not please Washington.
At the same time, we did not hear a single word of criticism of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, which directly or indirectly support Islamic terrorism (Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State) and are obsessed with the idea of overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. Recall that Riyadh began bloody aggression in Yemen, sending considerable military forces (almost 150) against the Hussites, which would be much better used against the IS. We prefer to remain silent about the conflict in Yemen, but its consequences impress: more than 000 dead and 5 wounded in a few months, 000 million refugees and 25 million disadvantaged. Fights there are much tougher and bloodier than in eastern Ukraine. In April of this year alone, the coalition led by Saudi Arabia conducted more than 000 raids, sometimes 1,3 missions a day. So, strikes were sent without the slightest twinge of conscience historical quarters of Sana'a (a city with 2500 years of history) and accounted for mainly the civilian population. But they are silent about this, and for the Western public, if something was not said in the evening the news, it doesn't exist. Again, double standards.
Recall also the key role of Turkey in the recent migration crisis. Ankara is responsible for the wave of migration that swept over Western Europe. Not being able to complete his Middle Eastern strategy, Erdogan (in recent months, a number of failures in the pre-election sphere and in foreign policy were waiting for him) decided to include (and destabilize) other parties, that is, Europeans in the first place. Therefore, it is completely unacceptable that the Turkish leader, a member of the international committee of the Muslim Brotherhood, was allowed 4 of October to speak at a meeting of supporters in Strasbourg, where he attacked terrorists with pathos criticism ... only the IG, and the PKK!
Regarding migrants, it is worth remembering about the exploitation of emotions with the advent of the tragic picture of a dead child on the beach, who was called upon to once again kindle guilt among Europeans. In addition, this photo is completely biased and aimed at manipulating people: why the media never showed the situation of the population that remained loyal to Assad (by their own decision or out of fear of the IG), which for four years has been suffering from the hands of terrorists and their Western and Arab patrons ?
There are many such people ... only they were on the wrong side! Our media clearly believe that among the civilian population there are innocent and guilty victims.
In addition, reports on migrants are an excellent example of a complete lack of objective critical analysis by the media: no commentator seems to have paid attention to a significant number of young people between the ages of 20 and 30 among the “Syrian refugees”. If a country is raging war, the desire to take out women, children and the elderly can be fully understood. But why are these men in their prime years fleeing from their own state? Why did they not stay to fight for or against Assad? It turns out that they are only interested in the West with its imaginary wealth. But no one notices this obvious fact. On the contrary, now a storm of criticism has fallen on Hungary for not wanting to host real or fake refugees, although earlier Western Europe had complained for many years that Eastern could not provide proper border control and opened the Schengen zone to the mercy of the winds.
Further, speaking of the conflict in Syria, the media present the situation as if from 250 000 victims of the civil war 90% is on the conscience of Damascus. This is a completely grotesque and insane statement. Recall that in the battles more than 60 000 soldiers of the regime died, and that the same number of civilians who were against the Islamists (most of them were Alawites) suffered the same sad fate. If Asad had shed so much blood, he would be overthrown, or he would regain control of the country. The media systematically omits the fact that the regime does not have a monopoly on violence at all, and that massacres (unfortunately, this is not uncommon for any civil war) are organized by both camps. The current manner of presenting events is silent about the excesses committed by the Islamists, or forgiving them all sins if their aggression is directed against Assad and his regime.
For example, the media still records the Damascus pseudo-chemical attacks of August 2013 of the year, although American military intelligence and the French Intelligence Research Center proved that this is not the case. However, the press continues to bend its line, and misinformation takes root ever deeper due to the blindness, irresponsibility and bad faith of journalists.
It is worth emphasizing once again that, despite all the misdeeds of the regime of Bashar al-Assad (we are not trying to defend him at all), the armed opposition consists of barbarians and fanatics who are infinitely worse than him. Although there is more or less agreement with IG about this, few people admit this about Jabhat al-Nusra, which is the al-Qaida Syrian branch and has similar goals. As you remember, it was Al Qaeda who staged the September 11 attacks, and it was she who the United States declared “war”. Only now it is supported in Syria by the Saudi, Qatari and Turkish allies of America.
Under the influence of our American and Arab "friends", we also began to demonize the Assad regime with all our might, blaming it for all sins and atrocities, including those that the Islamists had committed. But, in fact, the Syrian leader is worse than many of the smaller African despots whom we supported in the past and continue to do so now. By preferring Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, we showed how badly we lost touch with reality.
Realism is the most important quality in geopolitics and international relations, which the West, apparently, has long lost. Western Europe seems to have completely lost its way, and the only guide for it is the irresponsible and highly selfish US policy, which seeks to embroil it in all its adventures.
Common sense is shown only by a few countries, and first of all by Russia. Her intervention in Syria was a turning point, the first step towards restoring order in the Middle East. In addition, no matter what we think about this, Iran is increasingly being established as a factor of regional stability in the context of a rise in terrorism with the support of some Sunni states. Moscow and Tehran, of course, have their own interests, but we can hardly blame them for what we ourselves do without end.
The actions of these states can change the development of events in Syria. It is worth recalling that over the years, Assad practically did not use those units of his army, which consist mainly of Sunni conscripts: unlike many others, they did not shy away or deserted, but they do not have enough experience to participate in battles on the front line. For the most part, they are placed in defensive positions around Damascus. In the offensive operations involved Alawite troops. The appearance of Russian forces, the supply of weapons, air support and the increasingly pronounced participation of Iran and Hezbollah may well change the balance in favor of the regime. Damascus, on the other hand, can use these acquired more self-confidence units in reconquest operations. The first confirmation of this was the October 4 incident in Daria: about a thousand Islamists laid down arms, and some sources say that the IS militants fled to Iraq.
Of course, the West immediately attacked Russian strikes in Syria with criticism, accused Moscow of striking only Jabhat al-Nusra and ignoring the IG, without presenting even the slightest evidence to confirm its words. The arguments presented to them are false and rude: is it worth recalling the victims of the war in Iraq and the strikes of American drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Or about the US bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan on the night from 2 to October 3, which resulted in the death of 12 employees of the organization and seven patients (three of them children), and another 37 people were injured?
In general, it is amusing to watch the West criticize Moscow for strikes against Jabhat al-Nusra, that is, the Al-Qaida representation in Syria. The fact is that this group was preparing, armed, and is still supported by the Americans. And double standards again.
So, the West headed by the USA again seeks to impose on Russia the role of the bad guy, that is, to restore in the collective consciousness the role of the past Soviet enemy, although now the situation looks completely different. In a head the nonsense of some analysts who assert that Syria can become for Moscow the second Afghanistan do not fit. The two situations are so different from each other (theater, allies, forces present, etc.) that such arguments do not stand up to the slightest criticism.
Do not be mistaken: whatever the outcome of this crisis, the credibility of the West, Europe and France will be undermined for a long time, and their political and economic influence awaits a significant decline. Today, in many regions, the West is rightly considered a threat to peace and stability throughout the world, since its external intervention breeds chaos everywhere.
We constantly talk about solving the problems we have created. At first, the USA illegally invaded Iraq and destabilized it for a long time, and now they are fighting against the IS, the formation of which they themselves have contributed to. Similarly, the French operations in the Sahel (Serval and Barhan) are only a consequence of a strategic mistake, that is, our ill-considered actions in Libya. The approval of the Islamic state in Cyrenaica and Tripolitania became a kind of (deserved) revenge by Gaddafi from the next world. We have every reason to think hard about the mistakes of our foreign policy since 2007. What has France become? What happened to its values, special worldview, independence and freedom of speech? We can only ascertain the inconsistency and blindness of our leadership, as well as its alignment with the interests and positions of other states: the United States, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. We should think about whether it is able to defend our interests. His obsessive desire to overthrow Bashar al-Assad is not called real politics. This is only a confirmation of the lack of ideas, strategy, vision ... This is a tragedy! Today we play only a secondary, auxiliary role. And from the wrong side.
Of course, the advocates of political correctness will accuse us of defending dictators and countries that France has long opposed. However, by refusing to take into account modern realities and the changes that have occurred in the world, as well as spreading the disinformation streams of the mainstream Anglo-Saxon media everywhere, we finally undermine our credibility in the international arena and sooner or later pay for blind and irresponsible alignment with Washington and Sunni countries supporting terrorism .