What will happen? (Part two)
So, a week has passed since the terrorist attacks in Paris. Aether filled a squall of condolences, comments, forecasts. The French authorities rebelled from lethargic sleep and began to act independently.
The general tone of condolences "we are with you", "terrorism will not pass", "not intimidate us." In some social networks appeared "buttons", allowing with one click to color your avatar in the colors of the French flag. In Kiev, some citizens were photographed with placards "I am Paris" and lean faces. Most state leaders expressed their condolences and support to President Hollande.
Here I would like to make one retreat. Russia's words of condolences on Twitter expressed US Secretary of State Kerry, and France - President Obama. It would seem that this? But, in a diplomatic language, any comma or its absence can say a lot. I will give an example. The letter can be started by typing the appeal “General!”, Or you can “Dear General!” (Dear general). You can cross out “Dear General!” And write out “Dear General!” By hand. It is more polite not to print, but to write an appeal by hand.
Someone will say: "What kind of nonsense?" But diplomats read more between the lines.
I think I’m not mistaken if I offer such a reading of Kerry’s condolences: “Yes, there was a terrorist act against your plane. Themselves to blame. And if you think that this fact can be a reason for improving our relations, then you are mistaken. And our condolences are formal, so as not to give you a reason to blame the callousness of the United States. "
This is my reading. Probably, someone will read in a different way. However, it is clear that for the Anglo-Saxons there are their own and other victims of the attacks. And to expect that they will tell us "let's forget the previous offenses and become a united front in the fight against terrorism" is simply naive. For the collective West, we are different. Were, is and will be. Therefore, comments about what preferences from terrorist attacks in Paris Russia will receive, do not have anything under themselves, except Russophobia.
But there are interesting facts. In the first hours after the attacks, comments from the “Russian preferences” sounded two messages from the scene: frightened citizens clearly heard the announcement of the terrorist “this is for Syria”, and a Syrian passport was found next to the terrorist. Frankly, I was waiting for another discovery in the pocket of a terrorist - an order to carry out a terrorist act, signed by Syrian President Assad. Apparently, something did not grow together. Maybe it was too quickly established that among the terrorists were citizens of France and Belgium. Or maybe they were ashamed a second time to apply the practices used in stories with Malaysian boeing.
Comments "go right" is worth considering in more detail. Of course, from the point of view of the European political beau monde, it’s quite difficult to understand who the right or, more precisely, the extreme right (who are to the right of the conservatives, but to the left of the radicals) is (who first called our opponent so and right). For example, Dmitry Yarosh, seems to be right, but at the same time a nationalist in the good sense of the word. Marine Le Pen and Milos Zeman are also right, but almost fascists.
The right political sector has always been present in one form or another in Europe. And the growth of its popularity is really happening lately. As an example, let me give you the sensational victory of the Austrian Freedom Party Haider (from 2005 onwards - the Union for the Future of Austria) in the parliamentary elections in 1999 and 2009; the victories of the League of the North and the National Alliance, which entered the Berlusconi government in 1999, 2001-2010; the constant growth of French support for the National Front (23% support for Marine Le Pen according to the results of public opinion polls in 2011). In Switzerland, the Swiss People’s Party (Union of the Democratic Center) has been ruling since 1959 of the year (it’s the one that prevents Switzerland from joining the European Union). In Hungary, Romania, the extreme right gained seats in the parliaments of these countries and achieved success in the elections to the European Parliament in the 2004 and 2009 years. Actually, the number of deputies from the right-wing parties in the European Parliament increases from year to year.
The attacks in Paris, of course, strengthen the position of the right and euro skeptics in Europe. A significant part of Europeans are tired of implanted, in some cases violently implanted, tolerance, multiculturalism, the primacy of the priority of minority opinion. Actually listed and there are conditions that contributed to the attacks. It should be understood that there will be no “right” revolution in Europe, and the political consequences of terrorist acts will manifest themselves gradually from election to election. Europe “rules” and this, given the sympathies of the European right to the primordial Christian values, which are the spiritual foundation of Russian society, the national policy of the Russian Federation, causes cautious optimism.
Before the next presidential elections in France, about one and a half years. It is believed that the election campaign has already begun. The current president is gaining points. An emergency joint meeting of both houses of parliament was held. The rights of special services for combating terrorism have been expanded. Now they can listen and view citizens' messages without a court decision. A war on terrorism has been declared, a state of emergency has been introduced in the country. The proposals on the creation of the anti-Igilov coalition were made. The French Air Force launched an air strike on Racca in Syria. The aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" arrived in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. The intelligence services of France and Belgium conducted a series of successful anti-terrorist operations (although the Belgians released all those arrested later).
President Hollande’s actions are very reminiscent of what George W. Bush did in September 2001. It's clear. The president must demonstrate firmness, confidence and uncompromising in the fight against the evil of terrorism. Without a doubt, the rights and opportunities of the French and European intelligence services will be expanded. This corresponds to the right-wing views that are gaining popularity, and criticism of such changes by the left will soon be at least inappropriate. Unfortunately, the European special services do not have sufficient, in comparison with the Russian, experience in anti-terrorism activities. And against the background of an increase in the number of employees of power structures (Hollande has already stated this), their effectiveness in the coming months will not increase at least.
The Brussels bureaucracy became more active. Its goal is clear - to prevent the redistribution of power from Brussels to national governments. It is clear that new initiatives are needed to retain power. And Brussels Europe made them happy. Among the first is the initiative to create a single intelligence service of the European Union. Unfortunately (or to satisfaction), only five EU states are ready to share intelligence information in full. It is proposed to strengthen the protection of the external borders of the EU. The measure is reasonable, but expensive and difficult. Now both the external and internal borders of the union are transparent. And it seems that, against the background of a talker in Brussels on this issue, the strengthening of borders will be carried out at the national level, based on the assessed threat and financial possibilities.
There was also a radical proposal to form the EU armed forces. The initiative, in my opinion, is completely unrealizable. First, the EU states, with the exception of Austria, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus, Finland and Sweden, are members of NATO. Secondly, only four of the NATO’s 28 states (Great Britain, Greece, USA and Estonia) spend on defense no less than the prescribed 2% of GDP. Hence the question: "Where does the money come from, Zin?" At present, the military headquarters of the European Union is a small, inefficient, amorphous structure that with great difficulty was able to organize and conduct peacekeeping operations in Macedonia (“Consent”), Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Altey”) and under the auspices of the UN in the Congo and Chad / CAR. The idea of creating a unified command and common armed forces of the EU is not new and was promoted by Germany, France and Poland. However, Great Britain imposed a veto on the project of creating a single European Union command in 2011. According to former British Foreign Secretary William Hague, London will not agree with this either now or in the future, since the creation of the EU headquarters would be a "wasteful duplication of NATO."
I will allow another retreat and declare that, oddly enough, the Ukrainian regime bears the most of the costs of the terrorist attacks in Paris. In recent months, Europe is growing fatigued by the “revolutionist” and the inability of Ukraine to show positive achievements in the economic and political fields, such as the results of European support and assistance. Today Poroshenko and Co. really fear Europe’s cooling towards Ukraine’s affairs, and this situation will force them to act to draw attention to their problems. The easiest and proven way is to provoke an escalation of tension in the east of the country and in relations with Russia. The undermining of power line poles in the Kherson region and an increase in the intensity of shelling of the territory of the DPR is the means to achieve this goal.
Let us return to the armed forces of France and their commander in chief. Mr Hollande called for the creation of a broad coalition of states to fight ISIS. The proposal is reasonable, if you do not take into account that such a coalition has been under the auspices of the United States for a year and a half already, and France is part of it. If this is a recognition that in the past time neither the United States, nor France, nor the West as a whole has achieved significant results in the fight against terror and protecting its citizens, we will rejoice in the return of the head of France to the realities of life.
French air force inflicted rocket-bombing on Raqqah. The course is timely and improves the rating of the president. But I would like to know what goals were attacked in Rakka, if the French do not want to cooperate with the structures of Assad? Suppose that the reconnaissance of targets in the "capital" of terrorists is a result of the titanic efforts of the French intelligence. Then it is not clear why they did not destroy these goals earlier. Or maybe they just dumped bombs on the city?
The aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" came to the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. The move is even more "trump", because an aircraft carrier is a way to project force in a particular region.
President Putin instructed the elder on the march of a detachment of ships of the Navy to organize interaction with the French and act with them as with allies. The senior responded “is” on the march, the media and experts began to “develop” the topic. Some have agreed that a detachment of Russian ships will ensure combat stability (from whom?) Of an aircraft carrier, its anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and anti-sabotage defenses.
If we take a sober look at the situation, then we remember that aircraft carriers do not walk independently, but act as part of the AUG. AUG ships and provide air defense, PLO and PDO of its aircraft carrier. ISIS simply does not have air or sea-based weapons. In addition, they plan to join the AUG for one frigate of the United Kingdom and Denmark. I can’t say anything about the UK frigate, but the Danish frigate is serious. Let me remind the reader that during the Second World War, the Wehrmacht forced Denmark to surrender for several hours, losing two soldiers killed and three wounded. The Danish Armed Forces (before capitulation) lost 16 people killed and either 20 or 23 people wounded.
The maintenance of effective interaction between the detachment of the Russian Navy ships and the AUG of the French Navy also seems questionable. And that's why. Interaction is the coordination of the use of forces and means in time and place in the interests of performing specific tasks. For the organization of effective control, compatible (similar) procedures (American term) of military planning, contingency (compatibility) of communication facilities, troop control systems and weapons, communications. That is, compatible frequencies, protocols, etc. that provide close-to-real data exchange. Let me remind you that in order to participate in the NATO operation in the Mediterranean Sea Active Endeavour (active efforts), the naval ships underwent special months-long training, and the necessary NATO equipment was installed on them. I note that for the purpose of training in joint maneuvering and communication on a regular basis, within the framework of the Partnership for Peace program, exercises are conducted “Passex”. Of course, if the interaction is organized at the level of “we are now taking off, you tell yours so as not to be shot down”, then yes, it is possible.
And so, we have ISIS and many other terrorist groups. We have two coalitions: conditionally ours (Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran) and the US as part of either 62 or 63 states (no one is able to list them), and according to Obama’s latest statement 65 does. We have Hollande on briefing in the Washington Regional Committee before the visit to Russia. We have Western anti-Russian sanctions. Against this background, we have a wide range of forecasts of developments from "nothing will" to "the global victory of common sense, cooperation and prosperity."
Predicting the development of events, I propose to consider the Crimea, Novorossia, Syria as decorations for the process of containing Russia. In other words, the containment of Russia was carried out, carried out and will be carried out regardless of whether or not the reunification of the Crimea occurred, whether or not there was moral and humanitarian support for Donetsk and Luhansk, whether or not assistance was rendered to Syria.
At the turn of 2000, the US intelligence community in its forecasts was inclined to think that 2012 was the last year of Russia's existence. But then VV came to the leadership of the state. Putin, and Russia, in the words of Chancellor Gorchakov, "began to concentrate." In a short time, centrifugal tendencies were overcome. The pace of development for a number of years significantly exceeded the European - 5-7-10%. Russia began to pursue an independent policy. All this led to a policy of containment by the West. After consultations last week, the leading states of the West (including France, dear to the heart of every Russian) announced the extension of anti-Russian sanctions until the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. And since Poroshenko and Co. can not perform them, make a conclusion, the reader.
Briefly consider the main players in the Syrian direction. Let's start with "ours".
Syria. Of course, the task of the legitimate Syrian leadership is to defeat terrorist groups, their destruction or ousting the republic. Forced within the Syrian political dialogue. Early presidential election. And not the fact that Bashar Asad will lose them. Providing as little autonomy as possible to Kurdish areas. Syria is interested in supporting Russia. But, and Russia is interested in supporting Syria. Perhaps, Assad is Russia's last ally (remember Milosevic, Hussein, Gaddafi).
Iran. Iran’s “axis of influence” on the eastern Mediterranean (Lebanon, Hezbollah) passes through northern Iraq and Syria. Syria’s defeat will weaken Shiite Iran in the face of the Gulf monarchies. Iran is positioning itself as a major player in the region.
Iraq. Independent state, fully controlled by the United States. The natural goal is the destruction of ISIS and the restoration of sovereignty over the territory. For this, it has neither the strength, nor the means, nor the political will.
The Kurds. The largest nation that does not have its statehood. Relatively compact live in Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Kurdish troops fight ISIS, in some cases successfully, and have areas under their sovereignty in Syria and Iraq. The goal of the Kurdish movement is to create an independent Kurdistan.
Now consider the sixty-five polynomial under the auspices of the United States.
USA. Idee fixe - the indispensable care of Bashar Assad. Continued dominance in the region due to controlled chaos. Preventing new centers of power in the region (Russia, Iran). Soft restraint of the Allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia).
Our liberal intelligentsia does not like the mention of the practice of controlled chaos. But how else can one explain the open support of the United States for its (good) terrorists from the so-called moderate Syrian opposition? How can one explain the fact that up to half of the weapons, ammunition and equipment for this very moderate opposition are dumped into the locations of ISIS units? How can we explain the transition of the “moderate oppositionists” trained and armed with American taxpayers' money to the side of Jabhat al-Nusra, and twice? Dull US intelligence? It is unlikely, given that no investigation (limited to the scandal in Congress) was not conducted, and no one lost his position. For Washington it is now important that Russia does not become a global player in the Middle East and in the world as a whole. The United States fears the destruction of a unipolar world, and this is a much more painful topic for them than terrorism, which has already entered Paris.
France. It is quite difficult to say anything other than "retribution" and "a demonstration of the decisiveness of the president before voters." Actually, France and created this inter-ethnic and interfaith intersection called Syria.
Turkey. One of the most interested countries. First, Assad is an irreconcilable ideological opponent for Erdogan. Secondly, this is a project of the Qatari gas pipe through Syria to Turkey and the oil business with IG, which is coordinated by the son of Erdogan from the Turkish side (terrorists daily receive up to 1,5 million dollars from the oil trade with Turkey). Thirdly, the fight against the Kurds. Terrorist training camps operate almost openly in Turkey. Militants are provided with rest and treatment.
Qatar. Small and very rich state, accustomed to impunity. Having up to 100 billion dollars a year of "extra money", in fact, finances and defines the tasks of the Muslim Brotherhood, Imaratu Kavkaz, Ahrar ash-Shamu and the IG. He organizes treatment in the Turkish resorts of terrorists who are fighting in Syria. This process is headed by the Foreign Minister of Qatar, Khaled al-Attiyah.
Saudi Arabia. Like Qatar, the Wahhabi Salafi state. Positioning itself as the ideological leader of the entire Arab East. Al Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra are their terrorists for the Saudis. According to Evgeny Satanovsky, it was Saudi Arabia that stood behind the September 11 attacks in the United States, at Dubrovka in Moscow, in Volgograd.
We reviewed very briefly only eight states. This, and the whole article, is not some kind of analyst, but rather a response to injustice (ours are not our victims, the good ones are bad terrorists) and outright lies in the western information space.
And now let's try to summarize.
The terrorist danger in the world, in general, and in Europe, in particular, will increase. The containment of Russia by the West will continue. The fight against terrorism and ISIS is a long, costly process. The victory over terrorism is impossible without a victory over their sponsors. Every Khaled al-Attiyah must answer for his deeds. Creating an effective and efficient broad coalition of states to combat ISIS is unlikely.
Russia, as always, has two loyal ally - the army and the navy.
The general tone of condolences "we are with you", "terrorism will not pass", "not intimidate us." In some social networks appeared "buttons", allowing with one click to color your avatar in the colors of the French flag. In Kiev, some citizens were photographed with placards "I am Paris" and lean faces. Most state leaders expressed their condolences and support to President Hollande.
Here I would like to make one retreat. Russia's words of condolences on Twitter expressed US Secretary of State Kerry, and France - President Obama. It would seem that this? But, in a diplomatic language, any comma or its absence can say a lot. I will give an example. The letter can be started by typing the appeal “General!”, Or you can “Dear General!” (Dear general). You can cross out “Dear General!” And write out “Dear General!” By hand. It is more polite not to print, but to write an appeal by hand.
Someone will say: "What kind of nonsense?" But diplomats read more between the lines.
I think I’m not mistaken if I offer such a reading of Kerry’s condolences: “Yes, there was a terrorist act against your plane. Themselves to blame. And if you think that this fact can be a reason for improving our relations, then you are mistaken. And our condolences are formal, so as not to give you a reason to blame the callousness of the United States. "
This is my reading. Probably, someone will read in a different way. However, it is clear that for the Anglo-Saxons there are their own and other victims of the attacks. And to expect that they will tell us "let's forget the previous offenses and become a united front in the fight against terrorism" is simply naive. For the collective West, we are different. Were, is and will be. Therefore, comments about what preferences from terrorist attacks in Paris Russia will receive, do not have anything under themselves, except Russophobia.
But there are interesting facts. In the first hours after the attacks, comments from the “Russian preferences” sounded two messages from the scene: frightened citizens clearly heard the announcement of the terrorist “this is for Syria”, and a Syrian passport was found next to the terrorist. Frankly, I was waiting for another discovery in the pocket of a terrorist - an order to carry out a terrorist act, signed by Syrian President Assad. Apparently, something did not grow together. Maybe it was too quickly established that among the terrorists were citizens of France and Belgium. Or maybe they were ashamed a second time to apply the practices used in stories with Malaysian boeing.
Comments "go right" is worth considering in more detail. Of course, from the point of view of the European political beau monde, it’s quite difficult to understand who the right or, more precisely, the extreme right (who are to the right of the conservatives, but to the left of the radicals) is (who first called our opponent so and right). For example, Dmitry Yarosh, seems to be right, but at the same time a nationalist in the good sense of the word. Marine Le Pen and Milos Zeman are also right, but almost fascists.
The right political sector has always been present in one form or another in Europe. And the growth of its popularity is really happening lately. As an example, let me give you the sensational victory of the Austrian Freedom Party Haider (from 2005 onwards - the Union for the Future of Austria) in the parliamentary elections in 1999 and 2009; the victories of the League of the North and the National Alliance, which entered the Berlusconi government in 1999, 2001-2010; the constant growth of French support for the National Front (23% support for Marine Le Pen according to the results of public opinion polls in 2011). In Switzerland, the Swiss People’s Party (Union of the Democratic Center) has been ruling since 1959 of the year (it’s the one that prevents Switzerland from joining the European Union). In Hungary, Romania, the extreme right gained seats in the parliaments of these countries and achieved success in the elections to the European Parliament in the 2004 and 2009 years. Actually, the number of deputies from the right-wing parties in the European Parliament increases from year to year.
The attacks in Paris, of course, strengthen the position of the right and euro skeptics in Europe. A significant part of Europeans are tired of implanted, in some cases violently implanted, tolerance, multiculturalism, the primacy of the priority of minority opinion. Actually listed and there are conditions that contributed to the attacks. It should be understood that there will be no “right” revolution in Europe, and the political consequences of terrorist acts will manifest themselves gradually from election to election. Europe “rules” and this, given the sympathies of the European right to the primordial Christian values, which are the spiritual foundation of Russian society, the national policy of the Russian Federation, causes cautious optimism.
Before the next presidential elections in France, about one and a half years. It is believed that the election campaign has already begun. The current president is gaining points. An emergency joint meeting of both houses of parliament was held. The rights of special services for combating terrorism have been expanded. Now they can listen and view citizens' messages without a court decision. A war on terrorism has been declared, a state of emergency has been introduced in the country. The proposals on the creation of the anti-Igilov coalition were made. The French Air Force launched an air strike on Racca in Syria. The aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" arrived in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. The intelligence services of France and Belgium conducted a series of successful anti-terrorist operations (although the Belgians released all those arrested later).
President Hollande’s actions are very reminiscent of what George W. Bush did in September 2001. It's clear. The president must demonstrate firmness, confidence and uncompromising in the fight against the evil of terrorism. Without a doubt, the rights and opportunities of the French and European intelligence services will be expanded. This corresponds to the right-wing views that are gaining popularity, and criticism of such changes by the left will soon be at least inappropriate. Unfortunately, the European special services do not have sufficient, in comparison with the Russian, experience in anti-terrorism activities. And against the background of an increase in the number of employees of power structures (Hollande has already stated this), their effectiveness in the coming months will not increase at least.
The Brussels bureaucracy became more active. Its goal is clear - to prevent the redistribution of power from Brussels to national governments. It is clear that new initiatives are needed to retain power. And Brussels Europe made them happy. Among the first is the initiative to create a single intelligence service of the European Union. Unfortunately (or to satisfaction), only five EU states are ready to share intelligence information in full. It is proposed to strengthen the protection of the external borders of the EU. The measure is reasonable, but expensive and difficult. Now both the external and internal borders of the union are transparent. And it seems that, against the background of a talker in Brussels on this issue, the strengthening of borders will be carried out at the national level, based on the assessed threat and financial possibilities.
There was also a radical proposal to form the EU armed forces. The initiative, in my opinion, is completely unrealizable. First, the EU states, with the exception of Austria, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus, Finland and Sweden, are members of NATO. Secondly, only four of the NATO’s 28 states (Great Britain, Greece, USA and Estonia) spend on defense no less than the prescribed 2% of GDP. Hence the question: "Where does the money come from, Zin?" At present, the military headquarters of the European Union is a small, inefficient, amorphous structure that with great difficulty was able to organize and conduct peacekeeping operations in Macedonia (“Consent”), Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Altey”) and under the auspices of the UN in the Congo and Chad / CAR. The idea of creating a unified command and common armed forces of the EU is not new and was promoted by Germany, France and Poland. However, Great Britain imposed a veto on the project of creating a single European Union command in 2011. According to former British Foreign Secretary William Hague, London will not agree with this either now or in the future, since the creation of the EU headquarters would be a "wasteful duplication of NATO."
I will allow another retreat and declare that, oddly enough, the Ukrainian regime bears the most of the costs of the terrorist attacks in Paris. In recent months, Europe is growing fatigued by the “revolutionist” and the inability of Ukraine to show positive achievements in the economic and political fields, such as the results of European support and assistance. Today Poroshenko and Co. really fear Europe’s cooling towards Ukraine’s affairs, and this situation will force them to act to draw attention to their problems. The easiest and proven way is to provoke an escalation of tension in the east of the country and in relations with Russia. The undermining of power line poles in the Kherson region and an increase in the intensity of shelling of the territory of the DPR is the means to achieve this goal.
Let us return to the armed forces of France and their commander in chief. Mr Hollande called for the creation of a broad coalition of states to fight ISIS. The proposal is reasonable, if you do not take into account that such a coalition has been under the auspices of the United States for a year and a half already, and France is part of it. If this is a recognition that in the past time neither the United States, nor France, nor the West as a whole has achieved significant results in the fight against terror and protecting its citizens, we will rejoice in the return of the head of France to the realities of life.
French air force inflicted rocket-bombing on Raqqah. The course is timely and improves the rating of the president. But I would like to know what goals were attacked in Rakka, if the French do not want to cooperate with the structures of Assad? Suppose that the reconnaissance of targets in the "capital" of terrorists is a result of the titanic efforts of the French intelligence. Then it is not clear why they did not destroy these goals earlier. Or maybe they just dumped bombs on the city?
The aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" came to the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. The move is even more "trump", because an aircraft carrier is a way to project force in a particular region.
President Putin instructed the elder on the march of a detachment of ships of the Navy to organize interaction with the French and act with them as with allies. The senior responded “is” on the march, the media and experts began to “develop” the topic. Some have agreed that a detachment of Russian ships will ensure combat stability (from whom?) Of an aircraft carrier, its anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and anti-sabotage defenses.
If we take a sober look at the situation, then we remember that aircraft carriers do not walk independently, but act as part of the AUG. AUG ships and provide air defense, PLO and PDO of its aircraft carrier. ISIS simply does not have air or sea-based weapons. In addition, they plan to join the AUG for one frigate of the United Kingdom and Denmark. I can’t say anything about the UK frigate, but the Danish frigate is serious. Let me remind the reader that during the Second World War, the Wehrmacht forced Denmark to surrender for several hours, losing two soldiers killed and three wounded. The Danish Armed Forces (before capitulation) lost 16 people killed and either 20 or 23 people wounded.
The maintenance of effective interaction between the detachment of the Russian Navy ships and the AUG of the French Navy also seems questionable. And that's why. Interaction is the coordination of the use of forces and means in time and place in the interests of performing specific tasks. For the organization of effective control, compatible (similar) procedures (American term) of military planning, contingency (compatibility) of communication facilities, troop control systems and weapons, communications. That is, compatible frequencies, protocols, etc. that provide close-to-real data exchange. Let me remind you that in order to participate in the NATO operation in the Mediterranean Sea Active Endeavour (active efforts), the naval ships underwent special months-long training, and the necessary NATO equipment was installed on them. I note that for the purpose of training in joint maneuvering and communication on a regular basis, within the framework of the Partnership for Peace program, exercises are conducted “Passex”. Of course, if the interaction is organized at the level of “we are now taking off, you tell yours so as not to be shot down”, then yes, it is possible.
And so, we have ISIS and many other terrorist groups. We have two coalitions: conditionally ours (Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran) and the US as part of either 62 or 63 states (no one is able to list them), and according to Obama’s latest statement 65 does. We have Hollande on briefing in the Washington Regional Committee before the visit to Russia. We have Western anti-Russian sanctions. Against this background, we have a wide range of forecasts of developments from "nothing will" to "the global victory of common sense, cooperation and prosperity."
Predicting the development of events, I propose to consider the Crimea, Novorossia, Syria as decorations for the process of containing Russia. In other words, the containment of Russia was carried out, carried out and will be carried out regardless of whether or not the reunification of the Crimea occurred, whether or not there was moral and humanitarian support for Donetsk and Luhansk, whether or not assistance was rendered to Syria.
At the turn of 2000, the US intelligence community in its forecasts was inclined to think that 2012 was the last year of Russia's existence. But then VV came to the leadership of the state. Putin, and Russia, in the words of Chancellor Gorchakov, "began to concentrate." In a short time, centrifugal tendencies were overcome. The pace of development for a number of years significantly exceeded the European - 5-7-10%. Russia began to pursue an independent policy. All this led to a policy of containment by the West. After consultations last week, the leading states of the West (including France, dear to the heart of every Russian) announced the extension of anti-Russian sanctions until the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. And since Poroshenko and Co. can not perform them, make a conclusion, the reader.
Briefly consider the main players in the Syrian direction. Let's start with "ours".
Syria. Of course, the task of the legitimate Syrian leadership is to defeat terrorist groups, their destruction or ousting the republic. Forced within the Syrian political dialogue. Early presidential election. And not the fact that Bashar Asad will lose them. Providing as little autonomy as possible to Kurdish areas. Syria is interested in supporting Russia. But, and Russia is interested in supporting Syria. Perhaps, Assad is Russia's last ally (remember Milosevic, Hussein, Gaddafi).
Iran. Iran’s “axis of influence” on the eastern Mediterranean (Lebanon, Hezbollah) passes through northern Iraq and Syria. Syria’s defeat will weaken Shiite Iran in the face of the Gulf monarchies. Iran is positioning itself as a major player in the region.
Iraq. Independent state, fully controlled by the United States. The natural goal is the destruction of ISIS and the restoration of sovereignty over the territory. For this, it has neither the strength, nor the means, nor the political will.
The Kurds. The largest nation that does not have its statehood. Relatively compact live in Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Kurdish troops fight ISIS, in some cases successfully, and have areas under their sovereignty in Syria and Iraq. The goal of the Kurdish movement is to create an independent Kurdistan.
Now consider the sixty-five polynomial under the auspices of the United States.
USA. Idee fixe - the indispensable care of Bashar Assad. Continued dominance in the region due to controlled chaos. Preventing new centers of power in the region (Russia, Iran). Soft restraint of the Allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia).
Our liberal intelligentsia does not like the mention of the practice of controlled chaos. But how else can one explain the open support of the United States for its (good) terrorists from the so-called moderate Syrian opposition? How can one explain the fact that up to half of the weapons, ammunition and equipment for this very moderate opposition are dumped into the locations of ISIS units? How can we explain the transition of the “moderate oppositionists” trained and armed with American taxpayers' money to the side of Jabhat al-Nusra, and twice? Dull US intelligence? It is unlikely, given that no investigation (limited to the scandal in Congress) was not conducted, and no one lost his position. For Washington it is now important that Russia does not become a global player in the Middle East and in the world as a whole. The United States fears the destruction of a unipolar world, and this is a much more painful topic for them than terrorism, which has already entered Paris.
France. It is quite difficult to say anything other than "retribution" and "a demonstration of the decisiveness of the president before voters." Actually, France and created this inter-ethnic and interfaith intersection called Syria.
Turkey. One of the most interested countries. First, Assad is an irreconcilable ideological opponent for Erdogan. Secondly, this is a project of the Qatari gas pipe through Syria to Turkey and the oil business with IG, which is coordinated by the son of Erdogan from the Turkish side (terrorists daily receive up to 1,5 million dollars from the oil trade with Turkey). Thirdly, the fight against the Kurds. Terrorist training camps operate almost openly in Turkey. Militants are provided with rest and treatment.
Qatar. Small and very rich state, accustomed to impunity. Having up to 100 billion dollars a year of "extra money", in fact, finances and defines the tasks of the Muslim Brotherhood, Imaratu Kavkaz, Ahrar ash-Shamu and the IG. He organizes treatment in the Turkish resorts of terrorists who are fighting in Syria. This process is headed by the Foreign Minister of Qatar, Khaled al-Attiyah.
Saudi Arabia. Like Qatar, the Wahhabi Salafi state. Positioning itself as the ideological leader of the entire Arab East. Al Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra are their terrorists for the Saudis. According to Evgeny Satanovsky, it was Saudi Arabia that stood behind the September 11 attacks in the United States, at Dubrovka in Moscow, in Volgograd.
We reviewed very briefly only eight states. This, and the whole article, is not some kind of analyst, but rather a response to injustice (ours are not our victims, the good ones are bad terrorists) and outright lies in the western information space.
And now let's try to summarize.
The terrorist danger in the world, in general, and in Europe, in particular, will increase. The containment of Russia by the West will continue. The fight against terrorism and ISIS is a long, costly process. The victory over terrorism is impossible without a victory over their sponsors. Every Khaled al-Attiyah must answer for his deeds. Creating an effective and efficient broad coalition of states to combat ISIS is unlikely.
Russia, as always, has two loyal ally - the army and the navy.
Information