Russia's policy
towards Syria is one based on principles and not one which will change depending
on circumstances. Russia has clearly said that it will never allow a "Libya
2" in Syria. That is a principled position which in itself does not secure an
outcome, only excludes a specific scenario...
Several Russian (and
Ukrainian) nationals have been kidnapped by the Al-CIAda insurgents which, in a
typical Wahhabi-thuggish manner, are now demanding a ransom in US dollars. This
is an ominous development which the Kremlin cannot ignore. Again, contingency
plans do NOT AT ALL mean a change in policies. To take all the
necessary measures to protect its nationals is an inherent obligation of any
state and not an original policy.
Fundamentally, Russia
is using the power that it has (veto at the UNSC) and stays away from pretending
to use the power it does not have (military intervention). This is also exactly
what China is doing, all for the same reasons, yet nobody is constantly speaking
about Chinese zig-zags on China. Why? Because China is not the ex-Soviet Union
with global ambitions...
This is the key thing which so many experts simply cannot get used to: Russia is not a global power anymore. In fact, it has absolutely no desire to become one again. Russia is, of course, a major power which, in theory, could challenge the USA, just like China could. However, both Russia and China could only do that at great, immense, risk for themselves.
And then there is the time factor: both Russia and China fully realize that they, even more than the other BRICS countries, have time on their side and that each passing year makes them stronger. The USA, in contrast, is globally overextended, burdened by a debt it will never pay, profusely hated world wide, and the only thing which still keeps it going is the fact that the rest of the planet is too afraid of the US military to openly refuse to use the US dollar as a currency reserve and to pay for its energy. The US is also socially dysfunctional, culturally sterile, militarily over-extended, economically de-industrialized, and politically "neo-feudal" (1% rule over 99% of serfs). Sooner or later the USA will become weak enough to make it possible for any major power, including Russia or China and Brazil, to openly defy it, but while it is still powerful but weakening it is an extremely dangerous foe which should not be under-estimated. This is why Russia, along with the other regional powers on the planet, will continue to carefully wait for the right time and avoid any sudden move which would compromise all that it has achieved in the past 12 years...
On The EU poodles.... I would argue that the current condition of the EU is even worse than the one of the Zio-USA... Russian politicians look at the EU in total disgust. Russian experts are saying that all that the EU had to offer was a "never ending gay-pride parade combined with a massive Maghrebization and of Africanization of its society". That is not a bad way to put it. The EU, as a political project, is dying, and the European society arguably is even more dysfunctional than the US one. The likes of Sarkozy, Hollande, Cameron, Fabius, Juppe and Merkel can delude themselves by playing big power politics, but the fact that French Rafales were the first to bomb Libya will change exactly nothing to prevent the French society from dying from the truly cataclysmic influx of immigrants, most of which come from the Maghreb or Africa. From Estonia to Portugal and from Bulgaria to Iceland, Europe is nothing more than a US colony, totally ruined by a corrupt political elite, which is sinking as fast as the Titanic did, and whose orchestra (corporate media) is still playing its happy ballroom music...
But "dying" and "dead" are very different things. The EU is still a huge market, and the EU elites have a lot of soft power to throw around, much more than Russia. And this is why at least for the time being, Russia will try to avoid openly antagonizing the EU...
This is the key thing which so many experts simply cannot get used to: Russia is not a global power anymore. In fact, it has absolutely no desire to become one again. Russia is, of course, a major power which, in theory, could challenge the USA, just like China could. However, both Russia and China could only do that at great, immense, risk for themselves.
And then there is the time factor: both Russia and China fully realize that they, even more than the other BRICS countries, have time on their side and that each passing year makes them stronger. The USA, in contrast, is globally overextended, burdened by a debt it will never pay, profusely hated world wide, and the only thing which still keeps it going is the fact that the rest of the planet is too afraid of the US military to openly refuse to use the US dollar as a currency reserve and to pay for its energy. The US is also socially dysfunctional, culturally sterile, militarily over-extended, economically de-industrialized, and politically "neo-feudal" (1% rule over 99% of serfs). Sooner or later the USA will become weak enough to make it possible for any major power, including Russia or China and Brazil, to openly defy it, but while it is still powerful but weakening it is an extremely dangerous foe which should not be under-estimated. This is why Russia, along with the other regional powers on the planet, will continue to carefully wait for the right time and avoid any sudden move which would compromise all that it has achieved in the past 12 years...
On The EU poodles.... I would argue that the current condition of the EU is even worse than the one of the Zio-USA... Russian politicians look at the EU in total disgust. Russian experts are saying that all that the EU had to offer was a "never ending gay-pride parade combined with a massive Maghrebization and of Africanization of its society". That is not a bad way to put it. The EU, as a political project, is dying, and the European society arguably is even more dysfunctional than the US one. The likes of Sarkozy, Hollande, Cameron, Fabius, Juppe and Merkel can delude themselves by playing big power politics, but the fact that French Rafales were the first to bomb Libya will change exactly nothing to prevent the French society from dying from the truly cataclysmic influx of immigrants, most of which come from the Maghreb or Africa. From Estonia to Portugal and from Bulgaria to Iceland, Europe is nothing more than a US colony, totally ruined by a corrupt political elite, which is sinking as fast as the Titanic did, and whose orchestra (corporate media) is still playing its happy ballroom music...
But "dying" and "dead" are very different things. The EU is still a huge market, and the EU elites have a lot of soft power to throw around, much more than Russia. And this is why at least for the time being, Russia will try to avoid openly antagonizing the EU...
Russia's stance on the Levant is based on principles and
international law...Russia has exactly *zero* need for Syria. Russia does see
Syria as a friend, and many Russian politicians see Assad's MAFIA as "friends",
but that does not mean that anybody in Russia "needs" him...
In this case it is a national interest of Russia to insist that the situation be handled strictly according to international law. Russia seeks a multi-polar world and that means one in which international law is fully respected. In other words, it is in Russia's pragmatic national interest to insist on principles...
In this case it is a national interest of Russia to insist that the situation be handled strictly according to international law. Russia seeks a multi-polar world and that means one in which international law is fully respected. In other words, it is in Russia's pragmatic national interest to insist on principles...
Russian gas is already going through two routes (north and
south) to Europe in total safety which would never be the case if the EU
depended on a pipeline going through Syria... In fact, Russia does not even
"need" Iran, though I would argue that Iran is far more important to Russia than
Syria... Syria and Lebanon are strategically located at the crux of the
Middle-East, but Russia has very little influence in the Middle-East anyway, and
there is no aspect of Russian national security to which the Middle-East would
be really important except one: the fact that the USA is trying to impose its
will on the Middle-East in total violation of international law which does set a
dangerous and highly undesirable precedent for Russia...
To the extent that genuinely autonomous nation states
continue as the major military and political arbiters of the planets military
and political affairs, that would be a desirable outcome...
My worry is that transnational organizations with minimal
national loyalties/allegiances are coming to dominate foreign affairs and
marginalizing nation states in the process. The major globalised corporations
seem to be the driving force, with their bought-and-paid-for politicians,
bureaucrats and intelligence establishments who effectively moderate the treaty
interpretation and development process (among other critical things). Their big
potential problem lies in the ultimate loyalties/allegiances of the military
establishments that they rely on as enforcers of last resort. That together with
the mass of the planets population that really have come to hate America and
NATO with a vengeance..., courtesy of the most Infamous White House Murder INC,
following the barbaric Cheney's 9/11 and the cowardly assassination of HK,
January 24th 2002 in Lebanon...
The thing that nags me deeply is the possibility of Putin and/or other capable Russian and Chinese big-hitters being made offers they can't refuse. In other words, when the chips are finally down in this accelerating global game of poker, where will their loyalties really lie?
The thing that nags me deeply is the possibility of Putin and/or other capable Russian and Chinese big-hitters being made offers they can't refuse. In other words, when the chips are finally down in this accelerating global game of poker, where will their loyalties really lie?
That is a big question indeed. Which would they choose -
themselves and their power or the welfare of their people?
I guess that we will never know for sure until they are actually faced with this choice. Sometimes, in historical situations, not so principled folks suddenly take a principled stance, while in other circumstances previously rather idealistic people suddenly cave in and betray the values they were supposed to stand for...CIRCA January 15th 1986...etc etc.
Regardless of personalities, there is, I believe, a very large social consensus in Russia and this social consensus is what gives real power to the Kremlin's policies. Any politician wanting to go against this social consensus would place himself in a great deal of risk and would have to start ruling by force, which would be rather dangerous.
So, the current Russian policies will stand and there will be no sudden "zig-zag!" Only Time will tell...
I guess that we will never know for sure until they are actually faced with this choice. Sometimes, in historical situations, not so principled folks suddenly take a principled stance, while in other circumstances previously rather idealistic people suddenly cave in and betray the values they were supposed to stand for...CIRCA January 15th 1986...etc etc.
Regardless of personalities, there is, I believe, a very large social consensus in Russia and this social consensus is what gives real power to the Kremlin's policies. Any politician wanting to go against this social consensus would place himself in a great deal of risk and would have to start ruling by force, which would be rather dangerous.
So, the current Russian policies will stand and there will be no sudden "zig-zag!" Only Time will tell...
(e)SP_A0012_edited.jpg)
