The military operation started by Russia in Syria evoked jittery reaction in the US. The Pentagon called Moscow;s actions "aggressive" like if the US-delivered air strikes against Syria were peaceful by definition.
In the speech Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, his conclusion regarding the misfortunes that have befallen Syria and the entire Middle East was extremely harsh: there is and has been aggressive foreign interference.
The residents of that region, who had naively expected constructive social and political changes, have been cruelly deceived: "Rather than bringing about reforms, aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life", stated the Russian president.
An angry question has been unleashed on the world: "Do you realize now what you've done?" No, they don't want to acknowledge anything... The president offered his warning, "I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned".
Putin's diagnosis was unsparing: "It is now obvious that a power vacuum was created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa through the emergence of anarchy areas, which immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists. Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called Islamic State. Its ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. And now, the ranks of radicals are being joined by the members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition supported by the Western countries".
No, this was not a verbal attack on the US and its European satellites. What's more important today is to rid global politics of "color revolutions". After all, those who have awarded themselves the title of Victors of the Cold War have spent the last 25 years employing more than just crude military force... Soft power has been used too, and the banners of color revolutions that are flung out before the world have also become agents of that power (in addition to aircraft carriers).
"Velvet revolutions" in Eastern Europe... Then, an unremarkable coup in Tbilisi, Saakashvili overthrew Shevardnadze: the parliament was stormed by thugs with machine guns, and also... roses (they brought a few flowers from a market in Tbilisi). And so quickly the well-schooled global media paint a vivid picture for us: the "Rose Revolution"! Isn't it beautiful?!
Now the challenge for the next few decades is to find just the right colored banner that can be used to characterize the next coup. But regardless of the color chosen, that banner will always turn blood red. The Arab Spring is the most vivid example.
And so it began... on Dec. 18, 2010 riots broke out in Tunisia, and there were protests against that "bloody tyrant" Ben Ali, whose only "bloody crime" had been to dispel the flash mobs. The cynical, trite marketing of the Arab Spring was fueled by the genuine grievances of the "Arab street" and the multitudes of ordinary people. And the Middle East will remember for many decades how the Arabs got sold down the river, when they were pitted against Gaddafi, for example. Tables have recently been published that compare the scope and depth of the social programs run by the "Libyan dictator" with those in the "developed" world. Those comparisons are damning for the West.
It seems ideologically telling to me that throughout a speech that was largely devoted to the dramatic consequences of the decimation of Arab sovereignty, the Russian president never said the words "Arab Spring" - never parroting this pathetic notion dreamed up by American political marketers! There was a comparison with the "export of revolutions" - there was the phrase "criminals who already tasted blood" - "the perversion of Islam... power vacuum... areas of anarchy... terrorists" - all that was said. But he did not utter the phrase "Arab Spring". Fastidiousness keeps one from yet again touching that bloody banner that has been transformed into an ad poster.
While reading the Russian president's speech I was reminded of yet another event related to the Middle East. Exactly five years ago, in October 2010, at a meeting of the youth organization of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in Potsdam, German Chancellor Angela Merkel acknowledged the complete failure of attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany. Precisely one day before, Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU) and the Bavarian state prime minister, had said, "Multiculturalism is dead". And a month earlier, in September of the same year of 2010, a very public scandal erupted in Germany over the release of a book by Thilo Sarrazin, a former board member of the Bundesbank and a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) - Deutschland Schafft Sich Ab ("Germany's Self-Destruction"). Sarrazin wrote that the growing number of immigrants who do not assimilate culturally spells doom for Germany. And it does not matter who bears the blame for the fact that Germans and immigrants do not understand one another, the main problem is that this common ground does not and cannot exist!
Thanks to its location in Eurasia, in addition to many centuries of interaction with the East, Russia has an incomparably richer heritage when it comes to these issues, as well as far more formidable intellectual assets than those who have been forced to acknowledge the collapse of their multicultural experiment. Russia's cultural and historical experience lies at the heart of Putin's statement that "we know about all the problems and contradictions in the region".
The current refugee tragedy is forcing us to remember this. The words "collapse" and "Germany's self-destruction" were being uttered even back when the Germans were for the most part only struggling with their Turkish Gastarbeiters, with whom they were quite culturally familiar. Iraq had already folded by then, but the flow of Middle Eastern refugees was still almost nothing in comparison with the current tsunami. And please note, these words - "collapse" and "self-destruction" - were said, as it were, "half an hour before the Arab Spring": it would begin two months later, on Dec. 18, 2010, with riots in Tunisia...
So I want to say to the Germans: "You yourselves have acknowledged the failure of your multiculturalism and your inability to either understand or interact with Eastern culture... You have acknowledged that the peoples of the East remain as mysterious to you as Martians. But nevertheless you still teamed up with the Americans to explain to the Arabs that Mubarak was politically incorrect, Assad - a despot, and Gaddafi - a tyrant! Why?"
The military operation started by Russia in Syria evoked jittery reaction in the US. The Pentagon called Moscow;s actions "aggressive" like if the US-delivered air strikes against Syria were peaceful by definition.
At that Russia's actions in Syria are taken in accordance with all standard procedures to meet the norms of international law. Russian President Vladimir Putin informed international community of Russia's intention to take an active part in the anti-terrorist operation on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic during his address at the United Nations General Assembly session. Then the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russian parliament, unanimously endorsed the President's request to use military force abroad. Finally, Russia had given an advance warning to the United States about its plans.
After all that, why does Washington react so hysterically to the fact that Russian aviation has started to strike terrorists?
The answer is simple: Russia strengthens Bashar Assad's position. Washington believes that the steps taken to bolster Assad or, even more, boost military cooperation between Moscow and Damascus in coordination with Tehran, pose a much bigger threat than the Islamic State.
The coordinated activities of Moscow, Tehran and Damascus in Syria hinder US plans to drastically change the existing borders of the Greater Middle East. The terrorists of Islamic States have an important role to play in the implementation of this scenario. Washington wanted a regime change in Syria with Assad leaving his office as far back as three-four years ago. Now the military support of legitimate Syria government may change the way the events unfold in Syria, as well as boost Russia's clout in the Middle East. This is the region the United States has routinely viewed as its ranch or a testing range.
In a nutshell, these are the main implications of the joint actions undertaken by Russia and Syria:
First, Russia is taking practical steps to expand its role in the fight against international terrorism that poses a direct threat to Russian interests and exerts an increasingly destabilizing influence on Europe. The hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers that flood European countries are a direct consequence of the West's connivance with terrorist activities in Syria.
Second, Russia provides military and political support to legitimate governments in the Middle East. It runs contrary to US efforts to disseminate the virus of various 'color revolutions'. The West has resorted to international interference in many parts of the world (The Serbian region of Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) in the last decade and a half. As the experience shows, any time it led to strengthening of the positions of terrorist and extremist groups.
Third, Russia has never completely left the Middle East in the last quarter-century, though it considered it to be a region of secondary importance for a long time. Now it strengthens its position in the region.
Fourth, Russia is taking an important step on the way of forming a new international security structure based on a broad coalition of states supporting the idea of multipolar world and operating out of direct control of the United States. In many respects it will constitute an alternative to what is imposed by Washington and its allies. The coalition strives for a new type of international order which presupposes interaction, compromises and absence of 'double standards', including in the field of international cooperation in the fight against terrorism.
The West's accusations against Russia blaming it for 'aggressive actions' in Syria are launched to divert attention from the failure of its own strategy in the Middle East.
As US magazine Newsweek rightly notes that, no matter what Moscow does, '...the problems surrounding increased U.S. intervention in Syria remain the same as always. There are few rebel groups left in Syria that could be considered 'moderate' or acceptable to U.S. policymakers, while those that do exist are focused not on battling ISIS but on overthrowing the Assad regime. And though some of Russia's targets are clearly moderate anti-regime forces, it has also targeted the Nusra Front and other extremist groups. There is no dubiety about Russia's motives here, which are focused on eliminating threats to the Assad regime, not fighting extremists. But stepping up support to these extremist groups simply because Russia has targeted them would be folly; the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend'.
The same can be applied to the situation in Iraq, another country chosen by Washington to be used as a testing ground. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said he has no objections against Russian aircraft striking the Islamic State positions on the territory of his state. According to al-Abadi, he has sent a corresponding request to Moscow because it serves the interests of Iraq to appeal to anyone pursuing the goal of countering the Islamic State.
In his previous interview with France 24 channel, the Iraqi leader said that he would welcome Russian air force strikes on positions of 'Islamic state' in Iraq. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded that it did not rule out the possibility of air strikes in that country in case a request is received from the Iraqi government. When asked about the likelihood of starting airstrikes, Ilya Rogachev, director of the Ministry's department for new challenges and threats, told journalists, 'If we have either a corresponding request from the government of Iraq or a resolution from the U.N. Security Council, the adoption of which to a conclusive degree matches the will of the government of Iraq... If we have these sufficient grounds, then the political and military appropriateness will be evaluated'.
Russia would consider the possibility of extending the air strikes on Iraq only if it received an official request, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The intensive expansion of military and political contacts between Moscow and Baghdad could present another dramatic challenge to the US.
According to Deutsche Welle, 'a new President of the United State, no matter who takes office, would not be able to ignore the Russian leadership. He (or she) will have to deal with it just because Russia has a foothold in the Middle East. Putin is filling the void left by the Obama administration in the region without much hassle. Who could have thought that US-supported Iraqi government with its military would become Russia's ally?'
All these factors explain the Washington's jittery reaction to the Russian military operation which serves the propose of providing regional stability and security - the things President Obama likes so much to talk about.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has co-operated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda
Hersh would also reveal that at the time, the US - then under the administration of President George Bush and through intermediaries including US-ally Saudi Arabia - had already begun channeling funding and support to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood who would in 2011 play a crucial role in the opening phases of the destructive war now raging across the Levant.
In 2008, from Libya to Syria and beyond, activists were drawn by the US State Department from across MENA to learn the finer points of Washington and Wall Street's "color revolution" industry. They were being prepared for an unprecedented, coordinated US-engineered MENA-wide campaign of political destabilization that would in 2011 be called the "Arab Spring."
Through the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and US State Department's Movements.org, agitators were literally flown on several occasions to both New York and Washington D.C. as well as other locations around the globe to receive training, equipment and funding before returning to their home countries and attempting to overthrow their respective governments.
A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.
The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):
The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.
It is clear that the political cover - the Arab Spring - and the premeditated support of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda brought in afterward, were planned years before the Arab Spring actually unfolded in 2011. The goal was admittedly the overthrow of governments obstructing Washington and Wall Street's hegemonic ambitions and part of a much wider agenda of isolating, encircling, and containing Russia and China.
The destruction of the MENA region was intentional, premeditated, and continues on to this very day.
As the Wave of Regime Change Crashes
Since 2011, each and every one of the West's "color revolutions" has predictably devolved into armies of US-backed terrorists attempting to divide and destroy each nation. In Libya, this goal has already long-since been accomplished. In Egypt and Syria, with varying degrees of failure, this agenda has been stalled.
Egypt through sheer virtue of its size and the capabilities of its military, has prevented nationwide warfare. In Syria, facing invasion primarily from both Turkey and Jordan, violence has been far more dramatic and enduring.
But despite initial euphoria across the West that their insidious conspiracy had indeed upended the MENA region entirely, Syria's ability to resist the West's proxy forces, and now, more direct intervention, has entirely disrupted this wave of regime change.
US Senator John McCain (Republican - Arizona) who literally posed for pictures with terrorist leaders in both Libya and Syria, including the now head of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) in Libya, Abdul Hakim Belhaj, at the height of the Arab Spring prematurely taunted Moscow and Beijing with threats to bring similarly US-orchestrated chaos in their direction. Suffice to say, Moscow and Beijing were not only ready for this destabilization, they were prepared to foil it before it so much as reached their borders.
And as momentum stalled, the US and its regional collaborators attempted to justify direct military intervention in Syria first as they did in Libya - by claiming they would be averting a humanitarian disaster and assisting "freedom fighters." However with the crimes the US and NATO perpetrated in Libya still fresh in the global public's minds, this narrative was entirely untenable.
Staged chemical weapon attacks were perpetrated on the outskirts of Damascus, under the nose of UN inspectors in a bid to frame the government of Damascus and again justify direct US military intervention against Syria. Again, the global public, recalling similar fabrications peddled by the West ahead of its ten year invasion and occupation of Iraq along with expert diplomacy by Moscow, averted war.
Northern Syria. Syrian forces and Kurdish militias have all but sealed off Syria's border with NATO-member Turkey. What is left the US and Turkey have attempted to turn into a "safe haven" protected by Western military forces. In reality, this aims at keeping Al Qaeda and ISIS supply lines open and provides a springboard toward establishing "no-fly-zones" across wider swaths of Syrian territory.
As this last attempt to justify a final push toward regime change in Syria falters, and as European powers begin deciding whether or not to intervene further in Syria alongside the US, a sudden and convenient deluge of refugees has flooded Europe, almost as if on cue. Scenes like that out of a movie showed hordes of tattered refugees herded along various borders as they apparently appeared out of what the Western media has portrayed as a puff of smoke at Europe's gates.
In reality, they did not appear out of a puff of smoke. They appeared in Turkey, a NATO member since the 1950's and one of America's closest regional allies. Turkey is currently hosting the US military, including special forces and the CIA who have, together with Turkish military and intelligence agencies, been conducting a proxy war on neighboring Syria since 2011.
Turkey has suspiciously maintained a very enthusiastic "open door" policy for refugees, spending inexplicable sums of money and political capital in accommodating them. The Brookings Institution - one of the chief policy think tanks helping engineer the proxy war with Syria - reported in its July 2015 "Order out of Chaos" article, "What Turkey's open-door policy means for Syrian refugees," that:
Turkey is now the world's largest recipient of refugees. Since October 2013, the number of Syrian refugees has increased more than threefold and now numbers almost two million registered refugees.
Brookings also reports that:
The cost has been high to Turkey. Government officials are quick to point out that they have spent over $6 billion on the refugees and complain about the lack of international support.
Brooking details the vast efforts Turkey is undertaking in coordination with Western NGOs to manage the refugees. There is little way that these refugees could suddenly "disappear" and end up in Europe without the Turkish government and more importantly, European governments either knowing about it or being directly involved.
Pawns of War
Clearly Turkey lacks any altruistic motivation behind its refugee policy. Turkey is one of the chief facilitators of terrorists operating in Syria, and a primary collaborator in NATO's proxy war against its neighbor. Turkey has allowed literally hundreds of supply trucks a day to cross its borders uninhibited and destined for ISIS territory. Turkey has also been tasked throughout various US policy papers with establishing a "buffer zone" or "safe haven" to move these refugees into, as well as for establishing a Syrian-based stronghold for NATO's terrorist proxies to launch military operations from. Likely, the refugees were to serve as the initial population of whatever proxy state NATO planned to create with territory it seized and established no-fly-zones over in northern Syria.
Now it appears many of these refugees are instead being rerouted to Europe.
However, not all of the refugees flooding into Europe from Turkey are even from the Syrian conflict. Many are being trafficked first to Turkey from other theaters of NATO operations, including Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as Iraq. It appears that Turkey is serving as a central transit point, not just for terrorists it is feeding into the Syrian conflict, but also for collecting refugees from across MENA and Central Asia, before allowing them to proceed in vast numbers to Europe.
Some reports even indicate that the refugees are receiving direct assistance from the Turkish government itself. The International New York Times' Greek Kathimerini paper, in an article titled, "Refugee flow linked to Turkish policy shift," claims (emphasis added):
A sharp increase in the influx of migrants and refugees, mostly from Syria, into Greece is due in part to a shift in Turkey's geopolitical tactics, according to diplomatic sources. These officials link the wave of migrants into the eastern Aegean to political pressures in neighboring Turkey, which is bracing for snap elections in November, and to a recent decision by Ankara to join the US in bombing Islamic State targets in Syria. The analyses of several officials indicate that the influx from neighboring Turkey is taking place as Turkish officials look the other way or actively promote the exodus
Catastrophes that are meant to look "sudden" and "unexpected" as well as "unstoppable" but are in fact, allowed to unfold within an operational theater completely controlled by the US and NATO constitutes instead a conspiracy - pitting desperate and/or exploited refugees intentionally sent out of Turkey and into Europe, against a manipulated, fearful, and ill-informed Western public.
Also brought into sharp focus, are the string of staged attacks allowed to unfold across Europe - allegedly the work of "ISIS." In every case without exception, the perpetrators had been well-known to Western intelligence agencies, including the shooters involved in the Paris "Charlie Hebo massacre." In that incident, all members involved were tracked by French security agencies for nearly 10 years. At least one member was even imprisoned, had traveled afterward to collude with Al Qaeda abroad, and returned to Europe, all while under surveillance. "Coincidentally," for the 6 months needed to plan and carry out their final act, French security agencies stopped monitoring the group, claiming a lack of resources to do so.
Those familiar with NATO's Cold War Gladio program can see clearly that the attacks were staged to play into a strategy of tension used to produce fear domestically and build up support for wars abroad.
The recent refugee crisis is being used for precisely this same purpose. In fact, while a false debate is being managed by the Western media and Western political figures to either unconditionally accept the refugees or unconditionally reject them, the only singular narrative both sides are being made to agree on is that instability across MENA is to blame and more bombing is the answer.
Debates over increased, direct military intervention in Syria are now almost entirely predicated not on supporting "freedom fighters," stopping "WMDs," or fighting "ISIS,"but instead on how military intervention can help solve the "refugee crisis."
The main narratives undulating media headlines dismiss both the West's role in devastating the MENA region, as well as acknowledging the fact that the "refugee crisis" is emanating primarily from within NATO's borders, not from beyond them. The refugees are pawns, intentionally moved 'cross the game board to illicit a predictable reaction from their hopelessly unskilled opponents - the public. While the social engineers are engaged in a game of three-dimensional chess, the Western public appears to be infantilely eating their checkers.
Considering this unfortunate reality, whatever justifications the West is able to predicate upon the refugee crisis will have to be confronted again by Syria and its allies alone - with the Western public hopelessly defenseless against a conspiracy they have been made accomplices of.
Social Engineering vs. the Inevitable Rot of Empire
A refugee crisis was inevitable, regardless of the timing and magnitude of any given deluge that may have been created or manipulated by the West. Destroying the planet in pursuit of empire, pillaging nations and hauling away the wealth of the world, inevitably leads to endless streams of victims following their stolen wealth back to the thieves' den. As an empire expands and the list of its victims expands with it, the number of those an empire is able to fully assimilate versus those who will inevitable overwhelm it eventually tips the balance against the empire's favor.
Such was the fate of the Roman Empire, which over the course of its decline, had its institutions overwhelmed by peoples it had conquered faster than it could assimilate them.
For the West, it has chosen confrontation rather than cooperation. It has closed economic ties with Russia, alienated China, and wages ceaseless war across the MENA region and Central Asia. It pursues a now exposed campaign of divide and conquer across Southeast Asia augmented with terrorism and political subversion all while neglecting every virtue that ever made it a respected global power to begin with.
How much of the most recent refugee crisis is social engineering versus simply the inevitable rot of empire is difficult to tell - though the fact that social engineers would be tempted to use a vast number of refugees created by their own foreign policy indicates that their ploy in and of itself is indicative of immense, irreversible geopolitical rot.