Jugoinfo

(english / italiano)

Intervista al nuovo nemico pubblico numero uno


INTEGRAL VIDEO: Syria: Assad's full interview with RT and Russian journalists in Damascus (Ruptly TV, 15 set 2015)
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad gave an interview with RT’s Lizzie Phelan and Sargon Hadaya and other Russian journalists in Damascus, on Tuesday.

EXCERPTS:
VIDEO 1: Syria: Assad says consensus can't be implemented unless terrorism is defeated (Ruptly TV, 15 set 2015)
VIDEO 2: Syria: Europe should stop supporting terrorism to stop refugees - al-Assad (Ruptly TV, 15 set 2015)
VIDEO 3: Syria: Assad calls on 'all forces' to unite against terrorism (Ruptly TV, 15 set 2015)
VIDEO 4: Syria: Syria's Kurdish population 'part of the Syrian fabric' - Assad (Ruptly TV, 15 set 2015)
VIDEO 5: Syria: Assad urges political unity from forces 'inside or outside the government' (Ruptly TV, 15 set 2015)
VIDEO 6: Syria: "Terrorism is like a scorpion, if you put it in your pocket, it will sting you" - Assad (Ruptly TV, 15 set 2015)
VIDEO 7: Syria: Conflict's "crucial juncture" was US invasion of Iraq - Assad (Ruptly TV, 15 set 2015)
VIDEO 8: Syria: Islamic State, associated groups are "extremist products of the West" - Assad (Ruptly TV, 15 set 2015)


---

http://it.sputniknews.com/mondo/20150915/1164924.html


Intervista del presidente della Siria ai media della Russia

15.09.2015

Lotta contro ISIS, prospettive del processo politico in Siria, problema dei profughi e probabilità delle dimissioni del presidente della Siria – questi sono i temi dell’intervista, rilasciata da Bashar Assad ai media della Russia, di cui vi proponiamo alcuni estratti.

Nella sua intervista il presidente Assad ha dichiarato in particolare:

1.  Dobbiamo continuare il dialogo in nome del consenso. Tuttavia, se vogliamo conseguire un successo reale, ciò è impossibile, finché la gente continua a morire, finché continua lo spargimento di sangue e le persone non possono sentirsi al sicuro… In tal modo, il consenso lo possiamo raggiungere, ma non possiamo fare niente, finché il terrorismo in Siria non sarà stato sconfitto.

2. Il problema non è che l'Europa accoglie o non accoglie i profughi. Il problema è che dobbiamo eliminare le cause del fenomeno. Se gli europei sono preoccupati per la sorte dei profughi, allora devono rinunciare al sostegno dei terroristi. Tale è la nostra opinione in merito e l'essenza del problema.

3. Voglio cogliere l'occasione di questo incontro di oggi per esortare tutte le forze a unirsi contro il terrorismo, perché ciò è la strada per conseguire gli obiettivi politici, formulati dai siriani, attraverso il dialogo e il processo politico.

4. Se oggi chiediamo a qualsiasi siriano, che cosa vuole in questo momento, la prima risposta sarà: sicurezza e stabilità per tutti e per ciascuno. In tal modo noi come forze politiche, sia quelle del governo, sia quelle fuori dell'ambito del potere, abbiamo il dovere di consolidarci attorno alle richieste del popolo siriano.

5. I curdi sono per noi parte della società siriana, non sono dei forestieri, vivono su questa terra come vivono gli arabi, i circassi, gli armeni e molti altri popoli e confessioni che convivono in Siria da tempi immemorabili. Non sappiamo neanche, quando alcuni di questi gruppi etnici abbiano fatto la loro comparsa nella regione. Senza questi elementi una società monolitica in Siria non può esistere.    

---


‘West crying for refugees with one eye, aiming gun with the other’ – Assad (FULL INTERVIEW)

Published time: 16 Sep, 2015

In a rare interview with Russian media outlets, RT among them, Syrian leader Bashar Assad spoke about global and domestic terrorism threats, the need for a united front against jihadism, Western propaganda about the refugee crisis and ways to bring peace to his war-torn nation.
Question 1:Mr. President, thank you from the Russian media, from RT, from Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Channel 1, Russia 24, RIA Novosti, and NTV channel, for giving us all the opportunity to talk to you during this very critical phase of the crisis in Syria, where there are many questions that need to be addressed on where exactly the political process to achieve peace in Syria is heading, what’s the latest developments on the fight against ISIL, and the status of the Russian and Syrian partnership, and of course the enormous exodus of Syrian refugees that has been dominating headlines in Europe.
Now, the crisis in Syria is entering its fifth year. You have defied all predictions by Western leaders that you would be ousted imminently, and continue to serve today as the President of the Syrian Arab Republic. Now, there has been a lot of speculation recently caused by reports that officials from your government met with officials from your adversary Saudi Arabia that caused speculation that the political process in Syria has entered a new phase, but then statements from Saudi Arabia that continue to insist on your departure suggest that in fact very little has changed despite the grave threat that groups like ISIL pose far beyond Syria’s borders.
So, what is your position on the political process? How do you feel about power sharing and working with those groups in the opposition that continue to say publically that there can be no political solution in Syria unless that includes your immediate departure? Have they sent you any signal that they are willing to team up with you and your government? In addition to that, since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, many of those groups were calling to you to carry out reforms and political change. But is such change even possible now under the current circumstances with the war and the ongoing spread of terror in Syria?
President Assad: Let me first divide this question. It’s a multi question in one question. The first part regarding the political process, since the beginning of the crisis we adopted the dialogue approach, and there were many rounds of dialogue between Syrians in Syria, in Moscow, and in Geneva. Actually, the only step that has been made or achieved was in Moscow 2, not in Geneva, not in Moscow 1, and actually it’s a partial step, it’s not a full step, and that’s natural because it’s a big crisis. You cannot achieve solutions in a few hours or a few days. It’s a step forward, and we are waiting for Moscow 3. I think we need to continue the dialogue between the Syrian entities, political entities or political currents, in parallel with fighting terrorism in order to achieve or reach a consensus about the future of Syria. So, that’s what we have to continue.
If I jump to the last part, because it’s related to this one, is it possible to achieve anything taking into consideration the prevalence of terrorism in Syria and in Iraq and in the region in general? We have to continue dialogue in order to reach the consensus as I said, but if you want to implement anything real, it’s impossible to do anything while you have people being killed, bloodletting hasn’t stopped, people feel insecure. Let’s say we sit together as Syrian political parties or powers and achieve a consensus regarding something in politics, in economy, in education, in health, in everything. How can we implement it if the priority of every single Syrian citizen is to be secure? So, we can achieve consensus, but we cannot implement unless we defeat the terrorism in Syria. We have to defeat terrorism, not only ISIS.
I’m talking about terrorism, because you have many organizations, mainly ISIS and al-Nusra that were announced as terrorist groups by the Security Council. So, this is regarding the political process. Sharing power, of course we already shared it with some part of the opposition that accepted to share it with us. A few years ago they joined the government. Although sharing power is related to the constitution, to the elections, mainly parliamentary elections, and of course representation of the Syrian people by those powers. But in spite of that, because of the crisis, we said let’s share it now, let’s do something, a step forward, no matter how effective.
Regarding the refugee crisis, I will say now that Western dealing in the Western propaganda recently, mainly during the last week, regardless of the accusation that those refugees are fleeing the Syrian government, but they call it regime, of course. Actually, it’s like the West now is crying for the refugees with one eye and aiming at them with a machinegun with the second one, because actually those refugees left Syria because of the terrorism, mainly because of the terrorists and because of the killing, and second because of the results of terrorism. When you have terrorism, and you have the destruction of the infrastructure, you won’t have the basic needs of living, so many people leave because of the terrorism and because they want to earn their living somewhere in this world.
So, the West is crying for them, and the West is supporting terrorists since the beginning of the crisis when it said that this was a peaceful uprising, when they said later it’s moderate opposition, and now they say there is terrorism like al-Nusra and ISIS, but because of the Syrian state or the Syrian regime or the Syrian president. So, as long as they follow this propaganda, they will have more refugees. So, it’s not about that Europe didn’t accept them or embrace them as refugees, it’s about not dealing with the cause. If you are worried about them, stop supporting terrorists. That’s what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees.
Question 2:Mr. President, you touched on the subject of the internal Syrian opposition in your first answer; nevertheless, I would like to go back to that because it’s very important for Russia. What should the internal opposition do in order to cooperate and coordinate with Syrian authorities to support them in battle… which is what they say they intend to do? How do you see the prospects for the Moscow-3 and Geneva-3 conferences? Will they be useful to Syria in the current situation?
President Assad: As you know, we are at war with terrorism, and this terrorism is supported by foreign powers. It means that we are in a state of complete war. I believe that any society and any patriotic individuals, and any parties which truly belong to the people should unite when there is a war against an enemy; whether that enemy is in the form of domestic terrorism or foreign terrorism. If we ask any Syrian today about what they want, the first thing they would say is: we want security and safety for every person and every family.
So we, as political forces, whether inside or outside the government, should unite around what the Syrian people want. That means we should first unite against terrorism. That is logical and self-evident. That’s why I say that we have to unite now as political forces, or government, or as armed groups which fought against the government, in order to fight terrorism. This has actually happened.
There are forces fighting terrorism now alongside the Syrian state, which had previously fought against the Syrian state. We have made progress in this regard, but I would like to take this opportunity to call on all forces to unite against terrorism, because it is the way to achieve the political objectives which we, as Syrians, want through dialogue and political action.
Intervention:Concerning the Moscow-3 and Geneva-3 conferences; in your opinion, are there good prospects for them?
President Assad: The importance of Moscow-3 lies in the fact that it paves the way to Geneva-3, because the international sponsorship in Geneva was not neutral, while the Russian sponsorship is. It is not biased, and is based on international law and Security Council resolutions. Second, there are substantial differences around the ‘transitional body’ item in Geneva. Moscow-3 is required to solve these problems between the different Syrian parties; and when we reach Geneva-3, it is ensured that there is a Syrian consensus which would enable it to succeed. We believe that it is difficult for Geneva-3 to succeed unless Moscow-3 does. That’s why we support holding this round of negotiations in Moscow after preparations for the success of this round have been completed, particularly by the Russian officials.
Question 3:I would like to continue with the issue of international cooperation in order to solve the Syrian crisis. It’s clear that Iran, since solving the nuclear issue, will play a more active role in regional affairs. How would you evaluate recent Iranian initiatives on reaching a settlement for the situation in Syria? And, in general, what is the importance of Tehran’s support for you? Is there military support? And, if so, what form does it take?
President Assad: At present, there is no Iranian initiative. There are ideas or principles for an Iranian initiative based primarily on Syria’s sovereignty, the decisions of the Syrian people and on fighting terrorism. The relationship between Syria and Iran is an old one. It is over three-and-a-half decades old. There is an alliance based on a great degree of trust. That’s why we believe that the Iranian role is important. Iran supports Syria and the Syrian people. It stands with the Syrian state politically, economically and militarily. When we say militarily, it doesn’t mean - as claimed by some in the Western media - that Iran has sent an army or armed forces to Syria. That is not true. It sends us military equipment, and of course there is an exchange of military experts between Syria and Iran. This has always been the case, and it is natural for this cooperation to grow between the two countries in a state of war. Yes, Iranian support has been essential to support Syria in its steadfastness in this difficult and ferocious war.
Question 4:Concerning regional factors and proponents, you recently talked about security coordination with Cairo in fighting terrorism, and that you are in the same battle line in this regard. How is your relationship with Cairo today given that it hosts some opposition groups? Do you have a direct relationship, or perhaps through the Russian mediator, particularly in light of the strategic relations between Russia and Egypt. President Sisi has become a welcome guest in Moscow today.
President Assad: Relations between Syria and Egypt have not ceased to exist even over the past few years, and even when the president was Mohammed Morsi, who is a member of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organisation. Egyptian institutions insisted on maintaining a certain element of this relationship. First, because the Egyptian people are fully aware of what is happening in Syria, and second because the battle we are fighting is practically against the same enemy. This has now become clearer to everyone. Terrorism has spread in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, in other Arab countries, and in some Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and others. That’s why I can say that there is joint vision between us and the Egyptians; but our relationship exists now on a security level. There are no political relations. I mean, there are no contacts between the Syrian Foreign Ministry and the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, for instance. Contacts are done on a security level only. We understand the pressures that might be applied on Egypt or on both Syria and Egypt so that they don’t have a strong relationship. This relationship does not go, of course, through Moscow. As I said, this relationship has never ceased to exist, but we feel comfortable about improving relations between Russia and Egypt. At the same time, there is a good, strong and historical relation between Moscow and Damascus, so it is natural for Russia to feel comfortable for any positive development in relations between Syria and Egypt.
Question 5:Mr. President, allow me to go back to the question of fighting terrorism. How do you look at the idea of creating a region free of ISIS terrorists in the north of the country on the border with Turkey? In that context, what do you say about the indirect cooperation between the West and terrorist organizations like the al-Nusra Front and other extremist groups? And with whom are you willing to cooperate and fight against ISIS terrorists?
President Assad: To say that the border with Turkey should be free of terrorism means that terrorism is allowed in other regions. That is unacceptable. Terrorism should be eradicated everywhere; and we have been calling for three decades for an international coalition to fight terrorism. But as for Western cooperation with the al-Nusra Front, this is reality, because we know that Turkey supports al-Nusra and ISIS by providing them with arms, money and terrorist volunteers. And it is well-known that Turkey has close relations with the West. Erdogan and Davutoglu cannot make a single move without coordinating first with the United States and other Western countries. Al-Nusra and ISIS operate with such a force in the region under Western cover, because Western states have always believed that terrorism is a card they can pull from their pocket and use from time to time. Now, they want to use al-Nusra just against ISIS, maybe because ISIS is out of control one way or another. But that doesn’t mean they want to eradicate ISIS. Had they wanted to do so, they would have been able to do that. For us, ISIS, al-Nusra, and all similar organizations which carry weapons and kill civilians are extremist organizations.
But who we conduct dialogue with is a very important question. From the start we said that we engage in dialogue with any party, if that dialogue leads to degrading terrorism and consequently achieve stability. This naturally includes the political powers, but there are also armed groups with whom we conducted dialogue and reached agreement in troubled areas which have become quiet now. In other areas, these armed groups joined the Syrian Army and are fighting by its side, and some of their members became martyrs. So we talk to everyone except organizations I mentioned like ISIS, al-Nusra, and other similar ones for the simple reason that these organizations base their doctrine on terrorism. They are ideological organizations and are not simply opposed to the state, as is the case with a number of armed groups. Their doctrine is based on terrorism, and consequently dialogue with such organizations cannot lead to any real result. We should fight and eradicate them completely and talking to them is absolutely futile.
Intervention:When talking about regional partners, with whom are you prepared to cooperate in fighting terrorism?
President Assad: Certainly with friendly countries, particularly Russia and Iran. Also we are cooperating with Iraq because it faces the same type of terrorism. As for other countries, we have no veto on any country provided that it has the will to fight terrorism and not as they are doing in what is called “the international coalition” led by the United States. In fact, since this coalition started to operate, ISIS has been expanding. In other words, the coalition has failed and has no real impact on the ground. At the same time, countries like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Western countries which provide cover for terrorism like France, the United States, or others, cannot fight terrorism. You cannot be with and against terrorism at the same time. But if these countries decide to change their policies and realize that terrorism is like a scorpion, if you put it in your pocket, it will sting you. If that happens, we have no objection to cooperating with all these countries, provided it is a real and not a fake coalition to fight terrorism.
Question 6:What is the Syrian army’s current condition? They’ve been fighting for over four years. Are they exhausted by the war, or become stronger as a result of engagement in military operations? And are there reserve forces to support them? I also have another important question: you said a large number of former adversaries have moved to your side and are fighting within the ranks of government forces. How many? And what is the extent of their help in the fight against extremist groups?
President Assad: Of course, war is bad. And any war is destructive, any war weakens any society and any army, no matter how strong or rich a country is. But things cannot be assessed this way. War is supposed to unite society against the enemy. The army becomes the most-important symbol for any society when there is aggression against the country. Society embraces the army, and provides it with all the necessary support, including human resources, volunteers, conscripts, in order to defend the homeland. At the same time, war provides a great deal of expertise to any armed forces practically and militarily. So, there are always positive and negative aspects. We cannot say that the army becomes weaker or stronger. But in return, this social embrace and support for the army provides it with volunteers. So, in answer to your question ‘are there reserves?’… yes, certainly, for without such reserves, the army wouldn’t have been able to stand for four-and-a-half years in a very tough war, particularly since the enemy we fight today has an unlimited supply of people. We have terrorist fighters from over 80 or 90 countries today, so our enemy is enjoying enormous support in various countries, from where people come here to fight alongside the terrorists. As for the army, it's almost exclusively made of Syrians. So, we have reserve forces, and this is what enables us to carry on. There is also determination. We have reserves not only in terms of human power, but in will as well. We are more determined than ever before to fight and defend our country against terrorists. This is what led some fighters who used to fight against the state at the beginning for varying reasons, discovered they were wrong and decided to join the state. Now they are fighting battles along with the army, and some have actually joined as regular soldiers. Some have kept their weapons, but they are fighting in groups alongside the armed forces in different parts of Syria.
Question 7:Mr. President, Russia has been fighting terrorism for 20 years, and we have seen its different manifestations. It now seems you are fighting it head on. In general, the world is witnessing a new form of terrorism. In the regions occupied by ISIS, they are setting up courts and administrations, and there are reports that it intends to mint its own currency. They are constructing what looks like a state. This in itself might attract new supporters from different countries. Can you explain to us whom are you fighting? Is it a large group of terrorists or is it a new state which intends to radically redraw regional and global borders? What is ISIS today?
President Assad: Of course, the terrorist ISIS groups tried to give the semblance of a state, as you said, in order to attract more volunteers who live on the dreams of the past: that there was an Islamic state acting for the sake of religion. That ideal is unreal. It is deceptive. But no state can suddenly bring a new form to any society. The state should be the product of its society. It should be the natural evolution of that society, to express it. In the end, a state should be a projection of its society. You cannot bring about a state which has a different form and implant it in a society. Here we ask the question: does ISIS, or what they call ‘Islamic State’, have any semblance to Syrian society? Certainly not.
Of course we have terrorist groups, but they are not an expression of society. In Russia, you have terrorist groups today, but they do not project Russian society, nor do they have any semblance to the open and diverse Russian society. That’s why if they tried to mint a currency or have stamps or passports, or have all these forms which indicate the existence of a state, it doesn’t mean they actually exist as a state; first because they are different from the people and, second, because people in those regions flee towards the real state, the Syrian state, the national state. Sometimes they fight them too. A very small minority believes these lies. They are certainly not a state, they are a terrorist group. But if we want to ask about who they are, let’s speak frankly: They are the third phase of the political or ideological poisons produced by the West, aimed at achieving political objectives. The first phase was the Muslim Brotherhood at the turn of the last century. The second phase was al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in order to fight the Soviet Union. And the third phase is ISIS, the al-Nusra Front and these groups. Who are ISIS? And who are these groups? They are simply extremist products of the West.
Question 8:Mr. President, at the beginning of the Syrian crisis, the Kurdish issue started to be discussed more often. Previously, Damascus was severely criticized because of its position towards the Kurdish minority. But now, practically, in some areas, Kurdish formations are your allies in the fight against ISIS. Do you have a specific position towards who the Kurds are to you and who you are to them?
President Assad: First, you cannot say there was a certain state policy concerning the Kurds. A state cannot discriminate between members of its population; otherwise, it creates division in the country. If we had been discriminating between different components of society, the majority of these components wouldn’t have supported the state now, and the country would have disintegrated from the very beginning. For us, the Kurds are part of the Syrian fabric. They are not foreigners - they live in this region like the Arabs, Circassians, Armenians and many other ethnicities and sects who’ve been living in Syria for many centuries. It’s not known when some of them came to this region. Without these groups, there wouldn’t have been a homogenous Syria. So, are they our allies today? No, they are patriotic people. But on the other hand, you cannot put all the Kurds in one category. Like any other Syrian component, there are different currents among them. They belong to different parties. There are those on the left and those on the right. There are tribes, and there are different groups. So, it is not objective to talk about the Kurds as one mass.
There are certain Kurdish demands expressed by some parties, but there are no Kurdish demands for the Kurds. There are Kurds who are integrated fully into society; and I would like to stress that they are not allies at this stage, as some people would like to show. I would like to stress that they are not just allies at this stage, as some suggest. There are many fallen Kurdish soldiers who fought with the army, which means they are an integral part of society. But there are parties which had certain demands, and we addressed some at the beginning of the crisis. There are other demands which have nothing to do with the state, and which the state cannot address. There are things which would relate to the entire population, to the constitution, and the people should endorse these demands before a decision can be taken by the state. In any case, anything proposed should be in the national framework. That’s why I say that we are with the Kurds, and with other components, all of us in alliance to fight terrorism.
This is what I talked about a while ago: that we should unite in order to fight ISIS. After we defeat ISIS, al-Nusra and the terrorists, the Kurdish demands expressed by certain parties can be discussed nationally. There’s no problem with that, we do not have a veto on any demand as long as it is within the framework of Syria’s unity and the unity of the Syrian people and territory, fighting terrorism, Syrian diversity, and the freedom of this diversity in its ethnic, national, sectarian, and religious sense.
Question 9:Mr. President, you partially answered this question, but I would like a more-precise answer, because some Kurdish forces in Syria call for amending the constitution. For instance, setting up a local administration and moving towards autonomy in the north. These statements are becoming more frequent now that the Kurds are fighting ISIS with a certain degree of success. Do you agree with such statements that the Kurds can bet on some kind of gratitude? Is it up for discussion?
President Assad: When we defend our country, we do not ask people to thank us. It is our natural duty to defend our country. If they deserve thanks, then every Syrian citizen defending their country deserves as much. But I believe that defending one’s country is a duty, and when you carry out your duty, you don’t need thanks. But what you have said is related to the Syrian constitution. Today, if you want to change the existing structure in your country, in Russia for instance, let’s say to redraw the borders of the republics, or give one republic powers different to those given to other republics - this has nothing to do with the president or the government. This has to do with the constitution.
The president does not own the constitution and the government does not own the constitution. Only the people own the constitution, and consequently changing the constitution means national dialogue. For us, we don’t have a problem with any demand. As a state, we do not have any objection to these issues as long as they do not infringe upon Syria’s unity and diversity and the freedom of its citizens.
But if there are certain groups or sections in Syria which have certain demands, these demands should be in the national framework, and in dialogue with the Syrian political forces. When the Syrian people agree on taking steps of this kind, which have to do with federalism, autonomy, decentralization or changing the whole political system, this needs to be agreed upon by the Syrian people, and consequently amending the constitution. This is why these groups need to convince the Syrian people of their proposals. In that respect, they are not in dialogue with the state, but rather with the people. When the Syrian people decide to move in a certain direction, and to approve a certain step, we will naturally approve it.
Question 10:Now, the U.S.-led coalition has been carrying out airstrikes on Syrian territory for about one year on the same areas that the Syrian Air Force is also striking ISIL targets, yet there hasn’t been a single incident of the U.S.-led coalition and the Syrian Air Force activity clashing with one another. Is there any direct or indirect coordination between your government and the U.S. coalition in the fight against ISIL?
President Assad: You’d be surprised if I say no. I can tell you that my answer will be not realistic, to say now, while we are fighting the same, let’s say enemy, while we’re attacking the same target in the same area without any coordination and at the same time without any conflict. And actually this is strange, but this is reality. There’s not a single coordination or contact between the Syrian government and the United States government or between the Syrian army and the U.S. army. This is because they cannot confess, they cannot accept the reality that we are the only power fighting ISIS on the ground. For them, maybe, if they deal or cooperate with the Syrian Army, this is like a recognition of our effectiveness in fighting ISIS. This is part of the willful blindness of the U.S. administration, unfortunately.
Question 11:So not event indirectly though, for example the Kurds? Because we know the U.S. is working with the Kurds, and the Kurds have some contacts with the Syrian government. So, not even any indirect coordination?
President Assad: Not even any third party, including the Iraqis, because before they started the attacks, they let us know through the Iraqis. Since then, not a single message or contact through any other party.
Question 12:Ok, so just a little bit further than that. You’ve lived in the West, and you, at one time, moved in some of those circles with some Western leaders that since the beginning of the crisis have been backing armed groups who are fighting to see you overthrown. How do you feel about one day working again with those very same Western leaders, perhaps shaking hands with them? Would you ever be able to trust them again?
President Assad: First, it’s not a personal relation; it’s a relation between states, and when you talk about relation between states, you don’t talk about trust; you talk about mechanism. So, trust is a very personal thing you cannot depend on in political relations between, let’s say, people. I mean, you are responsible for, for example in Syria, for 23 million, and let’s say in another country for tens of millions. You cannot put the fate of those tens of millions or maybe hundreds of millions on the trust of a single person, or two persons in two countries. So, there must be a mechanism. When you have a mechanism, you can talk about trust in a different way, not a personal way. This is first.
Second, the main mission of any politician, or any government, president, prime minister, it doesn’t matter, is to work for the interest of his people and the interest of his country. If any meeting or any handshaking with anyone in the world will bring benefit to the Syrian people, I have to do it, whether I like it or not. So, it’s not about me, I accept it or I like it or whatever; it’s about what the added value of this step that you’re going to take. So yes, we are ready whenever there’s the interest of the Syrians. I will do it, whatever it is.
Question 13:Regarding alliances in the fight against terrorism and ISIS, President Putin called for a regional alliance to fight the so-called ‘Islamic State’; and the recent visits of Arab officials to Moscow fall into that context, but Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said that would need a miracle. We are talking here about security coordination, as described by Damascus, with the governments of Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. How do you envisage that alliance? Will it achieve any results, in your opinion? You said that any relationship is based on interests, so are you willing to coordinate with these countries, and what is the truth behind the meetings held between Syrian, and maybe Saudi, officials as reported by the media?
President Assad: As for fighting terrorism, this is a big and comprehensive issue which includes cultural and economic aspects. It obviously has security and military aspects as well. In terms of prevention, all the other aspects are more important than the security and military ones, but today, in the reality we now live in terms of fighting terrorism, we are not facing terrorist groups, we are facing terrorist armies equipped with light, medium and heavy weaponry. They have billions of dollars to recruit volunteers. The military and security aspects should be given priority at this stage. So, we think this alliance should act in different areas, but to fight on the ground first. Naturally, this alliance should consist of states which believe in fighting terrorism and believe that their natural position should be against terrorism.
In the current state of affairs, the person supporting terrorism cannot be the same person fighting terrorism. This is what these states are doing now. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan, who pretend to be part of a coalition against terrorism in northern Syria, actually support terrorism in the south, the north and the north-west, virtually in the same regions in which they are supposed to be fighting terrorism. Once again I say that, within the framework of public interest, if these states decide to go back to the right position, to return to their senses and fight terrorism, naturally we will accept and cooperate with them and with others. We do not have a veto and we do not stick to the past. Politics change all the time. It might change from bad to good, and the ally might become an adversary, and the adversary an ally. This is normal. When they fight against terrorism, we will cooperate with them.
Question 14:Mr. President, there is a huge wave of refugees, largely from Syria, going to Europe. Some say these people are practically lost to Syria. They are deeply unhappy with the Syrian authorities because they haven’t been able to protect them and they’ve had to leave their homes. How do you view those people? Do you see them as part of the Syrian electorate in the future? Do you expect them to return? And the second question has to do with the European sense of guilt about the displacement happening now. Do you think that Europe should feel guilty?
President Assad: Any person who leaves Syria constitutes a loss to the homeland, to be sure, regardless of the position or capabilities of that person. This, of course, does not include terrorists. It includes all citizens in general with the exception of terrorists. So, yes, there is a great loss as a result of emigration. You raised a question on elections. Last year, we had a presidential election in Syria, and there were many refugees in different countries, particularly in Lebanon. According to Western propaganda, they had fled the state, the oppression of the state and the killing of the state, and they are supposed to be enemies of the state. But the surprise for Westerners was that most of them voted for the president who is supposed to be killing them. That was a great blow to Western propaganda. Of course, voting has certain conditions. There should be an embassy, and to have the custodianship of the Syrian state in the voting process. That depends on relations between the states. Many countries have severed relations with Syria and closed Syrian embassies, and consequently Syrian citizens cannot vote in those countries. They have to go to other countries where ballot boxes are installed, and that did happen last year.
As for Europe, of course it’s guilty. Today, Europe is trying to say that Europe feels guilty because it hasn’t given money or hasn’t allowed these people to immigrate legally, and that’s why they came across the sea and drowned. We are sad for every innocent victim, but is the victim who drowns in the sea dearer to us than the victim killed in Syria? Are they dearer than innocent people whose heads are cut off by terrorists? Can you feel sad for a child’s death in the sea and not for thousands of children who have been killed by the terrorists in Syria? And also for men, women, and the elderly? These European double standards are no longer acceptable. They have been flagrantly exposed. It doesn’t make sense to feel sad for the death of certain people and not for deaths of others. The principles are the same. So Europe is responsible because it supported terrorism, as I said a short while ago, and is still supporting terrorism and providing cover for them. It still calls them ‘moderate’ and categorizes them into groups, even though all these groups in Syria are extremists.
Question 15:If you don’t mind, I would like to go back to the question about Syria’s political future. Mr. President, your opponents, whether fighting against the authorities with weapons or your political opponents, still insist that one of the most-important conditions for peace is your departure from political life and as president. What do you think about that - as president and as a Syrian citizen? Are you theoretically prepared for that if you feel it’s necessary?
President Assad: In addition to what you say, Western propaganda has, from the very beginning, been about the cause of the problem being the president. Why? Because they want to portray the whole problem in Syria lies in one individual; and consequently the natural reaction for many people is that, if the problem lies in one individual, that individual should not be more important than the entire homeland. So let that individual go and things will be alright. That’s how they oversimplify things in the West. What’s happening in Syria, in this regard, is similar to what happened in your case. Notice what happened in the Western media since the coup in Ukraine. What happened? President Putin was transformed from a friend of the West to a foe and, yet again, he was characterized as a tsar. He is portrayed as a dictator suppressing opposition in Russia, and that he came to power through undemocratic means, despite the fact that he was elected in democratic elections, and the West itself acknowledged that the elections were democratic. Now, it is no longer democratic. This is Western propaganda. They say that if the president went things will get better. What does that mean, practically? For the West, it means that as long as you are there, we will continue to support terrorism, because the Western principle followed now in Syria and Russia and other countries is changing presidents, changing states, or what they call bringing regimes down. Why? Because they do not accept partners and do not accept independent states. What is their problem with Russia? What is their problem with Syria?  What is their problem with Iran? They are all independent countries. They want a certain individual to go and be replaced by someone who acts in their interests and not in the interest of his country. For us, the president comes through the people and through elections and, if he goes, he goes through the people. He doesn’t go as a result of an American decision, a Security Council decision, the Geneva conference or the Geneva communiqué. If the people want him to stay, he should stay; and if the people reject him, he should leave immediately. This is the principle according to which I look at this issue.
Question 16:Military operations have been ongoing for more than four years. It’s likely that you analyze things and review matters often. In your opinion, was there a crucial juncture when you realized war was unavoidable? And who initiated that war machinery? The influence of Washington or your Middle East neighbours? Or were there mistakes on your part? Are there things you regret? And if you had the opportunity to go back, would you change them?
President Assad: In every state, there are mistakes, and mistakes might be made every day, but these mistakes do not constitute a crucial juncture because they are always there. So what is it that makes these mistakes suddenly lead to the situation we are living in Syria today? It doesn’t make sense. You might be surprised if I tell that the crucial juncture in what happened in Syria is something that many people wouldn’t even think of. It was the Iraq war in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq. We were strongly opposed to that invasion, because we knew that things were moving in the direction of dividing societies and creating unrest. And we are Iraq’s neighbours. At that time, we saw that the war would turn Iraq into a sectarian country; into a society divided against itself. To the west of Syria there is another sectarian country - Lebanon. We are in the middle. We knew well that we would be affected. Consequently, the beginning of the Syrian crisis, or what happened in the beginning, was the natural result of that war and the sectarian situation in Iraq, part of which moved to Syria, and it was easy for them to incite some Syrian groups on sectarian grounds.
The second point, which might be less crucial, is that when the West adopted terrorism officially in Afghanistan in the early 1980s and called terrorists at that time ‘freedom fighters’, and then in 2006 when Islamic State appeared in Iraq under American sponsorship and they didn’t fight it. All these things together created the conditions for the unrest with Western support and Gulf money, particularly form Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and with Turkish logistic support, particularly since President Erdogan belongs intellectually to the Muslim Brotherhood. Consequently, he believes that, if the situation changed in Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, it means the creation of a new sultanate; not an Ottoman sultanate this time, but a sultanate for the Brotherhood extending from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean and ruled by Erdogan. All these factors together brought things to what we have today. Once again, I say that there were mistakes, and mistakes always create gaps and weak points, but they are not sufficient to cause that alone, and they do not justify what happened. And if these gaps and weak points are the cause, why didn’t they lead to revolutions in the Gulf states - particularly in Saudi Arabia which doesn’t know anything about democracy? The answer is self-evident, I believe.
Mr. President, thank you for giving us the time and for your detailed answers to our questions. We know that in September you have your golden jubilee, your 50th birthday. Probably the best wishes in the current circumstances would be the return of peace and safety to your country as soon as possible. Thank you.





(francais / deutsch / english / italiano)

Manlio Dinucci sull'euro-NATO-nazismo ucraino

1) La «saggia leadership» di Petro (9.3.2015)
2) Dietro quelle foto di bambini (8.9.2015)
3) Offensiva sul fronte orientale (15.9.2015)
– NATO-Manöver Rapid Trident 2015 in der Ukraine: Bundeswehr trainiert mit ukrainischen Neo-Nazi-Bataillonen (RT, 22. Juli, 2015)


I seguenti articoli sono apparsi nella rubrica settimanale di Manlio Dinucci "L'arte della guerra" per il quotidiano Il Manifesto.
Una più vasta rassegna degli articoli di quella rubrica, tutti dedicati alle politiche guerrafondaie del nostro e degli altri paesi NATO, è raccolta nel volume:

Manlio Dinucci
L´ARTE DELLA GUERRA
Annali della strategia USA/NATO (1990-2015)
Francoforte: Zambon, 2015
14x20,5 cm, 552 pagg., 15,00 € – ISBN 978-88-98582-19-8
disponibile in libreria dal 2 ottobre.


=== 1 ===

http://ilmanifesto.info/la-saggia-leadership-di-petro/

La «saggia leadership» di Petro

di Manlio Dinucci, su Il Manifesto del 9.3.2015


Kiev il pre­mier Renzi ha lodato la «lea­der­ship sag­gia» del pre­si­dente Poro­shenko, da lui con­fi­den­zial­mente chia­mato Petro. E l’amico Petro gli ha assi­cu­rato che gli impren­di­tori ita­liani potranno par­te­ci­pare agli ulte­riori pro­cessi di pri­va­tiz­za­zione in Ucraina (delo­ca­liz­zando così altre atti­vità pro­dut­tive a sca­pito dell’occupazione in Italia).
Di pri­va­tiz­za­zioni Poro­shenko se ne intende: negli anni Novanta, con lo sman­tel­la­mento dell’economia socia­li­sta, ottiene a prezzi strac­ciati o gra­tis la pro­prietà di diverse indu­strie dol­cia­rie già sta­tali, dive­nendo il «re del cioc­co­lato». Estende quindi il suo impero all’industria auto­mo­bi­li­stica, alla can­tie­ri­stica e ai media (è pro­prie­ta­rio dell’influente Canale 5).
Dopo essere stato il prin­ci­pale soste­ni­tore della «rivo­lu­zione aran­cione» del 2004, mini­stro degli esteri con la Tymo­shenko e del com­mer­cio con Yanu­ko­vic, sostiene e finan­zia il movi­mento Euro­Mai­dan, nato nel novem­bre 2013 come pro­te­sta al rifiuto del pre­si­dente Yanu­ko­vic di fir­mare gli accordi di asso­cia­zione con l’Unione euro­pea, e tra­sfor­ma­tosi in un vero e pro­prio putsch che rove­scia il pre­si­dente nel feb­braio 2014.
Usando quale forza d’assalto, sotto regia Usa/Nato, mili­tanti neo­na­zi­sti appo­si­ta­mente armati e adde­strati, come prova tra l’altro una docu­men­ta­zione foto­gra­fica di gio­vani di Uno-Unso adde­strati nel 2006 in Esto­nia da istrut­tori Nato. Subito dopo, nel marzo 2014, le for­ma­zioni neo­na­zi­ste ven­gono incor­po­rate nella Guar­dia nazionale.
Su que­sta scia diviene pre­si­dente della repub­blica, nel mag­gio 2014, l’oligarca Poro­shenko appog­giato da Washing­ton e Bru­xel­les («sag­gia scelta», com­menta Obama). Sotto la sua pre­si­denza, i bat­ta­glioni neo­na­zi­sti – come l’Azov, l’Aidar, il Dnepr – che costi­tui­scono la forza d’urto della Guar­dia nazio­nale, com­piono atro­cità, ampia­mente docu­men­tate da video e testi­mo­nianze, con­tro i civili di nazio­na­lità russa nell’Ucraina orien­tale. Gli stessi bat­ta­glioni ven­gono oggi adde­strati da cen­ti­naia di istrut­tori Usa della 173a divi­sione avio­tra­spor­tata, tra­sfe­riti da Vicenza in Ucraina dove reste­ranno almeno sei mesi, affian­cati da bri­tan­nici e altri mili­tari della Nato.
Ben sapendo, a Washing­ton e Bru­xel­les, che que­sti bat­ta­glioni hanno una chiara ideo­lo­gia nazi­sta. L’emblema del bat­ta­glione Azov, che opera sotto l’egida del mini­stero dell’interno ucraino, è lo stesso (rap­pre­sen­tato in modo spe­cu­lare) della divi­sione delle SS Das Reich della Ger­ma­nia nazi­sta. Men­tre in tuta mime­tica passa in ras­se­gna i bat­ta­glioni che si ispi­rano all’ideologia nazi­sta, il pre­si­dente Poro­shenko si muove per met­tere fuo­ri­legge l’ideologia comunista.
Dal Canale 5 di Poro­shenko, il mini­stro della giu­sti­zia Pavel Petrenko ha annun­ciato il 3 marzo la pre­sen­ta­zione di un pro­getto di legge che proi­bi­sce l’ideologia comu­ni­sta, in linea con leggi ana­lo­ghe in vigore in Polo­nia e nella Repub­blica Ceca. La legge, che pre­vede il divieto di qual­siasi sim­bolo e pro­pa­ganda comu­ni­sta, met­te­rebbe auto­ma­ti­ca­mente fuo­ri­legge il Par­tito comu­ni­sta di Ucraina.
Per la sua messa al bando è già stato avviato un pro­ce­di­mento giu­di­zia­rio, incep­pa­tosi quando lo scorso feb­braio è stato bloc­cato dai giu­dici di una corte di Kiev.
Nel frat­tempo, però, è stato impo­sto lo scio­gli­mento del gruppo comu­ni­sta in par­la­mento e oltre 300 mem­bri del par­tito sono stati incri­mi­nati, men­tre molti altri ven­gono sot­to­po­sti a vio­lenze e inti­mi­da­zioni. Sotto la pre­si­denza di Petro, che l’amico Mat­teo ha invi­tato a Roma. Dove c’è un gior­nale, «il mani­fe­sto», che se fosse a Kiev rischie­rebbe di spa­rire non per ragioni eco­no­mi­che, ma per­ché si defi­ni­sce «quo­ti­diano comunista».


=== 2 ===

Sullo stesso tema / on the same issue:

NON SOLO ISIS. I BAMBINI UCRAINI "ADDESTRATI" DAI NAZISTI (Redazione Contropiano, 14 Agosto 2015)
Le immagini, pubblicate dall'inglese Daily mail, della “colonia estiva militare-patriottica” per bambini e ragazzi, organizzata dal battaglione neonazista Azov e dal suo leader, il deputato della Rada Andrej Biletskij nei pressi di Kiev, in cui i giovani, all'ombra delle svastiche, vengono istruiti all'uso delle armi...
http://contropiano.org/internazionale/item/32360-non-solo-isis-i-bambini-ucraini-addestrati-dai-nazisti

Wenn Kinder zu Soldaten gemacht werden (ARD, 18.08.2015 | 06:11 Min. | Quelle: MITTELDEUTSCHER RUNDFUNK)
Die ukrainische Organisation "Rechter Sektor" bringt Kindern den Umgang mit Kriegswaffen bei. Sie werden systematisch eingesetzt - mitten in Europa. Ein Zivilisationsbruch...
VIDEO: http://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/FAKT/Wenn-Kinder-zu-Soldaten-gemacht-werden/Das-Erste/Video?documentId=30160894&bcastId=310854


Military Training for Young Children at Ukraine’s “Neo-Nazi Summer Camp”. Recruitment of Ukraine’s “Child Soldiers” Financed by US “Nonlethal” Military Aid?
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky – Global Research, August 30, 2015

---

En francais: Derrière ces photos d’enfants (par  Manlio Dinucci, il manifesto, 8 septembre 2015)
Alors que, selon les conventions internationales, l’enrôlement de mineurs dans des groupes armés constitue un crime de guerre, les alliés néonazis de l’Otan organisent des formations paramilitaires pour des enfants ukrainiens. Alors que le recours aux enfants dans les publicités occidentales est strictement règlementé, la photo posée d’un enfant syrien noyé sur une plage turque fait la une des quotidiens atlantistes...

L’arte della guerra
 
Dietro quelle foto di bambini 

Manlio Dinucci
  

Quando i bambini sono arrivati al campo estivo, in una zona boscosa presso Kiev, hanno ricevuto una bella T-shirt gialla su cui sono stampate due sagome di bambini armati di fucile, con l’emblema del battaglione Azov ricalcato da quello delle SS Das Reich, e sullo sfondo il «Sole Nero» del misticismo nazista. I bambini (anche di 6 anni) e ragazzi che hanno frequentato il campo a gruppi di 30-40 – riporta il quotidiano Kiev Post – «non hanno giocato ai soldati, ma hanno ricevuto un reale addestramento militare da istruttori del battaglione Azov». Ossia dai neonazisti che hanno compiuto atrocità contro i civili di nazionalità russa nell’Ucraina orientale. 

Questo e altri battaglioni neonazisti fanno parte della Guardia nazionale ucraina, legata da una partnership con la Guardia nazionale della California e addestrata da istruttori statunitensi e britannici per condurre l’«operazione anti-terrorismo» nel Donbass. Il campo estivo costituisce il primo stadio del reclutamento di bambini soldato, scrive Michel Chossudovsky in un documentato articolo corredato da foto (v. link  qui sotto). Oltre che a sparare, ai bambini insegnano a odiare: «Uccideremo tutti i russi», giura uno di loro. 

La foto di un bambino ucraino la cui vita è bruciata dal «Sole Nero» nazista non è meno tremenda di quella del bambino siriano la cui vita si è spenta nel Mediterraneo. Immagine, quest’ultima, che secondo la favola corrente avrebbe toccato il cuore dei massimi esponenti di quei governi responsabili  delle guerre e dei conseguenti terremoti sociali provocati negli ultimi decenni dalla strategia Usa/Nato. 

Guerre ed embarghi – dall’Iraq alla Jugoslavia, dall’Afghanistan alla Palestina, dalla Libia alla Siria e all’Ucraina – hanno provocato la morte di milioni di bambini (mezzo milione solo quelli uccisi dai dieci anni di embargo contro l’Itaq). Le loro foto non sono state però diffuse dai grandi media. E alle piccole vittime si aggiungono i bambini educati a odiare e uccidere da movimenti, come l’Isis e i battaglioni neonazisti ucraini, alla cui formazione hanno contribuito in modo determinante gli Usa e le potenze europee per scardinare dall’interno interi Stati. 

Si narra che il governo britannico abbia deciso di accogliere 15mila profughi siriani perché commosso dalla foto del piccolo siriano morto. Contemporaneamente, però, lo stesso governo ha annunciato di voler ottenere il via libera dal parlamento per una azione militare «contro il malvagio regime di Assad e l’Isis».  E il ministro degli esteri Gentiloni ha annunciato che, di fronte al dramma dei profughi, sta per iniziare la seconda fase della missione EuNavForMed  «contro i trafficanti di essere umani», il cui obiettivo finale è in realtà l’occupazione militare delle aree costiere libiche strategicamente ed economicamente più importanti. 

L’esodo dei profughi verso l’Europa, provocato dalle guerre, viene così usato a fini strategici: da Washington per mettere sotto pressione i paesi europei rafforzando l’influenza statunitense in Europa, usata come prima linea contro la Russia e base di lancio delle operazioni militari Usa/Nato in Medioriente e Nordafrica; dalle maggiori capitali europee per preparare l’opinione pubblica ad altre guerre spacciate per «missioni umanitarie di pace». 

Senza la consapevolezza politica delle cause reali e possibili soluzioni di tale esodo, può essere strumentalizzato anche il sostegno umanitario che molti cittadini europei danno ai profughi, e possono essere usati gli stessi profughi quale massa di manovra nei confronti dei paesi di provenienza. E altri bambini moriranno, quasi tutti senza foto.

(il manifesto, 8 settembre 2015) 


Articolo di Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/military-training-for-young-children-at-ukraines-neo-nazi-summer-camp-recruitment-of-ukraines-child-soldiers-financed-by-us-nonlethal-military-aid/5472801


=== 3 ===

En francais: Offensive sur le front oriental (par  Manlio Dinucci, il manifesto, 15/9/2015)
En décrivant les actuelles manœuvres de l’Otan, Manlio Dinucci montre la manière dont l’Alliance étend progressivement son emprise sur l’Europe centrale et orientale...
http://www.voltairenet.org/article188703.html

L’arte della guerra

Offensiva sul fronte orientale 

L’Ucraina, dove la Nato addestra e arma da anni forze neonaziste (usate per il putsch di piazza Maidan e poi inquadrate nella Guardia nazionale) e ora anche le forze armate, parteciperà come partner alla Trident Juncture 2015.

Manlio Dinucci
  

Cinquecento extracomunitari stanno attraversando l’Europa: non sono profughi ma soldati statunitensi del 2° Reggimento di cavalleria che, con 110 mezzi corazzati, si stanno movendo dalla loro base in Germania all’Ungheria attraverso Repubblica Ceca e Slovacchia, per «assicurare gli alleati Nato che l’esercito degli Stati uniti è pronto, se necessario». 

Per assicurare che le forze dell’Alleanza possano «dispiegarsi nella regione orientale in modo rapido e prepararsi a successive operazioni» – annuncia il segretario generale della Nato Stoltenberg  – sono stati attivati sei nuovi quartieri generali in Lituania, Estonia, Lettonia, Polonia, Romania e Bulgaria. 

E mentre si conclude in Germania, Italia, Bulgaria e Romania la Swift Response, la più grande esercitazione Nato di forze aviotrasportate dalla fine della guerra fredda, inizia  nella Repubblica Ceca la Ample Strike in cui controllori di volo e piloti Nato si addestrano all’attacco aereo. 

Dalla base di Geilenkirchen in Germania decollano ogni giorno aerei radar Awacs per controllare non solo lo spazio aereo lungo i confini orientali dell’Alleanza, ma quello russo dato che possono «vedere» a oltre 400 km di distanza. Il Readiness Action Plan prevede una serie di attività terrestri, navali ed aeree sul fianco orientale della Nato,  tra cui la «missione di pattugliamento aereo sugli Stati baltici» alla quale partecipa l’Italia con cacciabombardieri Eurofighter Typhoon. 

Questo dispiegamento di forze sarà testato e rafforzato dall’esercitazione Trident Juncture 2015 (3 ottobre – 6 novembre). Vi parteciperanno, insieme a unità terrestri e navali,  oltre 180 aerei di 16 paesi Nato e 3 partner, tra cui aerei Awacs che opereranno da Trapani Birgi. Diretti dal Jfac (Joint Force Air Component)  italiano, la cui sede è a Poggio Renatico (Ferrara), dotato anche di «capacità dispiegabili» per operazioni aeree fuori dall’area Nato. 

Svolgerà un ruolo centrale nell’esercitazione il Jfc Naples, comando Nato (con uno staff di 800 militari al quartier generale di Lago Patria), che dirige tra le altre le operazioni navali nel Mar Nero in funzione anti-Russia. Diretto dall’ammiraglio Usa Ferguson – che è anche comandante delle Forze navali Usa in Europa, delle Forze navali Usa del Comando Africa e delle Forze Nato in Kosovo – il Jfc Naples, alternandosi annualmente con Brunssum (Olanda), svolge il ruolo di comando operativo della «Forza di risposta» Nato. 

Tutte queste forze e operazioni Nato dipendono dal Comandante supremo alleato in Europa, che è sempre un generale Usa nominato dal Presidente (attualmente il generale Breedlove). 

Sotto comando e impulso Usa, la Nato – che ha già inglobato tutti i paesi dell’ex Patto di Varsavia, tre dell’ex Urss e due della ex Jugoslavia (demolita dalla Nato con la guerra ) – si muove per inglobarne altri. A tal fine stringe crescenti rapporti militari col Montenegro, dove navi da guerra Nato fanno spesso scalo nel porto di Bar, e con la Georgia, dove è stato aperto un centro di addestramento Nato. 

L’Ucraina, dove la Nato addestra e arma da anni forze neonaziste (usate per il putsch di piazza Maidan e poi inquadrate nella Guardia nazionale) e ora anche le forze armate, parteciperà come partner alla Trident Juncture 2015. E tra breve riceverà la visita del segretario Stoltenberg, alla quale Kiev attribuisce «grande valore simbolico». 

Così altri paesi dell’Est, agganciati alla Nato, vengono legati soprattutto agli Stati uniti che, con la loro politica del «divide et impera», stanno trasformando di nuovo l’Europa in prima linea di un confronto militare non meno pericoloso di quello della Guerra fredda. 

(il manifesto, 15 settembre 2015)   


---


NATO-Manöver Rapid Trident 2015 in der Ukraine: Bundeswehr trainiert mit ukrainischen Neo-Nazi-Bataillonen

RT, 22. Juli, 2015

Seit dem 20. Juli läuft in der Westukraine das NATO-Manöver „Rapid Trident“ (Schneller Dreizack) mit deutscher Beteiligung. Auf ukrainischer Seite nimmt neben den regulären Armeeeinheiten auch die Nationalgarde an den Kriegsspielen teil. In dieser ist ein Großteil der Freiwilligenverbände wie das berüchtigte Asow-Bataillon zusammengefasst. Die deutschen Medien gehen auf Nummer sicher und berichten erst gar nicht von dem bisher größten NATO-Manöver in der Ukraine.

Im Rahmen des NATO-Programms „Partnerschaft für den Frieden“ nehmen insgesamt 1.800 Soldaten aus 18 Ländern an dem Militärmanöver in der Nähe des westukrainischen Stadt Lemberg teil.

Die offizielle Webseite der Nationalgarde verkündet stolz, dass die Ukraine mit 800 Mann an den Übungen beteiligt ist und  davon die Nationalgarde „ein Drittel“ des Kontingents stellt.

[PHOTO: Quelle: Screenshot ngu.gov.ua/en]
 
Zudem wird dargelegt,  dass das „Hauptobjektiv“ des Manövers die „Entwicklung und Stärkung der Kooperation mit bewaffneten Kräften anderer Länder“ darstellt, „bei der nicht nur Waffen und Kampffahrzeuge, sondern auch Flugzeuge zum Einsatz kommen“.

[VIDEO: Ukraine: Unter Beteiligung von 18 Ländern beginnt multinationale US-geführte Militärübung (RT Deutsch, 21 lug 2015)
Am Truppenübungsplatz in Jaworiw in der Oblast Lemberg hat gestern das multinationale US-geführte Militärmanöver „Rapid Trident“ [Schneller Dreizack] begonnen. Laut dem ukrainischen Verteidigungsministerium werden rund 2.000 Soldaten aus Europa, Nordamerika und der ehemaligen Sowjetunion an der 11-tägigen Übung teilnehmen und mit schwerem Kriegsgerät üben. Die Ukraine stellt dabei 800 und die USA 500 Mann, die Bundeswehr sei nur mit einzelnen Soldaten vertreten, hieß es aus dem deutschen Außenministerium...

Die ukrainische Nationalgarde besteht aus mehr als vierzig Bataillonen, darunter beispielsweise das Asow-, Donbass-, Dnipro- oder auch das Vaterlands-Bataillon von Julia Timoschenko. In seiner jetzigen Form wurde die Nationalgarde erst nach dem Maidan-Putsch 2014 wieder begründet, mit dem Ziel, die paramilitärischen Truppen zumindest formal dem ukrainischen Innenministerium zu unterstellen. De facto agieren diese jedoch noch immer unabhängig und fühlen sich nur sehr bedingt an die Weisungen aus Kiew gebunden.

[VIDEO: Die Geister die ich rief? Nationalgarde ruft zum Sturz von Poroschenko auf (RT Deutsch, 2 feb 2015)
Mitglieder der Nationalgarde demonstrieren seit mehreren Tagen gegen die Auflösung ihrer Einheiten. Dabei legten sie Feuer, griffen das Wachpersonal vor staatlichen Institutionen an und riefen zum Sturz des ukrainischen Präsidenten Petro Poroschenko auf. Derweil geht der Beschuss von Donezk ohne Unterbrechung weiter. In der Nacht vom Sonntag wurden das Dach einer Schule sowie das zentrale Busdepot von mehreren Mörsergranaten getroffen. Vor Ort berichtet RT Reporter Roman Kosarew...




COME AGGREDIRE LA RUSSIA CON COPERTURA O.N.U.?


Fonte: http://it.sputniknews.com/politica/20150912/1147029.html

ONU, privare la Russia del diritto di veto è impossibile (12.09.2015)

Il Segretario generale dell’ONU ha dichiarato che la Russia è uno dei membri permanenti del Consiglio di sicurezza, pertanto lo Statuto dell’ONU non prevede la possibilità della sua espulsione.
Ban Ki-moon non ha voluto commentare le iniziative che esortano a privare la Russia del suo diritto di veto, rilevando che ciò è impossibile in virtù dello Statuto dell'organizzazione.
"Non ho sentito nessuna proposta in tal senso. Russia è uno dei membri permanenti del Consiglio di sicurezza. Non voglio neanche commentare le cose di cui non sono al corrente", — ha detto Ban Ki-moon.
Il Segretario ha riconosciuto che lo Statuto dell'ONU rende impossibile l'espulsione di Mosca dal Consiglio di sicurezza.
"Ogni idea o risoluzione richiede l'approvazione da parte di tutti e 5 i membri permanenti", — egli ha detto.    



(english / italiano)

Ebrei sui due fronti della guerra civile in Ucraina

0) Links e brevi
1) How the Israel Lobby Protected Ukrainian Neo-Nazis (Max Blumenthal)
2) Israeli communist joins Ukrainian rebels to fight ‘fascists and neo-Nazis’ (Sam Sokol)


=== 0: LINKS E BREVI ===

--- LINKS:

Ukraine: Israeli Special Forces Supporting Antisemitic Mob (Feb 2014)

Kiev, fascisti al potere: attacchi a comunisti ed ebrei. Che pensano all’evacuazione (Febbraio 2014)

Il nuovo regime di Kiev è antisemita ma i sionisti lo appoggiano (Mar 2014)
- Israel backs far-right coup in Ukraine (Jean Shaoul)
- A Kiev aggredito rabbino della comunità ebraica locale (VdR)

Nazisti e israeliani a braccetto per Kiev (Mar 2014)

Ukraine and Israel: Together in fighting terrorism (Haaretz, 27.07.14)
http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.607396?v=97BFD4B12611718EC45F24739370A3D1

Jewish Ukrainian Volunteer Battalion Matilan (7.12.2014)
http://maidantranslations.com/2014/07/13/jewish-ukrainian-volunteer-battalion-matilan/

Ucraina, la milizia nazionalista con dentro nazi ed ebrei (J. Evangelista, 10 dicembre 2014)

Not Even Israel Protests Anti-Semitism in Ukraine (Max Bromberg - Neo Presse, May 22, 2015)
... Nazism in Ukraine is not only protected by Germany and other Western countries, but obviously also by Israel...

Israeli-made air-to-air missile may have downed MH17 - report (RT, 16 Jul, 2015)
http://www.rt.com/news/310039-mh17-israeli-missile-version/

Don't Allow Kiev to Rewrite the Holocaust, Warns Israeli Publicist (Sputnik, 26.08.2015)
In an exclusive interview with Radio Sputnik, Israeli publicist Avigdor Eskin explains how history is in danger of repeating, as Kiev is allowed to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, and the lessons of the Second World War are being forgotten...
http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150826/1026206505.html


--- BREVI:

Fonte: pagina FB « Premio Goebbels per la disinformazione », 29 dicembre 2014

Ne avevamo già parlato diversi mesi fa, quando emergevano i primi legami palesi tra i neonazisti ucraini e i sionisti, giunti al culmine con i finanziamenti degli oligarchi con passaporto israeliano alle squadre di "punitori" di estrema destra di Pravyi Sektor e del battaglione Azov e la formazione di milizie pro-Kiev composte da soli "volontari" sionisti. Più nazismo, più intolleranza, più destabilizzazione, significa automaticamente più migrazione della popolazione ebraica locale verso i territori occupati in Palestina. È la strategia di sempre del sionismo…

NEW WAVE OF UKRANIAN JEWISH IMMIGRANTS LAND IN OCCUPIED PALESTINE (December 24, 2014)

---

Il 2,3 e 5 giugno 2015 la ONG Ukrainian Jewish Encounter (UJE) organizza, nella roccaforte dei fascisti del Maidan, ovvero Leopoli, un seminario sulla "propaganda" russa, a cui parteciperanno ambasciatori di Canada e Israele, e altri "esperti" principalmente ucraini ed ebrei. Ci sarà anche un italiano, lo storico Andrea Graziosi dell'Università di Napoli, ex Lotta Continua e studioso dell'URSS e dell'"Holodomor". L'evento è co-organizzato da vari istituti e dai ministeri della Difesa e dell'Educazione ucraini:

http://www.ukrainianjewishencounter.org/en/media1/media-kit/latest-news/15-latest-news/678-uje-to-host-international-seminar-on-propaganda-in-kyiv-and-lviv

Lo scopo presunto di questa ONG (http://www.ukrainianjewishencounter.org/en/who-we-are), fondata da "ucraini ebrei e cristiani" (viene da pensare ai preti cattolici che benedivano e confessavano gli ultranazionalisti dell'Euromaidan, feriti o morenti), nella tradizione della peggiore "politica identitaria", è di tracciare un parallelo piuttosto improbabile tra gli ebrei (tribù millenaria) e gli ucraini (popolo/etnia, che, come i croati, non è praticamente mai esistita; l'Ucraina stessa non è esistita prima del 1917).
Secondo la UJE, entrambi i "popoli", avendo "sofferto molto" a causa dei "totalitarismi del XX secolo", stanno creando proprie identità moderne connesse ai relativi stati Isreale ed Ucraina, implicando che, se Israle può essere lo "stato ebraico", l'Ucraina può essere lo stato degli ucraini dove i russi sono gli arabi della situazione.
Strano che questi ebrei dimentichino che le "loro" maggiori sofferenze furono causate proprio dagli ultranazionalisti ucraini, già dal 1918 e fin dentro i primi anni '40.


=== 1 ===


How the Israel Lobby Protected Ukrainian Neo-Nazis

Rep. John Conyers wanted to block U.S. funding to neo-Nazis in Ukraine. But the ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center refused to help.

By Max Blumenthal /  AlterNetNovember 18, 2014

AlterNet has learned that an amendment to the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have forbidden US assistance, training and weapons to neo-Nazis and other extremists in Ukraine was kept out of the final bill by the Republican-led House Rules Committee. Introduced by Democratic Representative John Conyers, the amendment was intended to help tamp down on violent confrontations between Ukrainian forces and Russian separatists. (Full text of the amendment embedded at the end of this article).

USA Today/Pew poll conducted in April while the NDAA was being debated found that Americans opposed by more than 2 to 1 providing the Ukrainian government with arms or other forms of military assistance.

If passed, Conyers' amendment would have explicitly barred those found to have offered “praise or glorification of Nazism or its collaborators, including through the use of white supremacist, neo-Nazi, or other similar symbols” from receiving any form of support from the US Department of Defense.

The amendment was presented by congressional staffers to lobbyists from Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, two of the country’s largest established Jewish pressure groups. Despite their stated mission to combat anti-Semitism and violent extremism, the ADL and Wiesenthal Center refused to support Jeffries and Conyers’ proposal.

According to Democratic sources in Congress, staffers from the ADL’s Washington office and the Simon Wiesenthal Center rejected the amendment on the grounds that right-wing Ukrainian parties like Svoboda with documented records of racist extremism had “moderated their rhetoric.” An ADL lobbyist insisted that “the focus should be on Russia,” while the Wiesenthal Center pointed to meetings between far-right political leaders in Ukraine and the Israeli embassy as evidence that groups like Svoboda and Right Sector had shed their extremism. 

The ADL’s Washington office and the Simon Wiesenthal Center did not respond to numerous requests by email and telephone for comment.

Earlier this year, the ADL’s outgoing National Director Abraham Foxman noted Svoboda’s “history of anti-Semitism and platform of ethnic nationalism” in a press releasedemanding the party renounce its past glorification of Stepan Bandera, a World War Two-era Nazi collaborator who has become a symbol of Ukrainian nationalism.

When the Ukrainian parliament failed to pass a bill this October honoring Bandera’s Ukrainian Rebel Army, about 8000 supporters of Svoboda and the extremist Right Sector marched on the building, attacking riot police with homemade weapons while waving Banderist flags and Svoboda banners. The violent backlash was a reminder that the legend of Bandera would not die any time soon, and that Foxman’s admonitions had fallen on deaf ears.

Svobodoa’s leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, once called for the liberation of his country from the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia.” In 2010, following the conviction of the Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk for his supporting role in the death of nearly 30,000 people at the Sobibor camp, Tyahnybok flew to Germany to praise him as a hero who was “fighting for truth.”

Since the Euromaidan revolution, however, Svoboda has fought to rehabilitate its image. This has meant meeting with Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Reuven Din El and appealing to shared national values. “I would like to ask Israelis to also respect our patriotic feelings,” Tyahnybok has remarked. “Probably each party in the [Israeli] Knesset is nationalist. With God’s help, let it be this way for us too.”

Right Sector, the radical right-wing movement that battled riot police during the latter stages of the Euromaidan uprising, earned plaudits from the ADL’s Foxman when its leader arranged his own meeting with Din El. “[Right Sector leader] Dmitry Yarosh stressed that Right Sector will oppose all [racist] phenomena, especially anti-Semitism, with all legitimate means,” the Israeli embassy declared.

The results of this month’s Ukrainian parliamentary elections were widely portrayed as a setback for the ultra-nationalist right-wing, with Svoboda taking around 6 percent of the vote while Yarosh’s Right Sector failed to qualify for seats. The outcome cheered the American Jewish Committee, which declaredthat “Jews in most of Ukraine are heartened by the election results and even optimistic about the country’s future.”

But the dismal showing by the traditional ultra-nationalist parties was hardly evidence of a diminished right-wing. With President Petro Poroshenko leading the nationalists’ dream war in the East, Svoboda and Right Sector lost the protest vote they had commanded during the heady years of insurrection. As Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert on Europe’s radical right, explained, “in 2012, Svoboda was also considered almost the only ‘patriotic’ party, but now all democratic parties are patriotic, so Svoboda has lost its ‘monopoly’ on patriotism.”

During the national election campaign, Ukraine’s leading party, the People’s Front of neoliberal Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, was honeycombed with far-right militants. Andrei Parubiy, the co-founder of the neo-Nazi-inspired Social National Party and former chief of the Maidan defense committees, was among the extremists who won seats on the People’s Front ticket.

Besides Parubiy, the People’s Front included Andriy Biletsky, leader of the Azov militia, an overtly neo-Nazi fighting force that has been on the front lines of the battle against Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Azov deputy commander Vadym Troyan joined him on the party’s electoral list, rounding out a peculiar mix of khaki shirt clad fascists and buttoned-down neo-liberals.

Unlike Svoboda, these figures do not even feign moderation. “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival,” Biletsky recently wrote. “A crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”

Azov fighters are united by their nostalgia for Nazi Germany and embrace of open fascism. Sporting swastika tattoos, the battalion “flies a neo-Nazi symbol resembling a Swastika as its flag,” the New York Times’ Andrew Kramer recently reported.

With the government in a state of flux, Azov is filling the void in the East. As Ukrainian parliamentarian Gregory Nemira complained to reporter Anna Nemtsova in September, “The president still has not appointed a chief of staff for the armed forces. He has not admitted we are in a state of war, preferring to throw the battalions like Azov into the most dangerous combat zones, where authorities would not have the courage to send regular troops.”

Azov is precisely the sort of neo-Nazi organization that Conyers’ NDAA amendment would have deprived of US assistance. But when the congressman sought help from the ADL and the Wiesenthal Center in moving the proposal forward, he was rebuked. The amendment died a quiet death and Azov’s American supply line remains intact.

Failed Amendment barring US assistance to Ukrainian neo-Nazis:


=== 2 ===


Israeli communist joins Ukrainian rebels to fight ‘fascists and neo-Nazis’

By SAM SOKOL \ 08/20/2015

Dozens of former IDF soldiers present in Donetsk, according to the city’s foreign minister

Eastern European civil wars are usually the last places one would expect to find Israeli citizens, but it is believed that several dozen are currently serving on both sides of the Ukrainian conflict.

One of those foreign fighters is Ina Levitan, a 37-year-old Tel Aviv resident of Azerbaijani origin, who has been fighting on the side of Ukrainian separatists on the front lines near the rebel- held city of Luhansk since late 2014 in order to fight who she calls fascists and neo-Nazis.

While born in Baku, she grew up in Israel and never thought that she would return to the Soviet Union, but when an acquaintance disappeared in eastern Ukraine last September she began investigating the conflict, she told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

After a few days she was able to track down her friend’s whereabouts but continued researching the conflict, and “after a month and a half I decided to go to Novorossia,” she said, using the Russian imperial term for the territories on the north coast of the Black Sea encompassing what is now eastern Ukraine.

She said that she was motivated to join the separatists after learning of “crimes carried out against the civilian population.”

In an open letter on the website of the Israeli Communist Party, Levitan said the goal of her brigade is not to enter into conflict with Ukraine or its citizens, but rather to “fight against the fascist, pro-Nazi and oligarchs” and help the people.

She railed against what she called “pro-Nazi activists” using Nazi salutes and symbols who are “torturing and murdering civilians and soldiers of the army of Ukraine who do not share their views.”

“I myself saw a man who returned from captivity in the hands of neo-Nazis.

They cut limbs and tattooed his body with swastikas. We are fighting against these atrocities that occur repeatedly and harm civilians,” she wrote, accusing the West of ignoring war crimes.

“As an Israeli, I personally, viscerally hate fascists,” she asserted.

While many of her fellow fighters are Russians and Ukrainians, there are also Spaniards, Serbians, Italians and Israelis.

Speaking with the Russian media late last year, Donetsk People’s Republic foreign minister Alexander Kofman, who is Jewish, asserted that there are dozens of former IDF soldiers fighting in Donetsk.

In February, Spain arrested eight people for serving with the Ukrainian rebels, and Kiev has declared the rebels terrorists. While Israeli law prohibits fighting in foreign conflicts, both the Foreign Ministry and the Justice Ministry declined to comment on the issue when contacted by the Post.

Since last year’s Kiev revolution, Russia and the rebels have consistently condemned Ukraine’s new government of fascism and racism, claims which have been vigorously denied by local Jewish communities, several of which have become involved in the war effort.

According to media reports and researchers like Vyacheslav Likhachev, who monitors anti-Semitism for the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress, there are neo-Nazis fighting on both sides of the conflict. Despite this, community leaders have said that they are left pretty much alone and that they are more worried about the conflict itself than anti-Jewish activity.

It is a “civic obligation” to defend Ukraine, Asher Joseph Cherkassky, a local Jew who fought in Donetsk on the government’s side, told the Post last year. A member of the Dnipro Battalion – which was funded by Dnepropetrovsk’s former Jewish regional governor, billionaire oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky – the long-bearded hassidic combat soldier was touted by government officials as a symbol of Ukrainian patriotism.

Many of the Israeli citizens fighting in Ukraine are of Russian and Ukrainian origin, said Rabbi Boruch Gorin, a senior Jewish communal official from Russia.

He accused them of being adventure seekers and said that many serve in support roles, such as training troops.

“I would say [they are] people who are looking for the show, let it be in Ukraine or Sudan, it’s no difference,” he mused.

“For both sides, the Jewish factor was very important in the beginning of the war. It’s less important now but then it was very important to show to both sides that they have the Jews fighting for them [and] the Israelis, and that the Jewish community abroad are their supporters... I think that this is much more PR as usual and there’s nothing to talk about.”

Levitan, however, disagreed, telling the Post that she saw the conflict as a “huge political game” in which oligarchs are filling their pockets at the expense of the average citizen.

The Western media is distorting the nature of the rebellion in Ukraine, just as it distorts Israel’s fight against Palestinian terrorism, she said. “Every Israeli can easily understand that a similar situation occurs in the area of Novorossia.”

She has no regrets because she is able to fight for her principles, she continued, adding that being an Israeli and commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day taught her the importance of standing up to Nazis.