Russia Begins Operations in Syria: End Game for the US Empire?
- Thread starter Ocean
- Start date
angelburst29 said:
I think the answer to your question is "YES". The "rescue the terrorists" coalition with the cooperation of the UN that continues with their so-called "humanitarian" aide while UN troops sexually assault/exploit the people they were sent to rescue and protect. I can't get my hopes up too much these days so I can barely express the thought of what the UN could become if it cleaned house aka Odysseus style. :(
I also think the beginning of de-dollarization will be the only message that the US, EU, Israel and the Saudis can understand.
goyacobol said:
I imagine that Putin would like to see a real UN that has real power and integrity and that actually upholds international law. It seemed like his speech at the UN last fall was a call for such. Although it's an insurmountable task at the moment, I think what matters is that there is a visible authority with conscience who fights for such things.
But I think you're right, goyacobol, that the US et al will remain fixed in their positions until the dollar tanks. It'll be interesting to see how US vassals respond, and although much of it probably wont be pretty, there might be an opportunity for some countries to re-align with natural partners.
angelburst29
The Living Force
Renaissance said:
Even before his visit to the 70th U.N. General Assembly last September in N.Y., Putin had remarked during several earlier interviews, the principles based in the U.N. Charter and corresponding International Law and the mandates that gave the formation of the United Nations - it's beginning. Putin had expressed, that the U.N.'s location in New York would be better served, if it located it's main headquarters in a Neutral Country like Switzerland. Which I feel, he is right. The U.N. should be located in a neutral Country. The U.N. in it's own right, serves as a valuable resource in intergovernmental organization. Unfortunately, just like everything else attached to government oversight, it was eventually - compromised. If it could re-organize itself and get back to it's original purpose, it would be a real asset in World Governance - which is what I think Putin is putting forward?
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon seems like he's trying to get his house in order, so to speak and might be what's behind the media blitz of U.N. sexual escapades coming out in the open? Ki-moon might be trying to re-organize - while getting rid of some of the trash?
angelburst29
The Living Force
'Our Mistake': Iran Releases Video of American Sailor Apologizing (Video - photo's)
http://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-releases-images-tense-us-sailors-detained/story?id=36266300
Iranian state television today released video of one of the American sailors detained Tuesday apologizing following an incursion by two U.S. Navy boats into Iranian waters -- a video that a U.S. military official said was "clearly" staged.
“It was a mistake. That was our fault, and we apologize for our mistake,” the unidentified sailor says in the video, which was posted online hours after the sailors were released from Iranian detention.
Asked in the video if GPS confirmed that the American boats had entered Iranian waters, the man says, “I believe so.”
"It was a misunderstanding," he says. "We did not mean to go into Iranian territorial water." The sailor also added that the Iranians had behaved in a "fantastic" manner during the Americans' detention and he thanked them for their "hospitality" and "assistance."
The U.S. military's Central Command said the video "appears to be authentic but we cannot speak for the conditions of the situation or what the crew was experiencing at the time." A CENTCOM official added, "Clearly this staged video exhibits a Sailor making an apology in an unknown context as an effort to defuse a tense situation and protect his crew."
The two U.S. Navy vessels, with 10 American sailors between them, ended up in Iranian territorial waters Tuesday after one of the boats suffered a mechanical problem, according to the sailor in the video and initial comments from a U.S. military official -- though today another U.S. official from the Navy's nearby Fifth Fleet said the cause of the incident was still under investigation.
The sailor in the video said he and his colleagues were detained after Iranian authorities approached them with "weapons drawn" as they drifted in the water. All 10 sailors were released unharmed today after being held overnight on an Iranian island. Top officials from both countries called the swift resolution to the incident a victory for diplomacy.
The same Iranian state outlet that produced the sailor's interview had previously released footage that appeared to show when the sailors were detained aboard their Riverine boats.
That video showed the sailors in camouflage pants and beige shirts kneeling with their backs to the camera. Their hands are clasped together on their heads. Some sailors appear to look around anxiously. Other images posted in Iranian media appear to show weapons confiscated by the Iranian officials, including assault rifles and light machine guns, along with belts of ammunition. Still another shows an Iranian official going through documents apparently on board one of the American boats.
Iranian media had also published images of the American sailors looking much more relaxed while apparently in Iranian detention late Tuesday. Additional images released today showed the sailors as they ate in a group.
Shortly before noon today the newly-freed sailors used their boats to head towards the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Anzio which was located in international waters just off Iranian territorial waters. The Iranian boats escorting the Riverine boats then turned back as they neared the American ship.
The sailors were then brought to the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman for additional medical assessments. They have now been taken to a U.S. military base in the region where they will undergo a structured reintegration program for American military personnel that have undergone some form of detention, officials said.
(Note - this next article was listed below - the top one)
Iran Releases 10 Navy Sailors Held After Drifting Into Iranian Waters
http://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-releases-images-tense-us-sailors-detained/story?id=36266300
Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps has released 10 U.S. Navy sailors who were being held after their boats are said to have drifted into Iranian waters on a journey from Kuwait to Bahrain Tuesday.
"Ten U.S. Navy Sailors safely returned to U.S. custody today, after departing Iran. There are no indications that the Sailors were harmed during their brief detention,” according to a statement from the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs Office.
"The Sailors departed Farsi Island at at 8:43 a.m. GMT, aboard the two Riverine Command Boats (RCB) that they had been operating when they lost contact with the U.S. Navy. The Sailors were later transferred ashore by U.S. Navy aircraft, while other Sailors took charge of the RCBs and continued transiting toward Bahrain, the boats' original destination. The Navy will investigate the circumstances that led to the Sailors' presence in Iran," the statement added.
Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement, "I'm very pleased that our Sailors have been safely returned to U.S. hands. As a former Sailor myself, I know the importance of naval presence around the world and the critical work being done by our Navy in the Gulf region. I'm proud of our young men and women in uniform and know how seriously they take their responsibilities to one another and to other mariners in distress."
Cmdr. Kevin Stephens, spokesman for U.S. Fifth Fleet, told ABC News the sailors were recovered aboard Navy cruiser USS Anzio, which was in international waters, just outside Iranian territorial waters. Once on board, they were given an initial medical evaluation and were flown to the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman. They will receive additional assessments on board before being taken ashore to a facility in the region, although that may not be Bahrain.
The sailors are now undergoing the reintegration process set up by Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, Stephens said, adding that "the first concern was the sailors, the second is ensuring they get the best care they can get and successfully reintegrate into the force, and third is understanding the circumstances of the incident.”
It's believed the incident occurred when one of the two small U.S. Navy boats had mechanical problems and that both of the boats may have drifted into the Iranian waters, a U.S. official said Tuesday.
The craft were supposed to have been refueled by another U.S. Navy ship in the Gulf so it could complete the journey from Kuwait to Bahrain, the U.S. official said Tuesday, but never made it to the refueling craft.
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter released a statement, saying, "I am pleased that ten U.S. Navy sailors have departed Iran and are now back in U.S. hands. I want to personally thank Secretary of State John Kerry for his diplomatic engagement with Iran to secure our sailors' swift return. Around the world, the U.S. Navy routinely provides assistance to foreign sailors in distress, and we appreciate the timely way in which this situation was resolved."
Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps said the U.S. military vessels were carrying armed personnel when they entered Iran's waters and were seized by IRGC naval units, according to Iranian media. The vessels were then transferred to Farsi Island.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-releases-images-tense-us-sailors-detained/story?id=36266300
Iranian state television today released video of one of the American sailors detained Tuesday apologizing following an incursion by two U.S. Navy boats into Iranian waters -- a video that a U.S. military official said was "clearly" staged.
“It was a mistake. That was our fault, and we apologize for our mistake,” the unidentified sailor says in the video, which was posted online hours after the sailors were released from Iranian detention.
Asked in the video if GPS confirmed that the American boats had entered Iranian waters, the man says, “I believe so.”
"It was a misunderstanding," he says. "We did not mean to go into Iranian territorial water." The sailor also added that the Iranians had behaved in a "fantastic" manner during the Americans' detention and he thanked them for their "hospitality" and "assistance."
The U.S. military's Central Command said the video "appears to be authentic but we cannot speak for the conditions of the situation or what the crew was experiencing at the time." A CENTCOM official added, "Clearly this staged video exhibits a Sailor making an apology in an unknown context as an effort to defuse a tense situation and protect his crew."
The two U.S. Navy vessels, with 10 American sailors between them, ended up in Iranian territorial waters Tuesday after one of the boats suffered a mechanical problem, according to the sailor in the video and initial comments from a U.S. military official -- though today another U.S. official from the Navy's nearby Fifth Fleet said the cause of the incident was still under investigation.
The sailor in the video said he and his colleagues were detained after Iranian authorities approached them with "weapons drawn" as they drifted in the water. All 10 sailors were released unharmed today after being held overnight on an Iranian island. Top officials from both countries called the swift resolution to the incident a victory for diplomacy.
The same Iranian state outlet that produced the sailor's interview had previously released footage that appeared to show when the sailors were detained aboard their Riverine boats.
That video showed the sailors in camouflage pants and beige shirts kneeling with their backs to the camera. Their hands are clasped together on their heads. Some sailors appear to look around anxiously. Other images posted in Iranian media appear to show weapons confiscated by the Iranian officials, including assault rifles and light machine guns, along with belts of ammunition. Still another shows an Iranian official going through documents apparently on board one of the American boats.
Iranian media had also published images of the American sailors looking much more relaxed while apparently in Iranian detention late Tuesday. Additional images released today showed the sailors as they ate in a group.
Shortly before noon today the newly-freed sailors used their boats to head towards the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Anzio which was located in international waters just off Iranian territorial waters. The Iranian boats escorting the Riverine boats then turned back as they neared the American ship.
The sailors were then brought to the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman for additional medical assessments. They have now been taken to a U.S. military base in the region where they will undergo a structured reintegration program for American military personnel that have undergone some form of detention, officials said.
(Note - this next article was listed below - the top one)
Iran Releases 10 Navy Sailors Held After Drifting Into Iranian Waters
http://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-releases-images-tense-us-sailors-detained/story?id=36266300
Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps has released 10 U.S. Navy sailors who were being held after their boats are said to have drifted into Iranian waters on a journey from Kuwait to Bahrain Tuesday.
"Ten U.S. Navy Sailors safely returned to U.S. custody today, after departing Iran. There are no indications that the Sailors were harmed during their brief detention,” according to a statement from the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs Office.
"The Sailors departed Farsi Island at at 8:43 a.m. GMT, aboard the two Riverine Command Boats (RCB) that they had been operating when they lost contact with the U.S. Navy. The Sailors were later transferred ashore by U.S. Navy aircraft, while other Sailors took charge of the RCBs and continued transiting toward Bahrain, the boats' original destination. The Navy will investigate the circumstances that led to the Sailors' presence in Iran," the statement added.
Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement, "I'm very pleased that our Sailors have been safely returned to U.S. hands. As a former Sailor myself, I know the importance of naval presence around the world and the critical work being done by our Navy in the Gulf region. I'm proud of our young men and women in uniform and know how seriously they take their responsibilities to one another and to other mariners in distress."
Cmdr. Kevin Stephens, spokesman for U.S. Fifth Fleet, told ABC News the sailors were recovered aboard Navy cruiser USS Anzio, which was in international waters, just outside Iranian territorial waters. Once on board, they were given an initial medical evaluation and were flown to the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman. They will receive additional assessments on board before being taken ashore to a facility in the region, although that may not be Bahrain.
The sailors are now undergoing the reintegration process set up by Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, Stephens said, adding that "the first concern was the sailors, the second is ensuring they get the best care they can get and successfully reintegrate into the force, and third is understanding the circumstances of the incident.”
It's believed the incident occurred when one of the two small U.S. Navy boats had mechanical problems and that both of the boats may have drifted into the Iranian waters, a U.S. official said Tuesday.
The craft were supposed to have been refueled by another U.S. Navy ship in the Gulf so it could complete the journey from Kuwait to Bahrain, the U.S. official said Tuesday, but never made it to the refueling craft.
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter released a statement, saying, "I am pleased that ten U.S. Navy sailors have departed Iran and are now back in U.S. hands. I want to personally thank Secretary of State John Kerry for his diplomatic engagement with Iran to secure our sailors' swift return. Around the world, the U.S. Navy routinely provides assistance to foreign sailors in distress, and we appreciate the timely way in which this situation was resolved."
Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps said the U.S. military vessels were carrying armed personnel when they entered Iran's waters and were seized by IRGC naval units, according to Iranian media. The vessels were then transferred to Farsi Island.
angelburst29
The Living Force
IRGC Navy Commander: Iranian Missiles Locked on US Aircraft Carrier
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941023001131
Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy Commander Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi blamed the US navy for its excited and unprofessional moves after Iran arrested 10 US marines for trespassing on its territorial waters, warning that his forces' coast-to-sea missiles were awaiting orders to hit the American aircraft carrier deployed in the region.
The IRGC seized two US Navy boats on Tuesday and detained them on Iran's Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf. Nine men and one woman arrived in Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf illegally when they were captured by the IRGC Navy.
Following the capture, two US and French aircraft carriers as well as their accompanying fleets and military choppers started maneuvering near Iranian waters.
"The USS Truman Aircraft carrier showed unprofessional moves for 40 minutes after the detention of the trespassers, while we were highly prepared with our coast-to-sea missiles, missile-launching speedboats and our numerous capabilities" and were ready to strike them in case they made a hostile move, Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi said after Iran released the detained US marines.
Fadavi complained of the provocative and uncontrolled behavior shown by the US navy, and said while the 10 captured marines showed not much resistance and accepted to give in to the Iranian troops, the US fleet that arrived near the scene later made many show-off moves near Iran's sea borders.
"But we communicated an announcement through the international (radio) systems and prevented any further irresponsible moves by them," he said, and continued, "Then they came to realize the IRGC Navy has the first and the last word in here."
"The US and France's aircraft carriers were within our range and if they had continued their unprofessional moves, they would have been afflicted with such a catastrophe that they had never experienced all throughout the history," the IRGC Navy commander cautioned.
IRGC Navy commander cautioned.
"They could have been shot, and if they were, they would have been destroyed," he warned again.
Rear Admiral Fadavi reminded that the IRGC is in charge of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf and "exercises Iran's right of sovereignty powerfully".
He said later investigations into their navigation systems showed that they had gone astray and entered Iran's waters unknowingly.
"In the end they and their diplomats acknowledged their wrong action and undertook not to repeat such mistakes," said the Admiral.
He once against reiterated Iran's respectful behavior with the captured sailors until their release.
"The US and its Navy rest assured that they won't be the winner of any battle with Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz as destruction and sinking of their warships will be the end result of any such war. But in those 40 minutes, the Americans were clearly under intense psychological pressure and they did not act like a professional and responsible force," the Iranian IRGC Navy commander lamented.
Each of the two US Navy boats that were 3 nautical miles deep into the Iranian waters when they were captured by the IRGC Navy's second naval zone were equipped with three 50mm caliber machine guns and other light and semi-heavy weapons.
In its statement, the IRGC pointed out that its investigations show that the US combat vessels' illegal entry into the Iranian waters was not the result of a purposeful act.
"Following technical and operational investigations and in interaction with relevant political and national security bodies of the country and after it became clear that the US combat vessels' illegal entry into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters was the result of an unintentional action and a mistake and after they extended an apology, the decision was made to release them," the statement said.
"The Americans have undertaken not to repeat such mistakes," it added, and continued, "The captured marines were released in international waters under the supervision of the IRGC Navy moments ago."
The IRGC statement blamed the US flotilla for its "excited and unprofessional moves", but said the IRGC navy could handle the situation and restored calm to the region through powerful and wise moves.
Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, were in contact with their Iranian counterparts on the fate of the marines since Tuesday, and according to Iranian officials, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had told Kerry that the US should extend a formal apology first.
According to the statement, the Americans have extended an apology.
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941023001131
Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy Commander Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi blamed the US navy for its excited and unprofessional moves after Iran arrested 10 US marines for trespassing on its territorial waters, warning that his forces' coast-to-sea missiles were awaiting orders to hit the American aircraft carrier deployed in the region.
The IRGC seized two US Navy boats on Tuesday and detained them on Iran's Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf. Nine men and one woman arrived in Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf illegally when they were captured by the IRGC Navy.
Following the capture, two US and French aircraft carriers as well as their accompanying fleets and military choppers started maneuvering near Iranian waters.
"The USS Truman Aircraft carrier showed unprofessional moves for 40 minutes after the detention of the trespassers, while we were highly prepared with our coast-to-sea missiles, missile-launching speedboats and our numerous capabilities" and were ready to strike them in case they made a hostile move, Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi said after Iran released the detained US marines.
Fadavi complained of the provocative and uncontrolled behavior shown by the US navy, and said while the 10 captured marines showed not much resistance and accepted to give in to the Iranian troops, the US fleet that arrived near the scene later made many show-off moves near Iran's sea borders.
"But we communicated an announcement through the international (radio) systems and prevented any further irresponsible moves by them," he said, and continued, "Then they came to realize the IRGC Navy has the first and the last word in here."
"The US and France's aircraft carriers were within our range and if they had continued their unprofessional moves, they would have been afflicted with such a catastrophe that they had never experienced all throughout the history," the IRGC Navy commander cautioned.
IRGC Navy commander cautioned.
"They could have been shot, and if they were, they would have been destroyed," he warned again.
Rear Admiral Fadavi reminded that the IRGC is in charge of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf and "exercises Iran's right of sovereignty powerfully".
He said later investigations into their navigation systems showed that they had gone astray and entered Iran's waters unknowingly.
"In the end they and their diplomats acknowledged their wrong action and undertook not to repeat such mistakes," said the Admiral.
He once against reiterated Iran's respectful behavior with the captured sailors until their release.
"The US and its Navy rest assured that they won't be the winner of any battle with Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz as destruction and sinking of their warships will be the end result of any such war. But in those 40 minutes, the Americans were clearly under intense psychological pressure and they did not act like a professional and responsible force," the Iranian IRGC Navy commander lamented.
Each of the two US Navy boats that were 3 nautical miles deep into the Iranian waters when they were captured by the IRGC Navy's second naval zone were equipped with three 50mm caliber machine guns and other light and semi-heavy weapons.
In its statement, the IRGC pointed out that its investigations show that the US combat vessels' illegal entry into the Iranian waters was not the result of a purposeful act.
"Following technical and operational investigations and in interaction with relevant political and national security bodies of the country and after it became clear that the US combat vessels' illegal entry into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters was the result of an unintentional action and a mistake and after they extended an apology, the decision was made to release them," the statement said.
"The Americans have undertaken not to repeat such mistakes," it added, and continued, "The captured marines were released in international waters under the supervision of the IRGC Navy moments ago."
The IRGC statement blamed the US flotilla for its "excited and unprofessional moves", but said the IRGC navy could handle the situation and restored calm to the region through powerful and wise moves.
Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, were in contact with their Iranian counterparts on the fate of the marines since Tuesday, and according to Iranian officials, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had told Kerry that the US should extend a formal apology first.
According to the statement, the Americans have extended an apology.
Japan Times News
AP
Massive Russian airstrikes send signal to rebel-backing Turkey as allied Syria forces take key bastion
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/14/world/massive-russian-airstrikes-send-signal-rebel-backing-turkey-allied-syria-forces-take-key-bastion/#.VpdTCU8ausg
Forces loyal to the Syrian regime stand on a street with national flags after Syria's army and allied forces took full control from rebel groups of the strategic town of Salma, in the northwestern province of Latakia, Tuesday. In a breaking news flash, state television reported that the army, backed by the pro-government National Defence Forces militia, had also seized hilltops surrounding the town. | AFP-JIJI
BEIRUT – Backed by relentless Russian airstrikes, Syrian troops and allied militiamen on Wednesday pushed deeper into a major rebel stronghold in the northwestern province of Latakia, a day after seizing a key rebel-held town in the strategic region overlooking the coast, the government and opposition activists said.
The insurgents in the opposition-held area near the Turkish border were collapsing after the town of Salma fell to government loyalists late Tuesday. Salma’s fall marked one of the most significant military victories by the Syrian military since Russia began airstrikes in the country last September to shore up President Bashar Assad’s forces.
On Wednesday, government troops seized the villages of Mrouniyah and Marj Kawkah near Salma as they continued their advances in the region, aided by immense Russian firepower.
Salma, part of mountainous chains near the border with Turkey known as Jabal al-Akrad and Jabal al-Turkmen, has been under rebel control for the past three years.
The town, where members of Assad’s Alawite minority sect once co-existed with majority Sunni Muslims, overlooks the largely Alawite coast and is about 12 km away from the Turkish border. Turkey is a key supporter of insurgents in the area, which is mostly inhabited by Syrian Turkmen, an ethnic minority with close ties to Turkey.
“Whoever controls Salma gains control all those surrounding areas which it overlooks,” said Zakariya Ahmad, an opposition activist in the nearby Idlib province.
He said the town fell after 93 days of fighting and daily barrel bombs and airstrikes. He said activists in the region had reported 92 airstrikes believed to be Russian on Salma in the last 24 hours before it was fully seized by government troops.
“It was hell on earth,” he said.
Salma’s capture further improves Assad’s position ahead of planned peace talks with the opposition in Geneva scheduled for Jan. 25, and came as high-level U.S., Russian, U.N. and other diplomats met behind closed doors in Geneva on Wednesday to discuss efforts to those talks.
The recapture of Salma is the latest in a string of military achievements by the government recently, supported by Russian air power and Lebanon’s Shiite militant Hezbollah group.
Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East expert at the London School of Economics, said Russia was trying to send a powerful message to Turkey following the downing of their plane in November in the area, showing that they can exact revenge.
“Salma is really a major breakthrough, not just for the Syrian army, for Russia as well,” he said, adding that losing the town was a significant loss for the opposition.
“The rebels thought they could turn it into a spearhead to deal a mortal blow against the regime” into its Alawite heartland, he added.
Russia began conducting airstrikes in Syria on Sept. 30 against the Islamic State group and “other terrorists,” but much of the Russian airstrikes have targeted areas where the Islamic State has no presence.
Jabal al-Akrad, where Wednesday’s fighting was focus, is also close to the rebel-held northwestern province of Idlib, which has also been frequently targeted by Russian warplanes since Moscow launched its air campaign. It is controlled by a consortium of mainstream and extremist insurgent groups including the ultraconservative Ahrar al-Sham and the Nusra Front.
Latakia province includes key strongholds of Assad and the Alawite religious minority.
Sharif Shehadeh, a Syrian member of parliament, said the capture of Salma “effectively brings the entire coastal area under Syrian army control.”
He said the combination of Syrian ground troops and Russian air cover was proving extremely effective and predicted “big changes” that would change the battlefield by midyear.
Published on Jan 13, 2016
Syrian Arab Army
AP
Massive Russian airstrikes send signal to rebel-backing Turkey as allied Syria forces take key bastion
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/14/world/massive-russian-airstrikes-send-signal-rebel-backing-turkey-allied-syria-forces-take-key-bastion/#.VpdTCU8ausg
Forces loyal to the Syrian regime stand on a street with national flags after Syria's army and allied forces took full control from rebel groups of the strategic town of Salma, in the northwestern province of Latakia, Tuesday. In a breaking news flash, state television reported that the army, backed by the pro-government National Defence Forces militia, had also seized hilltops surrounding the town. | AFP-JIJI
BEIRUT – Backed by relentless Russian airstrikes, Syrian troops and allied militiamen on Wednesday pushed deeper into a major rebel stronghold in the northwestern province of Latakia, a day after seizing a key rebel-held town in the strategic region overlooking the coast, the government and opposition activists said.
The insurgents in the opposition-held area near the Turkish border were collapsing after the town of Salma fell to government loyalists late Tuesday. Salma’s fall marked one of the most significant military victories by the Syrian military since Russia began airstrikes in the country last September to shore up President Bashar Assad’s forces.
On Wednesday, government troops seized the villages of Mrouniyah and Marj Kawkah near Salma as they continued their advances in the region, aided by immense Russian firepower.
Salma, part of mountainous chains near the border with Turkey known as Jabal al-Akrad and Jabal al-Turkmen, has been under rebel control for the past three years.
The town, where members of Assad’s Alawite minority sect once co-existed with majority Sunni Muslims, overlooks the largely Alawite coast and is about 12 km away from the Turkish border. Turkey is a key supporter of insurgents in the area, which is mostly inhabited by Syrian Turkmen, an ethnic minority with close ties to Turkey.
“Whoever controls Salma gains control all those surrounding areas which it overlooks,” said Zakariya Ahmad, an opposition activist in the nearby Idlib province.
He said the town fell after 93 days of fighting and daily barrel bombs and airstrikes. He said activists in the region had reported 92 airstrikes believed to be Russian on Salma in the last 24 hours before it was fully seized by government troops.
“It was hell on earth,” he said.
Salma’s capture further improves Assad’s position ahead of planned peace talks with the opposition in Geneva scheduled for Jan. 25, and came as high-level U.S., Russian, U.N. and other diplomats met behind closed doors in Geneva on Wednesday to discuss efforts to those talks.
The recapture of Salma is the latest in a string of military achievements by the government recently, supported by Russian air power and Lebanon’s Shiite militant Hezbollah group.
Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East expert at the London School of Economics, said Russia was trying to send a powerful message to Turkey following the downing of their plane in November in the area, showing that they can exact revenge.
“Salma is really a major breakthrough, not just for the Syrian army, for Russia as well,” he said, adding that losing the town was a significant loss for the opposition.
“The rebels thought they could turn it into a spearhead to deal a mortal blow against the regime” into its Alawite heartland, he added.
Russia began conducting airstrikes in Syria on Sept. 30 against the Islamic State group and “other terrorists,” but much of the Russian airstrikes have targeted areas where the Islamic State has no presence.
Jabal al-Akrad, where Wednesday’s fighting was focus, is also close to the rebel-held northwestern province of Idlib, which has also been frequently targeted by Russian warplanes since Moscow launched its air campaign. It is controlled by a consortium of mainstream and extremist insurgent groups including the ultraconservative Ahrar al-Sham and the Nusra Front.
Latakia province includes key strongholds of Assad and the Alawite religious minority.
Sharif Shehadeh, a Syrian member of parliament, said the capture of Salma “effectively brings the entire coastal area under Syrian army control.”
He said the combination of Syrian ground troops and Russian air cover was proving extremely effective and predicted “big changes” that would change the battlefield by midyear.
Published on Jan 13, 2016
Syrian Arab Army
Don Diego
Jedi Master
Interesting paper (in french) "Similarities and Differences between Poutine and Staline"
http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/vladimir-poutine-joseph-staline-173346
Depuis que la lutte contre DAECH devient la priorité des Occidentaux, des analystes expriment de plus en plus souvent l’idée qu’une alliance avec Vladimir Poutine serait souhaitable exactement comme l’alliance des Occidentaux avec Joseph Staline avait été conclue et avait été décisive pour défaire l’Allemagne nazie.
Dans cette comparaison, les Occidentaux seraient les démocraties qui n’ont rien à se reprocher, Poutine serait le dirigeant d’un pays autoritaire, voire d’une dictature comme l’Union soviétique de Staline mais il serait incontournable et l’État islamique, l’Allemagne nazie qu’il faut coûte que coûte éradiquer.
Soyons clair, il s’agit surtout d’un effet de manche destiné à duper l’opinion publique et à masquer toutes les inepties qui ont été débitées depuis une vingtaine d’années par les responsables politiques et les médias occidentaux. En leur for intérieur, les Occidentaux souhaitent que l’État islamique et ses « frères jumeaux » en décousent avec la Russie dans une guerre totale dans laquelle ils s’affaibliraient mutuellement.
À sa naissance, l’Allemagne nazie fut acceptée et ne gênait pas les démocraties occidentales parce qu’elle ne gênait pas le capitalisme de l’époque. Elle était un rempart contre le communisme comme l’Occident s’est très bien accommodé aujourd’hui des mouvements armés islamistes quand ils servaient leurs intérêts. Avant 1939, le « lebensraum » de l’Allemagne vers l’est devait immanquablement la mener à une confrontation avec l’Union soviétique au grand bénéfice des puissances occidentales. Elle ne fut désignée ennemie prioritaire que quand elle eut envahi la France, la Belgique et les Pays-Bas et surtout quand elle s’en prit à l’Angleterre avec ses raids aériens sur les aérodromes et ensuite sur les villes anglaises. Elle mettait aussi la suprématie commerciale anglo-saxonne en péril dans l’Atlantique Nord quand ses U-boote décimaient la flotte commerciale britannique malgré le déploiement de la Royal Navy.
Mais peut-on comparer Vladimir Poutine et Joseph Staline ? Il faut dans ce cas aussi comparer les situations géopolitiques de l’Union soviétique de 1941 et de la Russie de 2015.
Leur physique et leur profil.
À part leur taille identique de 1,68 m, Il n’y a pas beaucoup de ressemblance physique entre Staline et Poutine, un homme de Saint-Pétersbourg, la ville russe qui ressemble le plus aux villes occidentales. Construite par des architectes italiens pour Pierre le Grand, elle est une fenêtre sur l’Europe.
Staline, un Caucasien bien typé, fils d’un cordonnier et d’une couturière, était originaire de la petite ville de Gori en Géorgie, tout au sud de l’empire russe, et historiquement plutôt en confrontation avec le sultanat ottoman.
Autant Poutine veut donner de lui une image positive loin des clichés qu’on attribue généralement aux Russes, autant Staline en était l’exact contraire.
Poutine ne fume pas, ne boit pas d’alcool, ou alors très peu, et pratique plusieurs disciplines sportives au point qu’on lui trouve parfois des allures de macho.
Staline était fumeur de pipe, ne dédaignait les repas et les soirées bien arrosés [1] et on ne lui connait pas d’habitudes sportives excepté le gorodki [2] qui est plus un jeu traditionnel russe qu’un sport.
Ils risquèrent tous les deux de mal tourner dans leur jeunesse. Poutine était un petit caïd de son quartier et Staline, qu’on appelait Koba, commit des braquages pour financer le jeune parti communiste encore clandestin à l’époque.
Leurs vies privées sont tenues secrètes loin des scandales et de la presse « people ». La vie sentimentale de Staline a cependant été beaucoup plus dramatique avec la mort de sa première épouse après un an de mariage et le suicide de sa deuxième épouse. Il avait aussi une vie sexuelle beaucoup plus dissolue que Poutine.
Leurs profils sont nettement différents et il est difficile de trouver des points communs.
Études et communication.
Poutine est un juriste diplômé qui a consciencieusement terminé ses études avant de se lancer dans une carrière au KGB. Depuis son arrivée au pouvoir, il a fait preuve d’un bon sens de la communication avec les Russes. La session annuelle des questions-réponses à la population est la preuve de sa maîtrise de tous les sujets de politiques intérieure et extérieure. [3]
Staline était un autodidacte qui a bénéficié du désordre qui suivit la révolution de 1917 pour rapidement gravir les marches qui l’amenèrent au pouvoir. Il était cependant un authentique intellectuel. Au collège, il excellait en mathématiques, en russe et en grec. Il pouvait par exemple lire Platon dans le texte. Il avait aussi une remarquable culture littéraire. Il écrivait notamment lui-même ses discours d’une traite.
Ici, on peut remarquer des ressemblances entre les deux personnages. Ils ont tous les deux le sens de la communication avec leur population. Moins ou pas du tout avec les Occidentaux.
Caractère et patriotisme.
On leur reconnait à tous les deux un caractère bien trempé. Leur détermination à réussir leur ambition pour leur pays est évidente. Poutine est un pur patriote qui a rendu la fierté de leur pays aux Russes. On ne peut pas dire que Staline, qui n’était pas russe de souche, était un patriote de même niveau. Il était plutôt attaché aux valeurs idéologiques du communisme mais en 1941, quand le danger de la défaite se fit sentir, c’est bien au patriotisme russe qu’il fit appel. On se rappelle de son discours radiodiffusé du 3 juillet [4] quand il galvanisa tout le pays. Il ne prononça pas une seule fois le mot « communisme » mais le mot « patrie » revint plusieurs fois. C’est lui qui a appelé la Deuxième Guerre mondiale « La grande Guerre patriotique ».
Poutine a le soutien de l’église orthodoxe russe. Staline l’a cherché dès le déclenchement de la guerre. C’était évidemment une église bien moins influente qu’aujourd’hui.
On ne connait pas d’exemple de corruption à Staline. Il semble bien ne jamais avoir cherché un quelconque enrichissement personnel.
Il y a beaucoup d’accusations contre Poutine mais pas un fait indiscutablement établi. Si on s’intéresse de près à ces accusations, on peut se rendre compte que les sources sont quasiment toujours l’opposition russe pro-occidentale relayée par les médias qui, reconnaissons-le, parlent presque toujours au conditionnel. Cela lance des rumeurs qui deviennent des vérités de « café du Commerce ». Les gens qui l’ont côtoyé avant son arrivée au pouvoir, que ce soient des Russes ou d’autres, reconnaissent sa parfaite probité. Frédéric Pons, dans son livre sur Poutine, va dans le même sens. Ceci dit et contrairement à Staline, Poutine a un goût prononcé pour le luxe mais ce n’est pas le seul chef d’État dans ce cas.
Parcours politique.
Ici, il faut remarquer qu’ils arrivèrent tous les deux au pouvoir à 48 ans. Pour Staline, ce fut pour 29 ans. Poutine pourrait rester 24 ans à la tête de la Russie mais rien ne lui interdit de prolonger en redevant ensuite Premier ministre par exemple. Ce sont des périodes relativement longues en comparaison avec les dirigeants occidentaux.
Staline a écarté tous les compagnons des premières heures de la révolution en les éliminant physiquement. Il y avait certainement dans son entourage des ennemis potentiels voire des nostalgique de la période tsariste mais la plupart n’avait pour seul tort que de lui faire de l’ombre si bien qu’à l’aube de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, il était entouré d’une nouvelle génération de dirigeants, de chefs militaires et de commissaires du peuple qui, tant les uns que les autres, lui étaient tous aussi fidèles. Il était à ce moment le maître absolu du pays.
Poutine rencontre aussi des problèmes avec les anciennes générations de représentants politiques russes, celle de l’époque communiste et celle issue de la période Eltsine. Cela n’est pas perçu chez nous ou ce n’est pas mis à la connaissance du public mais il y a dans les hautes sphères politiques et économiques une opposition qui pourrait être à l’origine d’un renversement du pouvoir. Poutine le sait : c’est ce qu’il appelle la cinquième colonne. [5] Pour le moment, le soutien populaire est trop fort pour envisager un renversement de la direction russe de type « Maïdan » mais qui sait ce qui pourrait se passer en cas de dégradation de la situation économique [6] ou militaire dans des pays où la Russie s’est engagée. Tôt ou tard, s’il veut réaliser ses ambitions pour la Russie, il devra les écarter du pouvoir. Il lui manque encore une assise parlementaire déterminée le suivre dans cette voie. Les anciens apparatchiks et les carriéristes-affairistes issus de la nouvelle génération dominent encore cette assemblée ainsi que les gouvernorats régionaux (oblasts). La corruption généralisée en Russie oblige actuellement Poutine à constamment faire des compromis en politique intérieure.
Les temps et les mœurs ont changé. Poutine ne peut se permettre d’utiliser les méthodes expéditives de Staline. Son crédit auprès des Russes serait sérieusement écorné s’il les employait. Les meurtres d’hommes politiques comme Boris Nemtsov ou de journalistes comme Anna Politkovskaïa par exemple ne sont certainement pas commandités par la présidence. Il faut plutôt chercher du côté des mafias et de la mouvance caucasienne.
Poutine n’a donc pas les coudées aussi franches que Staline les avait et on ne sait pas s’il les aura un jour. Cela reste une incertitude quant à la réussite à la fois de son destin et de son dessein politique pour la Russie.
Popularité.
Nous avons une idée biaisée de la popularité qu’avait Staline en Union soviétique. Nous nous focalisons sur les années trente, des années difficiles avec les grandes déportations et des souffrances comme la famine qui a sévi dans le sud du pays. Nous oublions de regarder les années entre trente-neuf et quarante et un quand Staline avait évité la guerre avec Hitler et que l’industrie du pays tournait à plein régime et ensuite, à partir de 1945, quand auréolé de sa victoire sur le nazisme, il portait plus que jamais le titre de « petit père des peuples ». Un sondage récent [7], réalisé par un institut indépendant, classe Staline parmi les dirigeants russes les plus populaires du XXe siècle. Cela rend les médias occidentaux perplexes, ils ne sont pas habitués à se placer à un autre point de vue que le leur.
Il n’y a pas de tentative de réhabilitation de Staline dans les médias russes. Quand on parle de lui, on évoque aussi bien son côté sombre que ses grandes réussites : scolarisation générale, industrialisation du pays, développement culturel et bien sûr, la victoire de 1945. Jamais on ne le compare à Hitler comme on a de plus en plus souvent tendance à le faire chez-nous.
Je pense qu’une partie de cette popularité actuelle a aussi été transmise aux plus jeunes par les générations précédentes, celles qui ont connu l’euphorie de la victoire et l’ordre et la sécurité qui régnaient dans le pays durant la seconde moitié de la présence de Staline à la tête de l’Union soviétique.
Poutine jouit d’une énorme popularité dans son pays. C’est sans égal en Occident. Il a la confiance de plus de 80 % des Russes malgré les difficultés auxquelles ils sont actuellement confrontés. Encore une fois, dans leur désespoir, les médias occidentaux y trouvent des explications farfelues.
Les médias russes seraient aux mains du pouvoir, disent-ils, alors qu’ils ne le sont pas plus que chez nous et qu’il y a une liberté totale sur la toile [8], un média extrêmement populaire auprès des jeunes. Voice of America, BBC, RFI et Deutsche Welle en langue russe sont accessibles pratiquement partout. De plus, lors de débats politiques dans les médias mainstrean russes, des représentants occidentaux et même de l’Otan sont fréquemment présents sur les plateaux pour expliquer le point de vue occidental. L’inverse n’est jamais le cas chez nous où on exclut ceux qui représentent l’opinion largement majoritaire en Russie.
Chez nous, on a tendance à comparer Poutine à un tsar. Est-ce parce des images le montre traversant les salles du Kremlin marchant sur un tapis rouge et entouré d’une haie d’honneur ?
Est-ce par méconnaissance du fonctionnement politique de la Russie ? Est-ce gratuitement pour dévaloriser Poutine auprès de l’opinion publique européenne ? C’est sans doute tout cela à la fois. En tout cas, ce n’est pas ainsi que les Russes voient leur président… excepté les moins de 5 % qui sont inconditionnels de la vision occidentale de leur pays.
Il est difficile de comparer la popularité de l’un et de l’autre. Aujourd’hui, Poutine est certainement l’homme politique russe le plus populaire de tous les temps mais il n’y avait pas de sondages indépendants pour mesurer la popularité de Staline en 1945.
Contexte géopolitique.
C’est certainement ici que la ressemblance est la plus flagrante. Les deux périodes, celle de Staline en 1939 et celle de Poutine en 2015, présentent des similitudes très intéressantes à étudier.
Nous retrouvons dans les deux cas une Allemagne expansionniste qui veut dominer l’Europe, la dimension militaire en moins pour le moment. La Pologne et les pays Baltes renouent avec leur hostilité antirusse séculaire. Certains think tanks polonais ressuscitent même leur rêve d’atteindre la mer Noire. Le grand capitalisme américain désire plus que jamais faire main basse sur les richesses naturelles de la Russie et cherche sa dislocation. Les États-Unis n’arrivent pas à sortir de la crise comme avant 1941. Les puissances européennes ont cherché à exclure la Russie de toute négociation sur le continent et cela bien avant la crise ukrainienne exactement comme la France, l’Angleterre et la Pologne avaient refusé toute alliance avec l’Union soviétique malgré les sollicitations de Staline.
Staline et Poutine ont très vite perçu le danger que tout cela représente pour leur pays. La faiblesse militaire de leur pays était une invitation à l’agression. La réponse fut identique dans les deux cas. Ils mirent un programme de réarmement sur pied.
Staline en construisant de nouvelles usines d’armement dans l’Oural, hors de portée des ennemis de l’Union soviétique.
Usine de blindés dans l'Oural durant la guerre 1941/1945.
Poutine a été l’initiateur de la mise à niveau technologique des armements russes, dont beaucoup surpassent maintenant leurs équivalents occidentaux, ainsi que de la réorganisation en profondeur de l’armée russe.
Je n’aime pas le dicton « Mêmes causes, mêmes effets » mais je ne peux m’empêcher de me dire que des causes similaires peuvent entraîner des effets similaires.
Il est cependant à remarquer que le puissant arsenal balistique nucléaire russe rend toute agression directe impossible sauf à réduire la planète en un tas de cendres radioactives. Le développement de ce qu’on appelle le bouclier antimissiles autour de la Russie vise à réduire, voire à annihiler l’effet d’une riposte russe à une première frappe étasunienne. Je suis personnellement sceptique quant à son efficacité, du moins à court et à moyen terme, mais je constate avec consternation que les docteurs « Stangelove » ont encore de beaux jours devant eux en Amérique.
Mise au point de principe.
Ne prenons pas cet essai ni comme une réhabilitation de Staline ni comme une apologie de Poutine. J’essaie de placer les événements dans leur contexte historique ou contemporain sans émotion inutile.
Vu avec notre regard actuel, Staline peut certainement être classé comme un des pires criminels du XXe siècle mais notre myopie nous interdit de voir au-delà …
Qui se souvient que le secrétaire d’État à la Guerre, Winston Churchill, pourtant vénéré en Europe, préconisa l’usage de gaz pour mater des « tribus barbares » et que le lieutenant-colonel Arthur Harris les utilisa contre les Kurdes et les Arabes en 1919 ? ( 9) Pourtant, on ne retient de lui que l’image du vainqueur de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale !
Qui sait qu’en 1919, les avions britanniques ont lancé les terribles « engin M » contenant un gaz extrêmement toxique sur des villages russes proches de la mer Blanche qui étaient tenus par les bolcheviks.
Les Européens continuèrent à utiliser des gaz de combat dans leurs colonies jusqu’en 1935 : la Grande Bretagne en Palestine, l’Espagne et la France en 1925 pendant la guerre du Rif, l’Italie en 1934-1935 contre la Libye et contre l’Éthiopie et même la Russie (pas encore Union soviétique qui n’est née que le 30 décembre 1922) utilisa des gaz de combat lors de la révolte basmatchie.
Rappelons que le Protocole de Genève a interdit l’usage de ces gaz depuis 1925.
Qui a lu l’excellent article sur le sujet de Camus [10] sur AgoraVox ?
Qui se souvient du comportement des empires coloniaux européens entre les deux guerres et de la façon dont ils (mal)traitaient les « indigènes ». (11)
Et que dire du statut de la femme en Europe à l’époque ?
N’est-on pas passé un peu vite à côté des bombardements meurtriers d’Hiroshima, de Nagasaki, de Tokyo, de Dresde ou de Hambourg en les faisant passer par le compte « pertes et profits » de la guerre sans vouloir voir que c’était sans aucune utilité militaire ?
Pourtant, on parle toujours des démocraties occidentales qui s’opposaient à Hitler et à l’Empire japonais.
En France, on pourrait même soulever l’utilité des bombardements alliés sur les centres ville de Saint-Nazaire, de Royan et surtout du Havre. [12]
Vue du centre du Havre après les bombardement du 5 septembre 1944.
Cela ne nous empêche pas d’organiser des cérémonies en honneur de nos libérateurs.
Les exemples pourraient se multiplier mais ce ne serait pas utile.
Tout cela pour en venir au fait que dans ces années-là, on n’avait pas la même considération qu’aujourd’hui pour la vie humaine, pour les droits de l’homme et pour la liberté des peuples. Les intérêts nationaux primaient sur les droits individuels et cela, pas seulement en Union soviétique.
On peut et on doit certainement juger Staline mais il y a alors beaucoup d’autres dossiers à ouvrir.
Poutine, malgré ses erreurs et ses faiblesses, n’est pas à comparer à Staline comme les pays occidentaux de l’époque ne sont qu’une caricature de la démocratie telle qu’on la définit de nos jours.
Conclusion.
Les risques de confrontation directe avec la Russie sont sous-estimés chez nous. Soixante-dix ans de paix relative en Europe nous ont fait perdre conscience des affres de la guerre et de son cortège de désolation.
Comme en 1939, il y a actuellement un danger principal qui nous guette. Ce n’est pas la Russie qui est certes un rival géopolitique mais elle se comporte de manière rationnelle et prévisible. Ce n’est ni la Syrie ni la République islamiste d’Iran qui ne nous ont jamais menacés.
On peut nommer ce péril même s’il n’a pas de visage. C’est la face hideuse de l’islam, celle qui porte les noms de DAECH, de Jabhat al-Nosra, d’Al-Qaida et autres Boko Haram, des groupes qui se réclament de l’islam mais ne sont composés que de bandits malfaisants.
À force de soutenir ces mouvements terroristes pour qu’ils se confrontent à nos rivaux géopolitiques (Chine, Russie, Syrie…) nous refusons de voir que ces mouvements sont nos vrais ennemis et qu’ils ont la volonté de détruire toutes nos valeurs essentielles, ce qu’ils appellent la décadence occidentale. Il s’agit de la laïcité, du statut de la femme, de la place des minorités sexuelles dans la société ou de primauté de la loi sur leurs textes sacrés.
Toutes les religions, du christianisme à l’islam, sont respectables et doivent être tolérées mais nous devons nous défendre contre des mouvements terroristes qui veulent notre destruction et la meilleure façon de le faire est de s’entendre même avec ceux avec qui on n’est pas d’accord.
Poutine, Bachar al-Assad et les mollahs iraniens peuvent nous aider. Pourquoi les considérer comme des ennemis. Les services secrets syriens ont même aidé la France à déjouer un ou plusieurs attentats terroristes sur son territoire.
Quand il s’est agi de s’allier à Staline contre l’Allemagne de Hitler, Winston Churchill qui était pourtant un virulent anticommuniste, a fait cette citation remarquable.
« Si Hitler avait envahi l’enfer, je me serais débrouillé pour avoir un mot gentil pour le diable. »
Un ministre des Affaires étrangères européen que je ne citerai pas a dit que Jabhat al-Nosra (Al Qaïda) fait du bon boulot en Syrie. Contre qui Al Qaïda peut-il faire du bon boulot ?
Il a aussi dit que nous devons faire attention à nos actes et qu’on ne peut renoncer à soutenir ceux qui luttent contre Bachar al-Assad parce que cela reviendrait à le renforcer.
Quel manque de clairvoyance ! Est-il envisageable que les Occidentaux cautionnent une prise du pouvoir par les combattants islamistes en Syrie ? Il me semble que non, les massacres qui s’en suivraient seraient abominables. Les Occidentaux ont leurs propres hommes liges destinés à remplacer Bachar al-Assad. Contre qui croyez-vous que les groupes armés islamistes vont se retourner quand ils seront frustrés de ne pas récolter les fruits de leur victoire militaire ? Le 9/11, cela devait faire réfléchir, non ?
C’est aux Syriens d’élire leur chef d’État une fois la sécurité revenue. La paix ne viendra que quand nos ennemis communs seront hors d’état de nuire.
Poutine, Bachar al-Assad et la République islamique d’Iran sont nos alliés objectifs comme Staline était l’allié objectif des Occidentaux contre l’Allemagne nazie.
[1] Staline portait des toasts à la santé de tous les hôtes présents ce qui faisait parfois une trentaine de rasades de vodka. Il prenait un malin plaisir à voir tous ses hôtes complètement ivres alors que lui, il restait le dernier debout. Il semble que Winston Churchill faisait jeu égal avec Staline. http://geopolis.francetvinfo.fr/12-aout-1942-staline-et-churchill-faisaient-la-fete-au-kremlin-16813
[2] http://www.jeuxpicards.org/gorodki/gorodki.html
[3] http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2013/04/25/seance-de-questions-reponses-pour-vladimir-poutine_3166526_3214.html
[4] Discours de Staline du 3 juillet 1941. http://www.comite-valmy.org/spip.php?article371
[5] http://www.horizons-et-debats.ch/index.php?id=117
[6] 2015 sera une année difficile en Russie. La croissance devrait redevenir positive à partir de la mi-2016. Le pari de Barack Obama de détruire l’économie russe semble avoir échoué. https://francais.rt.com/international/2830-leconomie-russe-moins-touchee-que-pr%C3%A9vu
[7] http://www.lecourrierderussie.com/2013/05/revue-22-05-brejnev-au-top/
[8] La liberté totale sur Internet en Russie a permis à des opposants pro-occidentaux de se faire connaître auprès des internautes russes. Alexeï Navalny est l'exemple le plus connu. Il y a depuis peu quelques règles d'enregistrement pour les blogueurs qui ont plus de 3000 visites quotidiennes sur leur site.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexe%C3%AF_Navalny
(9) http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2013/09/13/quand-winston-churchill-approuvait-les-gaz-de-combat
[10] http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/guerres-chimiques-pages-d-histoire-140994
[11] Le roi de Belgique Léopold II acquit le Congo lors de la conférence de Berlin en 1885. Il profita d'une courte période de confusion du gouvernement britannique. Ceux-ci regrettèrent très vite cette concession et il s'ensuivit une campagne de presse anti-Léopold II. Les accusations de barbarie fusèrent de toute part et il est bien difficile de démêler le vrai du faux. Aucun gouvernement belge n'a diligenté une enquête sur ce qui s'est réellement passé à cette période et c'est bien regrettable. Cela permet de publier des enquêtes qui reprennent intégralement les accusations britanniques de l'époque. http://next.liberation.fr/livres/1998/10/15/le-pays-des-mains-coupees-par-un-journaliste-americain-le-recit-de-l-exploitation-sanglante-du-congo_250792
[12] http://www.lefigaro.fr/histoire/2014/09/05/26001-20140905ARTFIG00276-70-ans-apres-le-havre-s-interroge-toujours-sur-sa-destruction.php
http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/vladimir-poutine-joseph-staline-173346
Depuis que la lutte contre DAECH devient la priorité des Occidentaux, des analystes expriment de plus en plus souvent l’idée qu’une alliance avec Vladimir Poutine serait souhaitable exactement comme l’alliance des Occidentaux avec Joseph Staline avait été conclue et avait été décisive pour défaire l’Allemagne nazie.
Dans cette comparaison, les Occidentaux seraient les démocraties qui n’ont rien à se reprocher, Poutine serait le dirigeant d’un pays autoritaire, voire d’une dictature comme l’Union soviétique de Staline mais il serait incontournable et l’État islamique, l’Allemagne nazie qu’il faut coûte que coûte éradiquer.
Soyons clair, il s’agit surtout d’un effet de manche destiné à duper l’opinion publique et à masquer toutes les inepties qui ont été débitées depuis une vingtaine d’années par les responsables politiques et les médias occidentaux. En leur for intérieur, les Occidentaux souhaitent que l’État islamique et ses « frères jumeaux » en décousent avec la Russie dans une guerre totale dans laquelle ils s’affaibliraient mutuellement.
À sa naissance, l’Allemagne nazie fut acceptée et ne gênait pas les démocraties occidentales parce qu’elle ne gênait pas le capitalisme de l’époque. Elle était un rempart contre le communisme comme l’Occident s’est très bien accommodé aujourd’hui des mouvements armés islamistes quand ils servaient leurs intérêts. Avant 1939, le « lebensraum » de l’Allemagne vers l’est devait immanquablement la mener à une confrontation avec l’Union soviétique au grand bénéfice des puissances occidentales. Elle ne fut désignée ennemie prioritaire que quand elle eut envahi la France, la Belgique et les Pays-Bas et surtout quand elle s’en prit à l’Angleterre avec ses raids aériens sur les aérodromes et ensuite sur les villes anglaises. Elle mettait aussi la suprématie commerciale anglo-saxonne en péril dans l’Atlantique Nord quand ses U-boote décimaient la flotte commerciale britannique malgré le déploiement de la Royal Navy.
Mais peut-on comparer Vladimir Poutine et Joseph Staline ? Il faut dans ce cas aussi comparer les situations géopolitiques de l’Union soviétique de 1941 et de la Russie de 2015.
Leur physique et leur profil.
À part leur taille identique de 1,68 m, Il n’y a pas beaucoup de ressemblance physique entre Staline et Poutine, un homme de Saint-Pétersbourg, la ville russe qui ressemble le plus aux villes occidentales. Construite par des architectes italiens pour Pierre le Grand, elle est une fenêtre sur l’Europe.
Staline, un Caucasien bien typé, fils d’un cordonnier et d’une couturière, était originaire de la petite ville de Gori en Géorgie, tout au sud de l’empire russe, et historiquement plutôt en confrontation avec le sultanat ottoman.
Autant Poutine veut donner de lui une image positive loin des clichés qu’on attribue généralement aux Russes, autant Staline en était l’exact contraire.
Poutine ne fume pas, ne boit pas d’alcool, ou alors très peu, et pratique plusieurs disciplines sportives au point qu’on lui trouve parfois des allures de macho.
Staline était fumeur de pipe, ne dédaignait les repas et les soirées bien arrosés [1] et on ne lui connait pas d’habitudes sportives excepté le gorodki [2] qui est plus un jeu traditionnel russe qu’un sport.
Ils risquèrent tous les deux de mal tourner dans leur jeunesse. Poutine était un petit caïd de son quartier et Staline, qu’on appelait Koba, commit des braquages pour financer le jeune parti communiste encore clandestin à l’époque.
Leurs vies privées sont tenues secrètes loin des scandales et de la presse « people ». La vie sentimentale de Staline a cependant été beaucoup plus dramatique avec la mort de sa première épouse après un an de mariage et le suicide de sa deuxième épouse. Il avait aussi une vie sexuelle beaucoup plus dissolue que Poutine.
Leurs profils sont nettement différents et il est difficile de trouver des points communs.
Études et communication.
Poutine est un juriste diplômé qui a consciencieusement terminé ses études avant de se lancer dans une carrière au KGB. Depuis son arrivée au pouvoir, il a fait preuve d’un bon sens de la communication avec les Russes. La session annuelle des questions-réponses à la population est la preuve de sa maîtrise de tous les sujets de politiques intérieure et extérieure. [3]
Staline était un autodidacte qui a bénéficié du désordre qui suivit la révolution de 1917 pour rapidement gravir les marches qui l’amenèrent au pouvoir. Il était cependant un authentique intellectuel. Au collège, il excellait en mathématiques, en russe et en grec. Il pouvait par exemple lire Platon dans le texte. Il avait aussi une remarquable culture littéraire. Il écrivait notamment lui-même ses discours d’une traite.
Ici, on peut remarquer des ressemblances entre les deux personnages. Ils ont tous les deux le sens de la communication avec leur population. Moins ou pas du tout avec les Occidentaux.
Caractère et patriotisme.
On leur reconnait à tous les deux un caractère bien trempé. Leur détermination à réussir leur ambition pour leur pays est évidente. Poutine est un pur patriote qui a rendu la fierté de leur pays aux Russes. On ne peut pas dire que Staline, qui n’était pas russe de souche, était un patriote de même niveau. Il était plutôt attaché aux valeurs idéologiques du communisme mais en 1941, quand le danger de la défaite se fit sentir, c’est bien au patriotisme russe qu’il fit appel. On se rappelle de son discours radiodiffusé du 3 juillet [4] quand il galvanisa tout le pays. Il ne prononça pas une seule fois le mot « communisme » mais le mot « patrie » revint plusieurs fois. C’est lui qui a appelé la Deuxième Guerre mondiale « La grande Guerre patriotique ».
Poutine a le soutien de l’église orthodoxe russe. Staline l’a cherché dès le déclenchement de la guerre. C’était évidemment une église bien moins influente qu’aujourd’hui.
On ne connait pas d’exemple de corruption à Staline. Il semble bien ne jamais avoir cherché un quelconque enrichissement personnel.
Il y a beaucoup d’accusations contre Poutine mais pas un fait indiscutablement établi. Si on s’intéresse de près à ces accusations, on peut se rendre compte que les sources sont quasiment toujours l’opposition russe pro-occidentale relayée par les médias qui, reconnaissons-le, parlent presque toujours au conditionnel. Cela lance des rumeurs qui deviennent des vérités de « café du Commerce ». Les gens qui l’ont côtoyé avant son arrivée au pouvoir, que ce soient des Russes ou d’autres, reconnaissent sa parfaite probité. Frédéric Pons, dans son livre sur Poutine, va dans le même sens. Ceci dit et contrairement à Staline, Poutine a un goût prononcé pour le luxe mais ce n’est pas le seul chef d’État dans ce cas.
Parcours politique.
Ici, il faut remarquer qu’ils arrivèrent tous les deux au pouvoir à 48 ans. Pour Staline, ce fut pour 29 ans. Poutine pourrait rester 24 ans à la tête de la Russie mais rien ne lui interdit de prolonger en redevant ensuite Premier ministre par exemple. Ce sont des périodes relativement longues en comparaison avec les dirigeants occidentaux.
Staline a écarté tous les compagnons des premières heures de la révolution en les éliminant physiquement. Il y avait certainement dans son entourage des ennemis potentiels voire des nostalgique de la période tsariste mais la plupart n’avait pour seul tort que de lui faire de l’ombre si bien qu’à l’aube de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, il était entouré d’une nouvelle génération de dirigeants, de chefs militaires et de commissaires du peuple qui, tant les uns que les autres, lui étaient tous aussi fidèles. Il était à ce moment le maître absolu du pays.
Poutine rencontre aussi des problèmes avec les anciennes générations de représentants politiques russes, celle de l’époque communiste et celle issue de la période Eltsine. Cela n’est pas perçu chez nous ou ce n’est pas mis à la connaissance du public mais il y a dans les hautes sphères politiques et économiques une opposition qui pourrait être à l’origine d’un renversement du pouvoir. Poutine le sait : c’est ce qu’il appelle la cinquième colonne. [5] Pour le moment, le soutien populaire est trop fort pour envisager un renversement de la direction russe de type « Maïdan » mais qui sait ce qui pourrait se passer en cas de dégradation de la situation économique [6] ou militaire dans des pays où la Russie s’est engagée. Tôt ou tard, s’il veut réaliser ses ambitions pour la Russie, il devra les écarter du pouvoir. Il lui manque encore une assise parlementaire déterminée le suivre dans cette voie. Les anciens apparatchiks et les carriéristes-affairistes issus de la nouvelle génération dominent encore cette assemblée ainsi que les gouvernorats régionaux (oblasts). La corruption généralisée en Russie oblige actuellement Poutine à constamment faire des compromis en politique intérieure.
Les temps et les mœurs ont changé. Poutine ne peut se permettre d’utiliser les méthodes expéditives de Staline. Son crédit auprès des Russes serait sérieusement écorné s’il les employait. Les meurtres d’hommes politiques comme Boris Nemtsov ou de journalistes comme Anna Politkovskaïa par exemple ne sont certainement pas commandités par la présidence. Il faut plutôt chercher du côté des mafias et de la mouvance caucasienne.
Poutine n’a donc pas les coudées aussi franches que Staline les avait et on ne sait pas s’il les aura un jour. Cela reste une incertitude quant à la réussite à la fois de son destin et de son dessein politique pour la Russie.
Popularité.
Nous avons une idée biaisée de la popularité qu’avait Staline en Union soviétique. Nous nous focalisons sur les années trente, des années difficiles avec les grandes déportations et des souffrances comme la famine qui a sévi dans le sud du pays. Nous oublions de regarder les années entre trente-neuf et quarante et un quand Staline avait évité la guerre avec Hitler et que l’industrie du pays tournait à plein régime et ensuite, à partir de 1945, quand auréolé de sa victoire sur le nazisme, il portait plus que jamais le titre de « petit père des peuples ». Un sondage récent [7], réalisé par un institut indépendant, classe Staline parmi les dirigeants russes les plus populaires du XXe siècle. Cela rend les médias occidentaux perplexes, ils ne sont pas habitués à se placer à un autre point de vue que le leur.
Il n’y a pas de tentative de réhabilitation de Staline dans les médias russes. Quand on parle de lui, on évoque aussi bien son côté sombre que ses grandes réussites : scolarisation générale, industrialisation du pays, développement culturel et bien sûr, la victoire de 1945. Jamais on ne le compare à Hitler comme on a de plus en plus souvent tendance à le faire chez-nous.
Je pense qu’une partie de cette popularité actuelle a aussi été transmise aux plus jeunes par les générations précédentes, celles qui ont connu l’euphorie de la victoire et l’ordre et la sécurité qui régnaient dans le pays durant la seconde moitié de la présence de Staline à la tête de l’Union soviétique.
Poutine jouit d’une énorme popularité dans son pays. C’est sans égal en Occident. Il a la confiance de plus de 80 % des Russes malgré les difficultés auxquelles ils sont actuellement confrontés. Encore une fois, dans leur désespoir, les médias occidentaux y trouvent des explications farfelues.
Les médias russes seraient aux mains du pouvoir, disent-ils, alors qu’ils ne le sont pas plus que chez nous et qu’il y a une liberté totale sur la toile [8], un média extrêmement populaire auprès des jeunes. Voice of America, BBC, RFI et Deutsche Welle en langue russe sont accessibles pratiquement partout. De plus, lors de débats politiques dans les médias mainstrean russes, des représentants occidentaux et même de l’Otan sont fréquemment présents sur les plateaux pour expliquer le point de vue occidental. L’inverse n’est jamais le cas chez nous où on exclut ceux qui représentent l’opinion largement majoritaire en Russie.
Chez nous, on a tendance à comparer Poutine à un tsar. Est-ce parce des images le montre traversant les salles du Kremlin marchant sur un tapis rouge et entouré d’une haie d’honneur ?
Est-ce par méconnaissance du fonctionnement politique de la Russie ? Est-ce gratuitement pour dévaloriser Poutine auprès de l’opinion publique européenne ? C’est sans doute tout cela à la fois. En tout cas, ce n’est pas ainsi que les Russes voient leur président… excepté les moins de 5 % qui sont inconditionnels de la vision occidentale de leur pays.
Il est difficile de comparer la popularité de l’un et de l’autre. Aujourd’hui, Poutine est certainement l’homme politique russe le plus populaire de tous les temps mais il n’y avait pas de sondages indépendants pour mesurer la popularité de Staline en 1945.
Contexte géopolitique.
C’est certainement ici que la ressemblance est la plus flagrante. Les deux périodes, celle de Staline en 1939 et celle de Poutine en 2015, présentent des similitudes très intéressantes à étudier.
Nous retrouvons dans les deux cas une Allemagne expansionniste qui veut dominer l’Europe, la dimension militaire en moins pour le moment. La Pologne et les pays Baltes renouent avec leur hostilité antirusse séculaire. Certains think tanks polonais ressuscitent même leur rêve d’atteindre la mer Noire. Le grand capitalisme américain désire plus que jamais faire main basse sur les richesses naturelles de la Russie et cherche sa dislocation. Les États-Unis n’arrivent pas à sortir de la crise comme avant 1941. Les puissances européennes ont cherché à exclure la Russie de toute négociation sur le continent et cela bien avant la crise ukrainienne exactement comme la France, l’Angleterre et la Pologne avaient refusé toute alliance avec l’Union soviétique malgré les sollicitations de Staline.
Staline et Poutine ont très vite perçu le danger que tout cela représente pour leur pays. La faiblesse militaire de leur pays était une invitation à l’agression. La réponse fut identique dans les deux cas. Ils mirent un programme de réarmement sur pied.
Staline en construisant de nouvelles usines d’armement dans l’Oural, hors de portée des ennemis de l’Union soviétique.
Usine de blindés dans l'Oural durant la guerre 1941/1945.
Poutine a été l’initiateur de la mise à niveau technologique des armements russes, dont beaucoup surpassent maintenant leurs équivalents occidentaux, ainsi que de la réorganisation en profondeur de l’armée russe.
Je n’aime pas le dicton « Mêmes causes, mêmes effets » mais je ne peux m’empêcher de me dire que des causes similaires peuvent entraîner des effets similaires.
Il est cependant à remarquer que le puissant arsenal balistique nucléaire russe rend toute agression directe impossible sauf à réduire la planète en un tas de cendres radioactives. Le développement de ce qu’on appelle le bouclier antimissiles autour de la Russie vise à réduire, voire à annihiler l’effet d’une riposte russe à une première frappe étasunienne. Je suis personnellement sceptique quant à son efficacité, du moins à court et à moyen terme, mais je constate avec consternation que les docteurs « Stangelove » ont encore de beaux jours devant eux en Amérique.
Mise au point de principe.
Ne prenons pas cet essai ni comme une réhabilitation de Staline ni comme une apologie de Poutine. J’essaie de placer les événements dans leur contexte historique ou contemporain sans émotion inutile.
Vu avec notre regard actuel, Staline peut certainement être classé comme un des pires criminels du XXe siècle mais notre myopie nous interdit de voir au-delà …
Qui se souvient que le secrétaire d’État à la Guerre, Winston Churchill, pourtant vénéré en Europe, préconisa l’usage de gaz pour mater des « tribus barbares » et que le lieutenant-colonel Arthur Harris les utilisa contre les Kurdes et les Arabes en 1919 ? ( 9) Pourtant, on ne retient de lui que l’image du vainqueur de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale !
Qui sait qu’en 1919, les avions britanniques ont lancé les terribles « engin M » contenant un gaz extrêmement toxique sur des villages russes proches de la mer Blanche qui étaient tenus par les bolcheviks.
Les Européens continuèrent à utiliser des gaz de combat dans leurs colonies jusqu’en 1935 : la Grande Bretagne en Palestine, l’Espagne et la France en 1925 pendant la guerre du Rif, l’Italie en 1934-1935 contre la Libye et contre l’Éthiopie et même la Russie (pas encore Union soviétique qui n’est née que le 30 décembre 1922) utilisa des gaz de combat lors de la révolte basmatchie.
Rappelons que le Protocole de Genève a interdit l’usage de ces gaz depuis 1925.
Qui a lu l’excellent article sur le sujet de Camus [10] sur AgoraVox ?
Qui se souvient du comportement des empires coloniaux européens entre les deux guerres et de la façon dont ils (mal)traitaient les « indigènes ». (11)
Et que dire du statut de la femme en Europe à l’époque ?
N’est-on pas passé un peu vite à côté des bombardements meurtriers d’Hiroshima, de Nagasaki, de Tokyo, de Dresde ou de Hambourg en les faisant passer par le compte « pertes et profits » de la guerre sans vouloir voir que c’était sans aucune utilité militaire ?
Pourtant, on parle toujours des démocraties occidentales qui s’opposaient à Hitler et à l’Empire japonais.
En France, on pourrait même soulever l’utilité des bombardements alliés sur les centres ville de Saint-Nazaire, de Royan et surtout du Havre. [12]
Vue du centre du Havre après les bombardement du 5 septembre 1944.
Cela ne nous empêche pas d’organiser des cérémonies en honneur de nos libérateurs.
Les exemples pourraient se multiplier mais ce ne serait pas utile.
Tout cela pour en venir au fait que dans ces années-là, on n’avait pas la même considération qu’aujourd’hui pour la vie humaine, pour les droits de l’homme et pour la liberté des peuples. Les intérêts nationaux primaient sur les droits individuels et cela, pas seulement en Union soviétique.
On peut et on doit certainement juger Staline mais il y a alors beaucoup d’autres dossiers à ouvrir.
Poutine, malgré ses erreurs et ses faiblesses, n’est pas à comparer à Staline comme les pays occidentaux de l’époque ne sont qu’une caricature de la démocratie telle qu’on la définit de nos jours.
Conclusion.
Les risques de confrontation directe avec la Russie sont sous-estimés chez nous. Soixante-dix ans de paix relative en Europe nous ont fait perdre conscience des affres de la guerre et de son cortège de désolation.
Comme en 1939, il y a actuellement un danger principal qui nous guette. Ce n’est pas la Russie qui est certes un rival géopolitique mais elle se comporte de manière rationnelle et prévisible. Ce n’est ni la Syrie ni la République islamiste d’Iran qui ne nous ont jamais menacés.
On peut nommer ce péril même s’il n’a pas de visage. C’est la face hideuse de l’islam, celle qui porte les noms de DAECH, de Jabhat al-Nosra, d’Al-Qaida et autres Boko Haram, des groupes qui se réclament de l’islam mais ne sont composés que de bandits malfaisants.
À force de soutenir ces mouvements terroristes pour qu’ils se confrontent à nos rivaux géopolitiques (Chine, Russie, Syrie…) nous refusons de voir que ces mouvements sont nos vrais ennemis et qu’ils ont la volonté de détruire toutes nos valeurs essentielles, ce qu’ils appellent la décadence occidentale. Il s’agit de la laïcité, du statut de la femme, de la place des minorités sexuelles dans la société ou de primauté de la loi sur leurs textes sacrés.
Toutes les religions, du christianisme à l’islam, sont respectables et doivent être tolérées mais nous devons nous défendre contre des mouvements terroristes qui veulent notre destruction et la meilleure façon de le faire est de s’entendre même avec ceux avec qui on n’est pas d’accord.
Poutine, Bachar al-Assad et les mollahs iraniens peuvent nous aider. Pourquoi les considérer comme des ennemis. Les services secrets syriens ont même aidé la France à déjouer un ou plusieurs attentats terroristes sur son territoire.
Quand il s’est agi de s’allier à Staline contre l’Allemagne de Hitler, Winston Churchill qui était pourtant un virulent anticommuniste, a fait cette citation remarquable.
« Si Hitler avait envahi l’enfer, je me serais débrouillé pour avoir un mot gentil pour le diable. »
Un ministre des Affaires étrangères européen que je ne citerai pas a dit que Jabhat al-Nosra (Al Qaïda) fait du bon boulot en Syrie. Contre qui Al Qaïda peut-il faire du bon boulot ?
Il a aussi dit que nous devons faire attention à nos actes et qu’on ne peut renoncer à soutenir ceux qui luttent contre Bachar al-Assad parce que cela reviendrait à le renforcer.
Quel manque de clairvoyance ! Est-il envisageable que les Occidentaux cautionnent une prise du pouvoir par les combattants islamistes en Syrie ? Il me semble que non, les massacres qui s’en suivraient seraient abominables. Les Occidentaux ont leurs propres hommes liges destinés à remplacer Bachar al-Assad. Contre qui croyez-vous que les groupes armés islamistes vont se retourner quand ils seront frustrés de ne pas récolter les fruits de leur victoire militaire ? Le 9/11, cela devait faire réfléchir, non ?
C’est aux Syriens d’élire leur chef d’État une fois la sécurité revenue. La paix ne viendra que quand nos ennemis communs seront hors d’état de nuire.
Poutine, Bachar al-Assad et la République islamique d’Iran sont nos alliés objectifs comme Staline était l’allié objectif des Occidentaux contre l’Allemagne nazie.
[1] Staline portait des toasts à la santé de tous les hôtes présents ce qui faisait parfois une trentaine de rasades de vodka. Il prenait un malin plaisir à voir tous ses hôtes complètement ivres alors que lui, il restait le dernier debout. Il semble que Winston Churchill faisait jeu égal avec Staline. http://geopolis.francetvinfo.fr/12-aout-1942-staline-et-churchill-faisaient-la-fete-au-kremlin-16813
[2] http://www.jeuxpicards.org/gorodki/gorodki.html
[3] http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2013/04/25/seance-de-questions-reponses-pour-vladimir-poutine_3166526_3214.html
[4] Discours de Staline du 3 juillet 1941. http://www.comite-valmy.org/spip.php?article371
[5] http://www.horizons-et-debats.ch/index.php?id=117
[6] 2015 sera une année difficile en Russie. La croissance devrait redevenir positive à partir de la mi-2016. Le pari de Barack Obama de détruire l’économie russe semble avoir échoué. https://francais.rt.com/international/2830-leconomie-russe-moins-touchee-que-pr%C3%A9vu
[7] http://www.lecourrierderussie.com/2013/05/revue-22-05-brejnev-au-top/
[8] La liberté totale sur Internet en Russie a permis à des opposants pro-occidentaux de se faire connaître auprès des internautes russes. Alexeï Navalny est l'exemple le plus connu. Il y a depuis peu quelques règles d'enregistrement pour les blogueurs qui ont plus de 3000 visites quotidiennes sur leur site.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexe%C3%AF_Navalny
(9) http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2013/09/13/quand-winston-churchill-approuvait-les-gaz-de-combat
[10] http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/guerres-chimiques-pages-d-histoire-140994
[11] Le roi de Belgique Léopold II acquit le Congo lors de la conférence de Berlin en 1885. Il profita d'une courte période de confusion du gouvernement britannique. Ceux-ci regrettèrent très vite cette concession et il s'ensuivit une campagne de presse anti-Léopold II. Les accusations de barbarie fusèrent de toute part et il est bien difficile de démêler le vrai du faux. Aucun gouvernement belge n'a diligenté une enquête sur ce qui s'est réellement passé à cette période et c'est bien regrettable. Cela permet de publier des enquêtes qui reprennent intégralement les accusations britanniques de l'époque. http://next.liberation.fr/livres/1998/10/15/le-pays-des-mains-coupees-par-un-journaliste-americain-le-recit-de-l-exploitation-sanglante-du-congo_250792
[12] http://www.lefigaro.fr/histoire/2014/09/05/26001-20140905ARTFIG00276-70-ans-apres-le-havre-s-interroge-toujours-sur-sa-destruction.php
Interesting analysis of President Putin's interview with BILD by Alexander Mercouris:
http://thesaker.is/congrats-germans-this-is-how-you-do-a-putin-interview-charlie-rose-take-notes/
The article has two links to the English Kremlin transcripts, among others, which I read the other day. Mercouris gives a bit too much credit to the interviewer, but he's right that it was better than the usual crap in the western MSM.
Putin, as usual is superb in the interview. Mercouris' article ends with the following:
http://thesaker.is/congrats-germans-this-is-how-you-do-a-putin-interview-charlie-rose-take-notes/
The article has two links to the English Kremlin transcripts, among others, which I read the other day. Mercouris gives a bit too much credit to the interviewer, but he's right that it was better than the usual crap in the western MSM.
Putin, as usual is superb in the interview. Mercouris' article ends with the following:
angelburst29
The Living Force
angelburst29 said:
This situation hasn't felt right from the beginning. As additional information comes forward, the impression I get - is that these 10 Navy Sailors (unknowingly) were "intentionally set-up" as expendable decoy's and sitting ducks? For what purpose, is still a mystery but there's enough reason to suspect, someone(s) in the higher echelon, in Military Command - are the culprits?
I might be emotionally charged with the situation, as I see it, for there's several family members in the Arms Forces, including the Navy. None, of which, I can envision being in a similar situation and making it out - alive and unharmed.
I commend the young Navy Sailor who bravely came forward, used commonsense and diplomacy, to protect the other crew members. He deserves - every Military Honor Metal - including the Nobel Peace prize. Likewise, the other 9 Navy Sailors deserve to be awarded and acknowledged for their bravery and cool headedness. Their actions, alone, could have affected the final outcome.
In the beginning of the incident, it was stated - "The two riverine boats were en route from Kuwait to Bahrain when the military lost contact with the vessels."
The riverine boats are described as - "49-foot-long vessels featuring an aircraft-like cockpit and a reinforced hull that can drive onto a rocky beach to offload troops. They're a cross between a boat and a Stryker armored combat vehicle. With Rolls-Royce jets that propels it up to 43 knots, these $2.8 million boats are the flagships of the brown water Navy. They are designed for rivers and coastal waterways, with a three foot draft. The fast-attack craft host sensitive communications gear (GPS gear) to act as a floating command post for riverine forces and can be outfitted for different missions. These command boats can carry up to 20 troops and be armed with six crew-served machine guns, or alternately serve as an floating ambulance."
Military lost contact with the vessels - fast-attack craft host sensitive communications gear to act as a floating command post and can be outfitted for different missions. Was Satellite Communications down "on both riverine boats" or manually tampered with from onboard the Truman Carrier, docked off in the north Persian Gulf, in International waters?
It's stated, "The boats drifted into Iranian coastal waters in the vicinity of Farsi Island, apparently after one experienced mechanical problems and the other attempted to render aid." "Two small U.S. navy riverine vessels drifted into Iranian-claimed waters during a training mission." "It's believed the incident occurred when one of the two small U.S. Navy boats had mechanical problems and that both of the boats may have drifted into the Iranian waters, a U.S. official said Tuesday. The craft were supposed to have been refueled by another U.S. Navy ship in the Gulf so it could complete the journey from Kuwait to Bahrain, the U.S. official said Tuesday, but never made it to the refueling craft."
One experienced mechanical problems - the other attempted to render aid - craft were supposed to have been refueled by another U.S. Navy ship in the Gulf - to complete the journey from Kuwait to Bahrain - but never made it to the refueling craft."
Just a simple deduction, but the "mechanical" problem they are referring to - are they saying (well, gosh darn) that the boat ran out of gas? And while the other boat was attempting to render aid - it ran out of gas, too? And NO refueling craft in sight? (Mom always said, "Things happen in three's!") No communications, no gas and no gas station in sight ......... while they slowly drift with the ocean waves, closer and closer - in the vicinity of Farsi Island, which just happens to be the location of the Command base for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, since the early 1980's. I can't even imagine, what was running through those sailor's mind's, when the Iranian ship approached their vessels?
Information further states, "The nine men and one woman were held at an Iranian base on Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf after they were detained nearby on Tuesday. The same Iranian state outlet that produced the sailor's interview had previously released footage that appeared to show when the sailors were detained aboard their Riverine boats. The sailor in the video said he and his colleagues were detained after Iranian authorities approached them with "weapons drawn" as they drifted in the water. That video showed the sailors in camouflage pants and beige shirts kneeling with their backs to the camera. Their hands are clasped together on their heads. Some sailors appear to look around anxiously. Other images posted in Iranian media appear to show weapons confiscated by the Iranian officials, including assault rifles and light machine guns, along with belts of ammunition. Still another shows an Iranian official going through documents apparently on board one of the American boats. Iranian media had also published images of the American sailors looking much more relaxed while apparently in Iranian detention late Tuesday. Additional images released today showed the sailors as they ate in a group."
"Iranian state television today released video of one of the American sailors detained Tuesday apologizing following an incursion by two U.S. Navy boats into Iranian waters -- a video that a U.S. military official said was "clearly" staged. “It was a mistake. That was our fault, and we apologize for our mistake,” the unidentified sailor says in the video, which was posted online hours after the sailors were released from Iranian detention. Asked in the video if GPS confirmed that the American boats had entered Iranian waters, the man says, “I believe so.” "It was a misunderstanding," he says. "We did not mean to go into Iranian territorial water." The sailor also added that the Iranians had behaved in a "fantastic" manner during the Americans' detention and he thanked them for their "hospitality" and "assistance."
Following the capture, two US and French aircraft carriers as well as their accompanying fleets and military choppers started maneuvering near Iranian waters. "The USS Truman Aircraft carrier showed unprofessional moves for 40 minutes after the detention of the trespassers." Fadavi complained of the provocative and uncontrolled behavior shown by the US navy, and said while the 10 captured marines showed not much resistance and accepted to give in to the Iranian troops, the US fleet that arrived near the scene later made many show-off moves near Iran's sea borders. "But we communicated an announcement through the international (radio) systems and prevented any further irresponsible moves by them," he said, and continued, "Then they came to realize the IRGC Navy has the first and the last word in here." "The US and France's aircraft carriers were within our range and if they had continued their unprofessional moves, they would have been afflicted with such a catastrophe that they had never experienced all throughout the history," the IRGC Navy commander cautioned.
Interesting - that both riverine boats were without communication - yet upon their capture by the Iranian's, the USS Truman Aircraft and a French Aircraft Carrier, with accompanying fleets and military choppers began calisthenics and provocative maneuvers near Iranian waters? This information suggests to me, that the two boats and their personnel were being used as decoys - tempting the Iranian Navy into a violent confrontation, using the 10 Sailors as "Cannon Fodder" while the two Fleet Ships (U.S. & French) waited on the International Border Line, to commence a counter-offensive. It's remarkable, that this didn't turn into a worse-case-scenario?
Information further states, "In its statement, the IRGC pointed out that its investigations show that the US combat vessels' illegal entry into the Iranian waters was not the result of a purposeful act. Following technical and operational investigations and in interaction with relevant political and national security bodies of the country and after it became clear that US combat vessels' illegal entry into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters was the result of an unintentional action and a mistake and after they extended an apology, the decision was made to release them," the statement said.
From my point of view, after the Iranian's investigated the technical and operational condition of the riverine boats, discovering both boats without fuel they were smart enough - to figure out the game and made arrangements to safely return the 10 Sailor's.
Quote: The Sailors departed Farsi Island at 8:43 a.m. GMT, aboard the two Riverine Command Boats (RCB) that they had been operating when they lost contact with the U.S. Navy. The Sailors were later transferred ashore by U.S. Navy aircraft, while other Sailors took charge of the RCBs and continued transiting toward Bahrain, the boats' original destination. Cmdr. Kevin Stephens, spokesman for U.S. Fifth Fleet, told ABC News the sailors were recovered aboard Navy cruiser USS Anzio, which was in international waters, just outside Iranian territorial waters. Once on board, they were given an initial medical evaluation and were flown to the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman. They will receive additional assessments on board before being taken ashore to a facility in the region. The sailors are now undergoing the reintegration process set up by Joint Personnel Recovery Agency.
The incident comes just hours before President Barack Obama is scheduled to address the nation in his eighth and final State of the Union Address. Mission - failure - on both ends!
I guess, I just wanted to express - that these 10 Navy Sailor's have my deepest admiration and RESPECT!
It could very well be as you say, angelburst29. The neocons seem desperate to derail any Iranian deal and normalization of relations/lifting of sanctions. So they'd do anything to achieve that, I think.
Sky Superiority: Su-35S Jets Enter Service in Russia’s Primorsky Territory
http://sputniknews.com/military/20160115/1033168114/su-35-fighter-jet.html
Supplies of Russian Su-35 fighter jets to China will start in 4th quarter of 2016 — source
http://tass.ru/en/defense/849791
http://sputniknews.com/military/20160115/1033168114/su-35-fighter-jet.html
Supplies of Russian Su-35 fighter jets to China will start in 4th quarter of 2016 — source
http://tass.ru/en/defense/849791
angelburst29
The Living Force
Iran’s Swift Release of U.S. Sailors Hailed as a Sign of Warmer Relations (Video)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/world/middleeast/iran-navy-crew-release.html?ref=world&_r=0
WASHINGTON — A crisis over the seizing of two American patrol boats in the Persian Gulf was averted Wednesday when Iran returned the craft and released their crews as Pentagon officials struggled to explain how the boats had ended up near a major Iranian naval base.
Their quick release was hailed by the Obama administration as an unintended benefit of the new diplomatic relationship with Iran established by the nuclear accord negotiated between Tehran and the United States and five other nations in July. The accord is expected to go into effect next week, ending the oil and financial sanctions imposed on Iran over the past decade, and giving it access to around $100 billion in frozen funds.
Mr. Kerry negotiated the release in at least five phone calls with Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister.
Mr. Kerry, one of his top aides said, in essence told Mr. Zarif at one point that “if we are able to do this in the right way, we can make this into what will be a good story for both of us.”
Even as Mr. Kerry was describing the release on Wednesday morning, American military officials were offering new explanations about how the two 49-foot patrol boats, formally called riverine command boats, had ended up in Iranian territorial waters while cruising from Kuwait to Bahrain.
After first suggesting that a mechanical failure had disabled at least one of the boats, they acknowledged that there was no mechanical problem. Both boats were returned to the United States under their own power, leaving Pentagon officials to untangle the chain of events that led to the episode.
But they could not explain how the military had lost contact with not one but both of the boats. Several officials noted that the crew members were relatively young, junior enlisted sailors. They were commanded by a lieutenant, and Iranian government-controlled television was playing video on Wednesday of one of the sailors, apparently the lieutenant, apologizing for entering Iranian territorial waters.
“It was a mistake; that was our fault, and we apologize for our mistake,” the sailor said. “My navigation system showed I was in Iranian waters but I made a mistake and entered.”
A Defense Department official said that the Navy lieutenant’s filmed apology was probably intended to defuse a potentially volatile situation.
[...] “When you’re navigating in those waters, the space around it gets tight,” said one Navy officer with extensive experience in the gulf. But that is hardly a new problem, and the boats’ crews would almost surely have mapped out their course in advance, paying close attention to the Iranian boundary waters. And each boat has radio equipment on board, so it was unclear how the crews suddenly lost communication with their base unless they were surrounded by Iranian vessels before they could alert their superiors.
White House downplays Iran's capture of sailors
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/overnights/265821-overnight-defense-white-house-downplays-irans-capture-of-sailors
The Obama administration on Wednesday downplayed a fight with Iran over 10 American sailors held by that country after their vessels traveled into Iranian waters.
Secretary of State John Kerry thanked Iran for taking care of the U.S. sailors and cast the back-and-forth with Tehran as a victory for diplomacy that ensured their freedom in less than 24 hours.
The administration's critics, however, insist that Iran's seizure of the two American boats is proof that the U.S. has lost the upper hand, mere days before a nuclear agreement between the countries goes into force.
The sailors' brief detainment threatened to overshadow President Obama's final State of the Union address on Tuesday evening. Obama did not mention their captivity on Tuesday, but instead said that the "world has avoided another war" by striking the agreement with Iran.
The U.S., Iran and five other world powers reached an accord on Tehran's nuclear program last summer.
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES CHIEF: US MILITARY SUPERIORITY ERODING: The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee pushed back Wednesday on President Obama's State of the Union address, saying it's not "hot air" to warn that America's enemies are growing stronger.
While Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said he agrees with the president's assertion that the United States has the best military in the world, he warned others are catching up.
"Our superiority is eroding," Thornberry said in a speech at the National Press Club.
"We've got lots of evidence and testimony to support that. I will tell you, the one comment that got groans across the chamber last night was when he said this notion that our enemies are growing stronger is 'hot air.' And that provoked a lot of groans. I think that is empirically not true."
One aspect of strength is funding, Thornberry said. He urged the administration to stick to the two-year budget agreement arrived at last fall. The agreement called for $573 billion in base defense funding for fiscal year 2017 and no less than $59 billion for a war fund known as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
"I am disturbed at rumors that the administration may not keep to the agreement in the budget submission that it will send to Congress in a few weeks," he said.
The Armed Services chairman used his address Wednesday to detail his committee's priorities for 2016.
One goal is to encourage more experimentation and prototyping in the Pentagon's acquisition process. To do that, he'll introduce a stand-alone acquisition bill, solicit feedback and then fold it into the National Defense Authorization Act.
One obstacle to experimentation, he said, is that it's hard to get funding for projects other than programs of record, and it's hard to abandon a project once it's a program of record.
"To do that a cultural shift is needed, not only at DOD, but within the Congress," Thornberry said. "We have to accept, or even expect, regular, small failures in order to have greater success. If every experiment is a success, we're not learning very much."
Lawmaker to Pentagon: Did Iran Seizure of US Navy Boat Net Classified Tech?
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/01/13/lawmaker-pentagon-did-iran-seizure-us-navy-boat-net-classified-tech/78750184/
WASHINGTON — A member of the US House Armed Services Committee is calling on the Pentagon to tell Congress whether US Navy vessels and crew seized by Iran allowed sensitive American equipment that may have been aboard to be exploited.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, a former US Marine and Iraq War veteran, said Iran — a “terrorist-sponsoring” existential threat to the US — accessed US cryptographic and satellite communications, sensors and jammers Hunter believes were aboard the two Navy patrol boats.
“We’d be stupid to think that they didn’t,” said Hunter, R-Calif. “I’m glad that the sailors are back safe, but there’s no way [the Iranian military] just let those boats sit there, and didn’t reverse engineer, or look at and copy everything that they possibly could.”
Sailors on seized U.S. Navy boats mistakenly steered into Iranian waters
http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/2016/01/14/us-sailors-mistakenly-steered-into-iranian-waters/78796140/
A refueling rendezvous gone awry is the likely explanation for why the boats got off track, according to a U.S. official who asked for anonymity to discuss information from the debriefings.
In order to make the trek from Bahrain to Kuwait, the riverine boats needed to take on more fuel mid-journey. The rendezvous point for the refueling was about three miles west of the 12-mile limit that rings Iran's territorial sea around Farsi Island. To get to the rendezvous, however, the boats deviated from an approved course and ended up in Iranian waters.
The ships' guns, radio and navigational equipment were all returned with the boats. The official would not comment on whether any crypto was lost in the seizure, citing government secrecy rules.
Top officials say they're still piecing together what led up to the confrontation at sea and the details of the 16-hour detention.
Intense diplomacy between Secretary of State Kerry and his Iranian counterpart to secure sailors’ release
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/13/intense-diplomacy-between-secretary-of-state-kerry-and-his-iranian-counterpart-to-secure-sailors-release/
Officials also raised questions about videos and photos showing the sailors seated on rugs in a room in their stocking feet, eating and generally looking bored, along with pictures of Iranians rifling through their American passports.
U.S. sailor apologizes in Iran propaganda video (Video)
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/01/13/us-sailor-apologizes-iran-propaganda-video/78744270/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/world/middleeast/iran-navy-crew-release.html?ref=world&_r=0
WASHINGTON — A crisis over the seizing of two American patrol boats in the Persian Gulf was averted Wednesday when Iran returned the craft and released their crews as Pentagon officials struggled to explain how the boats had ended up near a major Iranian naval base.
Their quick release was hailed by the Obama administration as an unintended benefit of the new diplomatic relationship with Iran established by the nuclear accord negotiated between Tehran and the United States and five other nations in July. The accord is expected to go into effect next week, ending the oil and financial sanctions imposed on Iran over the past decade, and giving it access to around $100 billion in frozen funds.
Mr. Kerry negotiated the release in at least five phone calls with Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister.
Mr. Kerry, one of his top aides said, in essence told Mr. Zarif at one point that “if we are able to do this in the right way, we can make this into what will be a good story for both of us.”
Even as Mr. Kerry was describing the release on Wednesday morning, American military officials were offering new explanations about how the two 49-foot patrol boats, formally called riverine command boats, had ended up in Iranian territorial waters while cruising from Kuwait to Bahrain.
After first suggesting that a mechanical failure had disabled at least one of the boats, they acknowledged that there was no mechanical problem. Both boats were returned to the United States under their own power, leaving Pentagon officials to untangle the chain of events that led to the episode.
But they could not explain how the military had lost contact with not one but both of the boats. Several officials noted that the crew members were relatively young, junior enlisted sailors. They were commanded by a lieutenant, and Iranian government-controlled television was playing video on Wednesday of one of the sailors, apparently the lieutenant, apologizing for entering Iranian territorial waters.
“It was a mistake; that was our fault, and we apologize for our mistake,” the sailor said. “My navigation system showed I was in Iranian waters but I made a mistake and entered.”
A Defense Department official said that the Navy lieutenant’s filmed apology was probably intended to defuse a potentially volatile situation.
[...] “When you’re navigating in those waters, the space around it gets tight,” said one Navy officer with extensive experience in the gulf. But that is hardly a new problem, and the boats’ crews would almost surely have mapped out their course in advance, paying close attention to the Iranian boundary waters. And each boat has radio equipment on board, so it was unclear how the crews suddenly lost communication with their base unless they were surrounded by Iranian vessels before they could alert their superiors.
White House downplays Iran's capture of sailors
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/overnights/265821-overnight-defense-white-house-downplays-irans-capture-of-sailors
The Obama administration on Wednesday downplayed a fight with Iran over 10 American sailors held by that country after their vessels traveled into Iranian waters.
Secretary of State John Kerry thanked Iran for taking care of the U.S. sailors and cast the back-and-forth with Tehran as a victory for diplomacy that ensured their freedom in less than 24 hours.
The administration's critics, however, insist that Iran's seizure of the two American boats is proof that the U.S. has lost the upper hand, mere days before a nuclear agreement between the countries goes into force.
The sailors' brief detainment threatened to overshadow President Obama's final State of the Union address on Tuesday evening. Obama did not mention their captivity on Tuesday, but instead said that the "world has avoided another war" by striking the agreement with Iran.
The U.S., Iran and five other world powers reached an accord on Tehran's nuclear program last summer.
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES CHIEF: US MILITARY SUPERIORITY ERODING: The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee pushed back Wednesday on President Obama's State of the Union address, saying it's not "hot air" to warn that America's enemies are growing stronger.
While Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said he agrees with the president's assertion that the United States has the best military in the world, he warned others are catching up.
"Our superiority is eroding," Thornberry said in a speech at the National Press Club.
"We've got lots of evidence and testimony to support that. I will tell you, the one comment that got groans across the chamber last night was when he said this notion that our enemies are growing stronger is 'hot air.' And that provoked a lot of groans. I think that is empirically not true."
One aspect of strength is funding, Thornberry said. He urged the administration to stick to the two-year budget agreement arrived at last fall. The agreement called for $573 billion in base defense funding for fiscal year 2017 and no less than $59 billion for a war fund known as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
"I am disturbed at rumors that the administration may not keep to the agreement in the budget submission that it will send to Congress in a few weeks," he said.
The Armed Services chairman used his address Wednesday to detail his committee's priorities for 2016.
One goal is to encourage more experimentation and prototyping in the Pentagon's acquisition process. To do that, he'll introduce a stand-alone acquisition bill, solicit feedback and then fold it into the National Defense Authorization Act.
One obstacle to experimentation, he said, is that it's hard to get funding for projects other than programs of record, and it's hard to abandon a project once it's a program of record.
"To do that a cultural shift is needed, not only at DOD, but within the Congress," Thornberry said. "We have to accept, or even expect, regular, small failures in order to have greater success. If every experiment is a success, we're not learning very much."
Lawmaker to Pentagon: Did Iran Seizure of US Navy Boat Net Classified Tech?
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/01/13/lawmaker-pentagon-did-iran-seizure-us-navy-boat-net-classified-tech/78750184/
WASHINGTON — A member of the US House Armed Services Committee is calling on the Pentagon to tell Congress whether US Navy vessels and crew seized by Iran allowed sensitive American equipment that may have been aboard to be exploited.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, a former US Marine and Iraq War veteran, said Iran — a “terrorist-sponsoring” existential threat to the US — accessed US cryptographic and satellite communications, sensors and jammers Hunter believes were aboard the two Navy patrol boats.
“We’d be stupid to think that they didn’t,” said Hunter, R-Calif. “I’m glad that the sailors are back safe, but there’s no way [the Iranian military] just let those boats sit there, and didn’t reverse engineer, or look at and copy everything that they possibly could.”
Sailors on seized U.S. Navy boats mistakenly steered into Iranian waters
http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/2016/01/14/us-sailors-mistakenly-steered-into-iranian-waters/78796140/
A refueling rendezvous gone awry is the likely explanation for why the boats got off track, according to a U.S. official who asked for anonymity to discuss information from the debriefings.
In order to make the trek from Bahrain to Kuwait, the riverine boats needed to take on more fuel mid-journey. The rendezvous point for the refueling was about three miles west of the 12-mile limit that rings Iran's territorial sea around Farsi Island. To get to the rendezvous, however, the boats deviated from an approved course and ended up in Iranian waters.
The ships' guns, radio and navigational equipment were all returned with the boats. The official would not comment on whether any crypto was lost in the seizure, citing government secrecy rules.
Top officials say they're still piecing together what led up to the confrontation at sea and the details of the 16-hour detention.
Intense diplomacy between Secretary of State Kerry and his Iranian counterpart to secure sailors’ release
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/13/intense-diplomacy-between-secretary-of-state-kerry-and-his-iranian-counterpart-to-secure-sailors-release/
Officials also raised questions about videos and photos showing the sailors seated on rugs in a room in their stocking feet, eating and generally looking bored, along with pictures of Iranians rifling through their American passports.
U.S. sailor apologizes in Iran propaganda video (Video)
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/01/13/us-sailor-apologizes-iran-propaganda-video/78744270/
angelburst29
The Living Force
The Russian Defense Ministry has delivered the first humanitarian aid consignment to Syria's Deir ez-Zor.
Russian army starts humanitarian operation in Syria - General Staff
http://tass.ru/en/defense/849901
The Russian army has started a humanitarian operation in Syria, Head of the General Staff Main Operations Department Sergey Rudskoy said on Friday.
According to him, some international non-governmental organizations are delivering humanitarian aid to Syria. "However, this aid is mostly being delivered to the areas controlled by militants where most of this aid gets into the hands of extremists and is used for bandit formations’ supplies ," Rudskoy said. "Also attempts were registered on many occasions to deliver weapons and ammunition and evacuate wounded militants under the guise of humanitarian convoys," " the official said. "That is why, a decision has been made for the Russian Armed Forces to launch a humanitarian operation in the Syrian Arab Republic," the general added. A very difficult situation has emerged in most of Syrian populated settlements as a result of the armed conflict that erupted in Syria in 2011, the general said.
Syrian residents are experiencing a shortage of foodstuffs, medicines and first necessity items, he added. According to the official, the Russian Defense Ministry has delivered the first humanitarian aid consignment to Syria's Deir ez-Zor. "Presently, we sent the main assistance to the city of Deir ez-Zor, which had been for a long time seized by the Islamic State terrorists," the general said. "Today, the transport Ilyushin Il-76 of the Syrian Air Force with use of the Russian parachute platform has delivered 22 tonnes of humanitarian cargo to the city of Deir ez-Zor to be distributed by the local authorities," he said.
Russia may start publishing data on US-led anti-IS coalition actions in Syria
http://tass.ru/en/defense/849934
The Russian Defense Ministry may begin publishing data on the results of airstrikes of the international coalition in the Middle East, in order to disprove the accusations alleging that the Russian military aim at civilian targets, ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said on Friday.
General Konashenkov recalled that at the end of last year the ministry said that it had the sufficient amount of information on the results of the work of the countries of the anti-Islamic State coalition in Syria. The Defense Ministry said that these results did not always correspond to the stated objectives. "Frankly speaking, we expected our colleagues not only to pay attention to this, but also to draw certain conclusions. to disprove further rumours and accusations against us and if our colleagues keep silent on the results of their bombings in Syria, we will ourselves have to inform the public of these facts," " said the Russian official. According to Konashenkov, in the area of Aleppo where a school was allegedly destroyed by an airstrike more than 10 aircraft of the coalition, as well as attack drones were fulfilling various combat tasks on that day. In addition, since December 20 last year to this day the coalition planes have been making sorties and hitting targets in the area of Aleppo practically every day. "Thus, the question is: which facilities were targeted in that area by the coalition aircraft?
Our colleagues continue to stubbornly keep silent," the Russian defense official said. Last week, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights published a report, which accused Russian warplanes of delivering an air strike at a school in the Al-Adzhar populated locality. The number of casualties, according to the Observatory, varied from 8 to 20 people. "As usual, the report lacked the victims’ names and addresses and did not give the name of the school or its location," Konashenkov went on to say. "The professional analysis of photos distributed in social networks revealed, judging from the nature of destruction, that the school had been hit by an ‘air -to-surface’ missile, which are used in Syria and Iraq exclusively by the warplanes and assault UAV of the anti-ISIS coalition," General Konashenkov said.
Russian Defense Ministry learns who is behind Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
Konashenkov also said the ministry has found out who is behind the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which distributes information blackmailing the Russian Aerospace Force grouping in Syria. According to the official, the man moved to the United Kingdom after serving three terms in Syria. "The first throwing-in of false information about claimed victims in the Russian air strikes appeared in social networks and some western media well before our mission in the Syrian Arab Republic began," he said. "Most information was distributed on behalf of so-called ‘Syrian human rights activists’."
In "distribution" of the statements made by those "human rights activists" participate, as a rule, some foreign media, which use most often the organisation called the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," with headquarters in the United Kingdom, he said. The defense ministry’s representative said over recent five years the organization’s head and sole employee was the man called Ossama Suleiman, who moved to the UK in 2000 after having served three prison terms in Syria and who took the nickname of Rami Abdurrahman. "In his many interviews with the western media this mister every time stresses all the information he publishes comes to him personally on the phone from trusted sources," the defence ministry’s spokesman said in conclusion. "Thus, that network of the so-called reporting human activists is active right under the nose of Islamic State and other extremists. At the same time, for some reason, they would not see the atrocities of those terrorists."
West considers 49 civilian deaths insignificant in Syria operation planning
The spokesman also pointed out that the Western coalition considers the death of 49 civilians as insignificant in Syria operation planning while the Russian military excludes such risks in its plans. "Our aviation does not even plan air strikes on such targets in the event of a threat of civilian deaths. However, the Western coalition can just allow itself to consider the death of 49 civilians as insignificant," Konashenkov said. According to the Russian general, CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said that the US military had told her that the American command made decisions on delivering such air strikes on condition that the number of civilian deaths would not exceed 50 people.
Russian army starts humanitarian operation in Syria - General Staff
http://tass.ru/en/defense/849901
The Russian army has started a humanitarian operation in Syria, Head of the General Staff Main Operations Department Sergey Rudskoy said on Friday.
According to him, some international non-governmental organizations are delivering humanitarian aid to Syria. "However, this aid is mostly being delivered to the areas controlled by militants where most of this aid gets into the hands of extremists and is used for bandit formations’ supplies ," Rudskoy said. "Also attempts were registered on many occasions to deliver weapons and ammunition and evacuate wounded militants under the guise of humanitarian convoys," " the official said. "That is why, a decision has been made for the Russian Armed Forces to launch a humanitarian operation in the Syrian Arab Republic," the general added. A very difficult situation has emerged in most of Syrian populated settlements as a result of the armed conflict that erupted in Syria in 2011, the general said.
Syrian residents are experiencing a shortage of foodstuffs, medicines and first necessity items, he added. According to the official, the Russian Defense Ministry has delivered the first humanitarian aid consignment to Syria's Deir ez-Zor. "Presently, we sent the main assistance to the city of Deir ez-Zor, which had been for a long time seized by the Islamic State terrorists," the general said. "Today, the transport Ilyushin Il-76 of the Syrian Air Force with use of the Russian parachute platform has delivered 22 tonnes of humanitarian cargo to the city of Deir ez-Zor to be distributed by the local authorities," he said.
Russia may start publishing data on US-led anti-IS coalition actions in Syria
http://tass.ru/en/defense/849934
The Russian Defense Ministry may begin publishing data on the results of airstrikes of the international coalition in the Middle East, in order to disprove the accusations alleging that the Russian military aim at civilian targets, ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said on Friday.
General Konashenkov recalled that at the end of last year the ministry said that it had the sufficient amount of information on the results of the work of the countries of the anti-Islamic State coalition in Syria. The Defense Ministry said that these results did not always correspond to the stated objectives. "Frankly speaking, we expected our colleagues not only to pay attention to this, but also to draw certain conclusions. to disprove further rumours and accusations against us and if our colleagues keep silent on the results of their bombings in Syria, we will ourselves have to inform the public of these facts," " said the Russian official. According to Konashenkov, in the area of Aleppo where a school was allegedly destroyed by an airstrike more than 10 aircraft of the coalition, as well as attack drones were fulfilling various combat tasks on that day. In addition, since December 20 last year to this day the coalition planes have been making sorties and hitting targets in the area of Aleppo practically every day. "Thus, the question is: which facilities were targeted in that area by the coalition aircraft?
Our colleagues continue to stubbornly keep silent," the Russian defense official said. Last week, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights published a report, which accused Russian warplanes of delivering an air strike at a school in the Al-Adzhar populated locality. The number of casualties, according to the Observatory, varied from 8 to 20 people. "As usual, the report lacked the victims’ names and addresses and did not give the name of the school or its location," Konashenkov went on to say. "The professional analysis of photos distributed in social networks revealed, judging from the nature of destruction, that the school had been hit by an ‘air -to-surface’ missile, which are used in Syria and Iraq exclusively by the warplanes and assault UAV of the anti-ISIS coalition," General Konashenkov said.
Russian Defense Ministry learns who is behind Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
Konashenkov also said the ministry has found out who is behind the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which distributes information blackmailing the Russian Aerospace Force grouping in Syria. According to the official, the man moved to the United Kingdom after serving three terms in Syria. "The first throwing-in of false information about claimed victims in the Russian air strikes appeared in social networks and some western media well before our mission in the Syrian Arab Republic began," he said. "Most information was distributed on behalf of so-called ‘Syrian human rights activists’."
In "distribution" of the statements made by those "human rights activists" participate, as a rule, some foreign media, which use most often the organisation called the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," with headquarters in the United Kingdom, he said. The defense ministry’s representative said over recent five years the organization’s head and sole employee was the man called Ossama Suleiman, who moved to the UK in 2000 after having served three prison terms in Syria and who took the nickname of Rami Abdurrahman. "In his many interviews with the western media this mister every time stresses all the information he publishes comes to him personally on the phone from trusted sources," the defence ministry’s spokesman said in conclusion. "Thus, that network of the so-called reporting human activists is active right under the nose of Islamic State and other extremists. At the same time, for some reason, they would not see the atrocities of those terrorists."
West considers 49 civilian deaths insignificant in Syria operation planning
The spokesman also pointed out that the Western coalition considers the death of 49 civilians as insignificant in Syria operation planning while the Russian military excludes such risks in its plans. "Our aviation does not even plan air strikes on such targets in the event of a threat of civilian deaths. However, the Western coalition can just allow itself to consider the death of 49 civilians as insignificant," Konashenkov said. According to the Russian general, CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said that the US military had told her that the American command made decisions on delivering such air strikes on condition that the number of civilian deaths would not exceed 50 people.
