The real meaning of the West's diplomatic defeat at the G8 summit in Lough Erne

Following the 08.08.08 war between Georgia and Russia and the crushing military defeat of the US-backed Saakashvili regime I wrote the following in this blog:

The ugly attack by Washington's Georgian puppet on the Russian peacekeepers combined with the absolutely amazing hypocrisy of the Western media and politicians who all fully sided with the aggressor turned into something of a “last straw” for Russia. This seemingly marginal development, at least when assessed quantitatively (“what else is new?”) ended up making a huge qualitative difference: it brought up a new Russian resolve to deal with, to use a favorite Neocon expression, an existential threat represented by the Western Empire. It will take a long while for the West to realize what has really happened and the most obtuse of pundits and politicians will probably hang on to their usual self-righteous rhetoric forever, but historians will probably look back at the month of August 2008 as the moment when Russia decided to strike back at the Empire for the first time.

Something very similar has, I strongly believe, happened again, but this time in Libya and, even more so, in Syria.  Again what we saw was "an ugly attack by Washington's puppets" and, again, the Western media and politicians fully sided with the aggressor.  The images of NATO unleashing a full-scale bombing campaign against Libya under the pretext of "protecting civilians" and the images of Gaddafi lynched by a mob of thugs who jammed a knife in his anus while screaming that "God is great" also infuriated the Russian political leadership and public opinion.  This anger combined with the shameful realization that Russia did carry a large portion of the guilt for what happened in Libya (through its monumentally stupid abstention at the UNSC), explains why there was a total consensus in Russia not to have the same thing happen in Syria.

The big difference with Russia's response in 2008 is primarily geographical: Syria is not on the Russian border and Russian peacekeepers were not attacked.  Besides, it is one thing take on the US-backed but fundamentally inept Georgian military and quite another to take military action against the combined might of CENTOM/NATO and the US.  So the Russian reaction had to be of a non-military nature.  It now appears that Russia did two thing:

1. Russia gave full and uncompromising diplomatic backing to Syria at the UN and on the international political scene.
2. It carefully coordinated with Iran and Hezbollah a covert military support plan.

I already wrote about the 2nd component, so I will not return to this here, but I do want to return to the first, political, part of the Russian response.  Primarily, I want to do this because I am amazed to see that, at least as far as I know, no commentator or analyst has truly understood its importance.  So let's look a little deeper into this.

First, Russia was not alone.  China took exactly the same stance.  In fact, both Russian and Chinese diplomats confirmed that the level of political coordination and cooperation between Russia and China were "unprecedented".  What does that mean?

Nobody denies that in the Syrian conflict Russia is the primary player.  China is hardly mentioned and, when it is, it is only in passing.  And in this case, this focus on Russia is the result of the undeniable fact that Russia is in charge of the "Syrian dossier" while China is backing Russia.  You want proof?  Look at where all the Western politicians go to try to get Moscow and Beijing to desist from their current stance: Russia.  Nobody travels to Beijing to try to argue with the Chinese. To say that is in no way a criticism of China.  If the issue was something of primarily Chinese interest, say the Spratly Islands, China would be at the front of the struggle and Russia in the back seat.  What this means for Russia is that it is taking far more "heat" for its stance than China and yet, very little credit is given to it for this.  Most pro-Syrian commentators want Russia to do even more, primarily because they don't understand how much Russia has already done.

Let me ask you this: when is the last time that you remember a Russian or even Soviet leader openly standing up and defying the combined power of the entire Western world?  The answer depends on your criteria I guess, but I would submit that in my opinion the last Russian/Soviet leader who dared to truly stand up to the West was Stalin during WWII.  Krushchev waved his shoe, but eventually backed down, Brezhnev really did not take any strong positions on anything, Andropov soon died, Chernenko got into power half-dead already, while Gorbachev, Eltsin and Medvedev really were "yes men" towards the West.

Putin in contrast not only dared to openly defy the other G8 leaders who were united against him and dead set into making him comply, he actually forced them to comply to his terms.  I cannot recall the last time when the combined power of the Western diplomacy was so completely routed.  The G8 leaders, who used to look down on Russia and who all thought of themselves as G7+1 (not only that idiot Harper) suddenly found themselves in a situation I called "Putin and the Seven Dwarfs":

How did that happen?  Why is it that in an organization which presumably represents the eight largest economies on the planet (it does not: Brazil, India and China are missing) a country like Russia, with a comparatively tiny economy, small military and very few other assets, could turn giants into dwarfs?  Surely not because of Russian nukes (which the US, UK and France also have) or the Russian veto power at the UN (which the US, UK, France and China also have).

Something much more complex happened here.  For the first time in many decades a country made a comprehensive moral and legal argument.  Russia openly told the West that what it was doing was wrong on moral and on legal grounds and that what was at stake at this point was much more than Syria, it was the kind of international system the entire planet has to live in.  To put it more directly and in simple and non-diplomatic turn, Russia called the West a hypocritical thug and it rejected the right of the hypocritical thugs to lead anything, much less so a military intervention against a sovereign nation.

While this moral and legal stance absolutely enraged the Western political elites and corporate Zio-media, it deeply "resonated" in the world public opinion.  And here, we see something very typically Russian which a lot of Russian leaders have done in history and which Putin has already done twice: he bypassed the elites and appealed directly to the of people.  Putin is doing that right now in Russia (all his recent political moves as based on mass popular support and his All-Russia People's Front is fully centered on this method) and Putin is also doing that in his foreign policy.  And just as the pro-Western political elites in Russia are shamed and rendered flaccid by the political climate in Russia, so are the Western political leaders who simply do not have the political courage to openly start yet another illegal war in support of organ-eating religious crazies.

I personally believe that if historians look back at August 2008 as "the moment when Russia decided to strike back at the Empire for the first time" they will also come to realize that June 2013 is the moment when Russia decided to strike back at the Empire for the second time.  The first strike was a local military strike while the second strike was a planetary, global, moral and political strike and I am aghast at the fact that nobody seems to realize that this is truly a huge development.

The current Anglo Empire stands on two key pillars: its willingness to bully and terrorize the planet with violence (military or covert) and its amazing ability to carefully frame the international public discourse in such a manner as to make the most obnoxious and brazen example of double-standards and hypocrisy appear fully logical and consistent with values of democracy, international law and humanitarian concerns.  And, of course, this has been denounced by many people worldwide, but it has never been so openly and directly challenged by a top world leader.  Make no mistake - Putin did not only challenge the Empire's right to overthrow Assad, he really challenged the very nature of the Anglo-dominated international system since semi-covertly 1945 and openly since 1995 (Anglo aggression on the Serb nation in Bosnia).

The Russian military victory in 08.08.08 did not mark the end of what is really a struggle for national liberation of Russia from the Anglo Empire. Far from it.  Nor will the Russian diplomatic victory at the recent G8 summit in Ireland mark the end of this long process.  But with each such Russian counter-strike against the Empire the Anglo domination over the planet is getting weaker and weaker while it becomes easier for other nations to find a voice and maybe even dare to have an opinion?  In the Western cultural "heartland" (US and EU) there is gradually more and more hell to pay for politicians who dare to ignore their own public opinion.  Look what happened recently to a Russian TV crew in Paris which was making a report on the daily protests against the laws adopted by the French parliament which now makes it legal for homosexuals to adopt children:



They were literally mobbed by a crowd chanting "La Russie avec nous!  La Russie avec nous!" (Russia with us!  Russia with us!).  You might wonder what the link is between 08.08.08 and Syria on one hand, and homopolitics in France on the other, but I would suggest that the link is obvious:  in the process of its struggle for national liberation from the Anglo Empire Russia is also positioning itself as an alternative civilizational model.  So its not only about respect for international law or the rejection of the Western "turbocapitalist" model, it is also about the determined defense of the traditional family structure, about the categorical rejection of sexual psychopathologies or the respect of national traditions (try having a "gay pride parade" in downtown Grozny!).

Of course, countries like Iran have been doing that for years, but being Muslim and very different historically and culturally, the Iranian model has very little "traction" in Europe.  Not that the "Russian model" (which really is only under development to begin with!) has a much bigger potential: in reality Russia is as different a civilization from the West as Iran, but being being geographically closer and politically and historically more connected, Russia has just barely enough "traction" to be noted by those who Europeans who are already alienated from their own political elites.  Let's face it - Ahmadinejad and Putin can say the exact same thins about sexual psychopathologies, but it is much harder to ignore Putin, in particular when he speaks in Germany, Holland or the UK (as he did recently). Still, savvy political dissidents in France, like Alain Soral, always mention Russia and Iran.

In economic terms, the alternative civilizational model being developed is, of course, the BRICS model (and, maybe, its junior Latin-American counterpart, the ALBA).

In military terms, the alternative model being worked on is the SCO with the  CSTO as its current military "core" (this could dramatically change if China decided to enter into a formal defense treaty, but that is unlikely).

The G8 summit at Lough Erne showed that the Anglo Empire is not nearly as powerful as most people thought.  This, however, does not at all mean that it is weak, not by a long shot.  The Empire will adapt, it will come to terms with new, more difficult, circumstances, and it will still remain the foremost planetary power for the foreseeable future.  But the overall trend, I believe, clear.  And this is why the corporate Zio-media made as little as possible from the comprehensive defeat of the Western diplomacy in Lough Erne.  There will be throwbacks, disappointments and even defeats in the future, but at the very least we have good reasons to continue hoping for an eventual victory.

The Saker

The G8 final communique communique - yet another diplomatic victory for Putin

Full text here.

This is the section on Syria: (my comments in blue - The Saker)

We are determined to work together to stop the bloodshed and loss of life in Syria and to support the Syrian people to establish peace and stability through political means (in other words, regime change, in particular by means of armed insurrection is not acceptable). We are gravely concerned at the appalling human tragedy that the UN estimates has cost the lives of over 93,000 people and led to 4.2 million internally displaced persons and 1.6 million refugees. We acknowledge the vital humanitarian role played by neighbouring countries hosting Syrian refugees, above all Lebanon and Jordan, in dealing with the significant economic and security pressures they are facing as a result of the conflict and refugee influx. Given the extraordinary humanitarian need as reflected in the latest UN appeal for $5.2 billion in 2013, we are resolved to make exceptional contributions commensurate with the scale of the problem. At this meeting G8 Leaders confirmed additional contributions of almost $1.5 billion to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and its neighbours. We recognise that further contributions will be needed given the scale of the challenge. We urge other countries and organisations to make similar commitments. We call for aid agencies to be given immediate access to provide humanitarian assistance to all civilians in need, in accordance with humanitarian principles and international law, particularly in the worst affected areas such as Qusayr. We remain committed to achieving a political solution to the crisis based on a vision for a united, inclusive and democratic Syria (that is clearly a condemnation of the sectarian Takfiri ideology of the insurgency) We strongly endorse the decision to hold as soon as possible the Geneva Conference on Syria to implement fully the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, which sets out a number of key steps beginning with agreement on a transitional governing body with full executive powers, formed by mutual consent (here again, not a word about Assad having to leave). As the Geneva Communiqué says, the public services must be preserved or restored. This includes the military forces and security services. However all governmental institutions and state offices must perform according to professional and human rights standards, operating under a top leadership that inspires public confidence,under the control of the transitional governing body. Both sides at the Conference must engage seriously and constructively. They should be fully representative of the Syrian people and committed to the implementation of the Geneva Communiqué and to the achievement of stability and reconciliation. We will engage actively with the parties in order to achieve successful outcomes. We are deeply concerned by the growing threat from terrorism and extremism in Syria,and also by the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict. Syria must belong to all Syrians, including its minorities and all religious groups. We call on the Syrian authorities and opposition at the Geneva Conference jointly to commit to destroying and expelling from Syria all organisations and individuals affiliated to Al Qaeda, and any other non-state actors linked to terrorism (amazing sentence!  The insurgency and the government of Syria are called upon to JOINTLY *destroy* the very forces which the USA wants to arm?  That the government would be more than happy to destroy or expel al-Nusra is clear, but the FSA?  Is the G8 really calling for a civil war inside the insurgency!?).  We will support UN planning for Syria’s transition,recovery, and reconstruction needs, in particular by maintaining continuity of state institutions during transition and helping to ensure that the security forces are effective, accountable and able to deal with the threat of terrorism and extremism.  We condemn any use of chemical weapons in Syria and call on all parties to the conflict (yeah, considering that the first party who had requested such an investigation was the Syrian government, and that the only evidence available of anybody having chemical weapons are the al-Nusra linked folks arrested in Turkey, I say that this sentence puts to rest the recent US nonsense about having proof that the government made limited use of chemical weapons) to allow access to the UN investigating team mandated by the UN Secretary-General,and drawing on the expertise of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and World Health Organisation (WHO), in order to conduct an objective investigation (as opposed to the recent US accusations it appears) into reports of use of chemical weapons. The UN team should make their report and deliver it to the UN Security Council for their assessment. We are determined that those who may be found responsible for the use of chemical weapons will be held accountable. We emphasise the need for the secure and safe storage of all chemical weapons in Syria, pending their destruction under international verification. We also condemn in the strongest possible terms all human rights violations and abuses in Syria, committed by anyone, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians. We call on all sides to respect international humanitarian and human rights laws, noting the particular responsibility of the Syrian authorities in this regard.

Even though the Canadian Prime Minister claimed the exactly opposite, I would say that Putin brilliantly succeeded in making the entire "G7" back down and bow to Russian pressure.  What this G8 communique shows is a complete collapse of Western diplomacy in the Syrian war, no doubt triggered by the realization that the recent Iranian move of Pasdaran forces into Syria meant that the game was essentially over.

There is no formal alliance between Russia and Iran.  But for all practical purposes what we are seeing here is a perfectly coordinated "one, two" move in which changes on the ground are supported by skillful diplomatic maneuvers to jointly achieve the desired outcome.  And to think that Russia and Iran could achieve this wonderful move while both being in a position of great weakness (at least when compared to the "G7" potential power!) is quite amazing.

Still, again and again I will repeat that none of this would have been possible without the absolutely remarkable courage and skills of the Syrian military whose recent series of victories created the conditions for Russia and Iran to take action outside the war zone proper.

No wonder Obama had a tired and sour facial expression yesterday.  He knew that he had presided over yet another strategic defeat for the USA (he was the prime architect of the now long forgotten "surge" in Afghanistan which also ended up backfiring).

I would like to come back to this amazing section of the G8 final communique were the G8 countries are actually asking the insurgency and the government to "jointly commit to destroy and expel all organizations and individuals linked to al-Qaeda" and ask a possibly very naive question here:

Is there any possibility, any possibility at all, that some of the more sane elements of the insurgency might actually agree to do just that, and to destroy and expel all the al-Nusra Takfiri times in coordination with the government forces?  Could the designation of a common enemy of the entire Syrian nation not also favor the opening of a real, substantive, and direct dialog between the insurgency and a regime which must know that reforms are absolutely needed to achieve any lasting peace?  Is there any hope at all that both sides would accept and admit that mistakes have been made on all sides and that each sides has to set aside its ideology and replace it with some basic but much needed patriotism?

After all, it is the presence of the Takfiri crazies, and the West's stubborn insistence on denying the importance of this presence in the insurgency, which unified the pro-regime forces and which ended up badly hurting the insurgency on a political level.

I bet you that there is going to be a lot of finger pointing not only between Western powers but even more so inside the insurgency itself which must now come to terms with the reality that is massively miscalculated its moves.  And, God willing, there should be hell to pay for those Arab regimes who supported these Takfiris, and I am not only referring to the KSA and Qatar here, but also to all those in the Arab League and Organization of Islamic Cooperation who showed a comprehensive absence of honor or judgement, for that matter.

And, lastly, there is the painful subject of the abject disgrace of the Palestinian elites who, yet again, committed a strategic miscalculation of immense proportion in betraying their Syrian brothers.  It is one thing to support that idiot Saddam against the Kuwaitis.  It is quite another to backstab a government and nation which have always supported the Palestinian cause!  In their blind opportunism, the Palestinians have fallen so low as to dare to slander even Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, without doubt the greatest Arab leader of modern times.  The disgrace which such narrow-minded opportunism brings upon the entire Palestinian people will take a long, long time to be washed away.

If some good can come from such a calamity as this war, it is that it showed the true face of many actors.  This war has shown that there is no such thing as an "Arab nation" as Arabs happily betray each other, nor this there such thing as a Muslim umma, as most Sunni reflexively turn against the Shia minority as soon as the sectarian partisanship is exited.  This war has shown that the real friends of the Syrian people are first and foremost the Persian Shia and that modern alliances are not based on ethnicity, religion or ideology, but on common values: on one hand, the Anglos joined the Takfiris and the Zionists, while on the other the Syrians were supported by the Persians, Hezbollah, the Russians and the Chinese.  Amazing, no?

In the past few days, the very nature and quality of the war on Syria has fundamentally shifted and this shift will have far reaching consequences not only in the Middle-East but worldwide.  Nevertheless, this war is far from over, if only because there is a lot of political and military "momentum" or "inertia" left out there.  Still, barring some very unexpected disaster, it has now become possible to start seeing the contours of an end to this tragedy.  Hopefully, the Western powers and the insurgency will come to accept the fact that they have lost this war and that they need to settle for some mutually acceptable and reasonable compromise at the Geneva II conference.  Any other moves would only be uselessly delaying the inevitable.

The Saker

Anti-Shia plans finalized by NWO elites?

The leaders of the New World Order are clearly engaged in major and intense consultations of how to deal with the "Shia problem".  Check out this agenda:

• May 18th – May 19th: G8 Summit in Camp David, MD.
• May 20th - May 21st: NATO summit in Chicago, Il.
• May 31st - June 1st: Bilderberg Conference in Chantilly, VA.

On the agenda?  Syria and Iran, of course, at least according to Russian sources.  Practically, here are the options which must be decided upon:

1. Military strike on Iran and its inevitable consequences

2. Military intervention in Syria

3. Annexation of Bahrain by Saudi Arabia

The G8 summit will be an excellent opportunity to check out what the Russian position on this three topics will be, in particular since the election of Vladimir Putin.  Then, at the NATO summit, NWO leaders will have the opportunity to see who is on-board with these plans and who is not (most will), and finally the Bilderberg Conference will be the perfect setting for the Bilderberg Steering Committee and the interests behind it to take a final decision on these topics.  It is also likely that the upcoming Presidential elections in the USA will be discussed and that a post-Obama candidate will be selected to replace Obama.

I suspect that there will be a lot of horse-trading with Russia as the West can easily hand Putin a terrific PR "victory" by giving in on the anti-missile shield in Europe (either by shelving the entire idea - unlikely - or by getting the Russian involved - possible, but still unlikely - or by giving written guarantees to the Russian - which is probably what they will choose).  However, to give this to Putin the West will demand his compliance on Syria and even possibly Iran, and I personally very much doubt that this will happen.  So my personal guess is that the Russians and the West will put a positive spin on it all, but that they will not agree on anything meaningful.

I also don't see anybody in Europe agreeing to a NATO military intervention in Syria (except the Brits, of course - "poodles" - or the Central European, but they are irrelevant anyway).  Not because of any Russian efforts to rescue Assad, but basically because this is a militarily and politically risky operation with no clear exit strategy.  So for Syria, "more of the same, only worse" is probably the "best" choice for the West.

As for Iran, paradoxically, it is far more likely that the US will strike at it.  Yes, Iran is far bigger and far more powerful than Syria, but the objectives of a strike on Iran will be far more limited.  Indeed, I don't believe that anybody seriously has any more hopes for regime change in Iran, so the next best fallback option is to cripple Iran economically and humiliate it politically by doing to it what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006 and to Gaza in 2008.  Kill a maximum number of people while crippling the infrastructure.  The Israelis, who know full well that there is no Iranian military nuclear program, might even settle for less: a short 24 hour bombing campaign destined at humiliating Iran and at making the Israelis feel good about themselves.  Yes, this is naive and dangerous, but then the Israelis are stupid and arrogant.

As for the annexation of Bahrain, the Saudis can probably do it, in particular if the USA fully supports such an operation.

And make no mistake - the the US/Israeli Empire speaks of a "total war on Islam" they mean *Shia* Islam, not Islam in general, simply because the non-Shia Islamic world has been very effectively co-opted and neutered a long time ago and is a de-facto ally of Zionist interests.

There is no war on Islam, there is only a global war on Shia Islam.

What is your take on that?  Any ideas?

The Saker