Very important speech by Foreign Minister Lavrov

Annual press conference of Sergey Lavrov

Absolutely crucial statement by Foreign Minister Lavrov (*MUST READ*!)

Note: Finally the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs found the time, energy and personnel to translate this most important statement. They even posted it (thanks to Jonathan Jarvis for the pointer!). And if you detect irritation on my part you are correct - I am frustrated with how incompetent Russians are in anything relating to public information. Anyway,

I have bolded out what I consider to be the most important statements made by Lavrov that day.  I would just like to add the following:

1)  Lavrov is considered very much a "moderate" and his language has always been strictly diplomatic.  So when you read Lavrov, just imagine what folks in other Russian ministries are thinking.

2) Lavrov makes no secret of his view of the USA and of his plans for the future of our planet.  When you read his words, try to imagine what a US Neocon feels and thinks and you will immediately see why the US elites both hate and fear Russia.

3) Finally, Lavrov openly admits that Russia and China have forged an long-term strategic alliance (proving all the nay-sayers who predicted that China would backtstab Russian wrong).  This is, I would argue, the single most important strategic development in the past decade.

4)  Finally, notice the clear contempt which Lavrov has for a pseudo-Christian "West" which dares not speak in defense of persecuted Christians, denies its own roots, and does not even respect its own traditions.

Friends, what we are witnessing before our eyes is not some petty statement about the Ukraine or sanctions, it is the admission by Lavrov of a fundamental "clash of civilizations", but not between some wholly imaginary "Christian West" and Islam, but between Christian Russia and the post-Christian West.

Russia did not want this conflict.  Russia did everything in her power to prevent it.  But the West left Russia no choice and Russia now openly declares her willingness to fight and prevail.

The Saker
-------

Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the XXII Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Moscow, 22 November 2014

I’m happy to be at this annual Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy (Russian abbreviation SVOP). It is always a great pleasure for me to meet people and feel the intellectual potential, which enables the Council, its leaders and representatives to respond to global developments and analyse them. Their analysis is always free from any hysteria, and its members offer well-grounded and solid arguments, taking a step back, since those caught in the midst of events can hardly adopt an unbiased perspective. We are inevitably influenced by the developments, which makes your observations, analysis, discourse and suggestions even more valuable to us.

As far as I know, this year’s Assembly will focus on prospects for accelerating domestic growth in Russia. There is no doubt that concerted efforts by our society as a whole to bring about comprehensive economic, social and spiritual development are a prerequisite for making Russia’s future sustainable. That said, by virtue of my professional duties, I have to focus on foreign policy issues, which are still relevant for the Assembly’s agenda, since in this interconnected, globalised world, isolating internal development from the outside world is impossible. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin provided a detailed analysis of the international developments at the Valdai Club meeting in Sochi, as well as in his interviews during his trip to Asia. For this reason, I won’t offer any conceptual observations, as everything has already been said. Nevertheless, I would like to share with you some considerations based on our day-to-day foreign policy efforts. It is not my intention to deliver a comprehensive or clear outlook, since at this stage all forecasts are provisional, no matter who makes them. Moreover, diplomats seek to influence developments as they unfold, not contemplate them.

Naturally, I will start with Ukraine. Long before the country was plunged into the crisis, there was a feeling in the air that Russia’s relations with the EU and with the West were about to reach their moment of truth. It was clear that we could no longer continue to put issues in our relations on the back burner and that a choice had to be made between a genuine partnership or, as the saying goes, “breaking pots.” It goes without saying that Russia opted for the former alternative, while unfortunately our Western partners settled for the latter, whether consciously or not. In fact, they went all out in Ukraine and supported extremists, thereby giving up their own principles of democratic regime change. What came out of it was an attempt to play chicken with Russia, to see who blinks first. As bullies say, they wanted to Russia to “chicken out” (I can’t find a better word for it), to force us to swallow the humiliation of Russians and native speakers of Russian in Ukraine.

Honourable Leslie Gelb, whom you know all too well, wrote that Ukraine’s Association Agreement with the EU had nothing to do with inviting Ukraine to join the EU and was aimed in the short term at preventing it from joining the Customs Union. This is what an impartial and unbiased person said. When they deliberately decided to go down the path of escalation in Ukraine, they forgot many things, and had a clear understanding of how such moves would be viewed in Russia. They forgot the advice of, say, Otto von Bismarck, who had said that disparaging the millions-strong great Russian people would be the biggest political mistake.

President Vladimir Putin said the other day that no one in history has yet managed to subjugate Russia to its influence. This is not an assessment, but a statement of fact. Yet such an attempt has been made to quench the thirst for expanding the geopolitical space under Western control, out of a mercantile fear to lose the spoils of what they across the Atlantic had persuaded themselves was the victory in the Cold War.

The plus of today’s situation is that everything has clicked into its place and the calculus behind the West’s actions has been revealed despite its professed readiness to build a security community, a common European home. To quote (singer/song-writer) Bulat Okudzhava, “The past is getting clearer and clearer.” The clarity is becoming more tangible. Today our task is not only to sort out the past (although that must be done), but most importantly, to think about the future.

Talks about Russia’s isolation do not merit serious discussion. I need hardly dwell on this before this audience. Of course, one can damage our economy, and damage is being done, but only by doing harm to those who are taking corresponding measures and, equally important, destroying the system of international economic relations, the principles on which it is based. Formerly, when sanctions were applied (I worked at the Russian mission to the UN at the time) our Western partners, when discussing the DPRK, Iran or other states, said that it was necessary to formulate the restrictions in such a way as to keep within humanitarian limits and not to cause damage to the social sphere and the economy, and to selectively target only the elite. Today everything is the other way around: Western leaders are publicly declaring that the sanctions should destroy the economy and trigger popular protests. So, as regards the conceptual approach to the use of coercive measures the West unequivocally demonstrates that it does not merely seek to change Russian policy (which in itself is illusory), but it seeks to change the regime -- and practically nobody denies this.

President Vladimir Putin, speaking with journalists recently, said that today’s Western leaders have a limited planning horizon. Indeed, it is dangerous when decisions on key problems of the development of the world and humankind as a whole are taken on the basis of short electoral cycles: in the United States the cycle is two years and each time one has to think of or do something to win votes. This is the negative side of the democratic process, but we cannot afford to ignore it. We cannot accept the logic when we are told to resign, relax and take it as a given that everyone has to suffer because there are elections in the United States every two years. This is just not right. We will not resign ourselves to this because the stakes are too high in the fight against terror, the threats of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and many bloody conflicts whose negative impact goes far beyond the framework of the corresponding states and regions. The wish to do something to gain unilateral advantages or to endear oneself to the electorate ahead of another election leads to chaos and confusion in international relations.

We hear the daily repeated mantra that Washington is aware of its own exclusiveness and its duty to bear this burden, to lead the rest of the world. Rudyard Kipling spoke about “the white man’s burden.” I hope that this is not what drives Americans. The world today is not white or black, but multi-coloured and heterogeneous. Leadership in this world can be assured not by persuading oneself of one’ exclusiveness and God-given duty to be responsible for everyone, but only by the ability and craft in forming a consensus. If the US partners committed their power to this goal, this would be priceless, and Russia would be actively helping them.

However, so far, US administrative resources still work only in the NATO framework, and then with substantial reservations, and its writ does not reach beyond the North Atlantic Alliance. One proof of this is the results of US attempts to make the world community follow its line in connection with the anti-Russian sanctions and principles. I have spoken about it more than once and we have ample proof of the fact that American ambassadors and envoys across the world seek meetings at the highest level to argue that the corresponding countries are obliged to punish Russia together with them or else face the consequences. This is done with regard to all countries, including our closest allies (this speaks volumes about the kind of analysts Washington has). An overwhelming majority of the states with which we have a continuing dialogue without any restrictions and isolation, as you see, value Russia’s independent role in the international arena. Not because they like it when somebody challenges the Americans, but because they realise that the world order will not be stable if nobody is allowed to speak his mind (although privately the overwhelming majority do express their opinion, but they do not want to do so publicly for fear of Washington’s reprisals).

Many reasonable analysts understand that there is a widening gap between the global ambitions of the US Administration and the country’s real potential. The world is changing and, as has always happened in history, at some point somebody’s influence and power reach their peak and then somebody begins to develop still faster and more effectively. One should study history and proceed from realities. The seven developing economies headed by BRICS already have a bigger GDP than the Western G7. One should proceed from the facts of life, and not from a misconceived sense of one’s own grandeur.

It has become fashionable to argue that Russia is waging a kind of “hybrid war” in Crimea and in Ukraine. It is an interesting term, but I would apply it above all to the United States and its war strategy – it is truly a hybrid war aimed not so much at defeating the enemy militarily as at changing the regimes in the states that pursue a policy Washington does not like. It is using financial and economic pressure, information attacks, using others on the perimeter of a corresponding state as proxies and of course information and ideological pressure through externally financed non-governmental organisations. Is it not a hybrid process and not what we call war? It would be interesting to discuss the concept of the hybrid war to see who is waging it and is it only about “little green men.”

Apparently the toolkit of our US partners, who have become adept at using it, is much larger.

In attempting to establish their pre-eminence at a time when new economic, financial and political power centres are emerging, the Americans provoke counteraction in keeping with Newton’s third law and contribute to the emergence of structures, mechanisms, and movements that seek alternatives to the American recipes for solving the pressing problems. I am not referring to anti-Americanism, still less about forming coalitions spearheaded against the United States, but only about the natural wish of a growing number of countries to secure their vital interests and do it the way they think right, and not what they are told “from across the pond.” Nobody is going to play anti-US games just to spite the United States. We face attempts and facts of extra-territorial use of US legislation, the kidnapping of our citizens in spite of existing treaties with Washington whereby these issues are to be resolved through law enforcement and judicial bodies.

According to its doctrine of national security, the United States has the right to use force anywhere, anytime without necessarily asking the UN Security Council for approval. A coalition against the Islamic State was formed unbeknownst to the Security Council. I asked Secretary of State John Kerry why have not they gone to the UN Security Council for this.

He told me that if they did, they would have to somehow designate the status of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. Of course, they had to because Syria is a sovereign state and still a member of the UN (no one excluded it from UN membership). The secretary of state said it was wrong because the United States is combating terrorism and the al-Assad regime is the most important factor that galvanises terrorists from around the world and acts as a magnet attracting them to this region in an attempt to overthrow the Syrian regime.

I believe this is perverse logic. If we are talking about precedents (the United States adheres to case law), it is worth remembering the chemical disarmament in Syria when the Assad regime was a completely legitimate partner of the United States, Russia, the OPCW and others. The Americans maintain talks with the Taliban as well. Whenever the United States has an opportunity to benefit from something, it acts quite pragmatically. I’m not sure why the ideologically-driven position took the upper hand this time and the United States chose to believe that Assad cannot be a partner. Perhaps, this is not so much an operation against the Islamic State as paving the way for toppling al-Assad under the guise of a counter-terrorist operation.

Francis Fukuyama recently wrote the book, Political Order and Political Decay, in which he argues that the efficiency of public administration in the United States is declining and the traditions of democratic governance are gradually being replaced with feudal fiefdom ruling methods. This is part of the discussion about someone who lives in a glass house and throws stones.

All of this is happening amid the mounting challenges and problems of the modern world. We are seeing a continued "tug of war" in Ukraine. Trouble is brewing on the south border of the EU. I don’t think the Middle Eastern and North African problems will go away all by themselves. The EU has formed a new commission. New foreign actors have emerged, who will face a serious fight for where to send their basic resources: either for the continuation of reckless schemes in Ukraine, Moldova, etc., within the Eastern Partnership (as advocated by an aggressive minority in the EU), or they will listen to the Southern European countries and focus on what’s happening on the other side of the Mediterranean.

This is a major issue for the EU.

So far, those who are not guided by real problems, but rather by a desire to quickly grab things from freshly turned up ground. It is deplorable. Exporting revolutions – be they democratic, communist or others – never brings any good.

State, public and civilisational structures are actually disintegrating in the MENA region. The destructive energy released in the process can scorch states that are located far beyond this region. Terrorists (including the Islamic State) are claiming a national status. Moreover, they are already beginning to create quasi-governmental bodies there that engage in the administrative work.

On this backdrop, minorities, including Christians, are banished. In Europe, these issues are deemed not politically correct. They are ashamed when we invite them to do something about it together at the OSCE. They wonder why would we focus specifically on Christians? How is that special? The OSCE has held a series of events dedicated to keeping memories about the Holocaust and its victims alive. A few years ago, the OSCE started holding events against Islamophobia. We will be offering an analysis of the processes leading to Christianophobia.

On 4-5 December, OSCE ministerial meetings will be held in Basel, where we will present this proposal. The majority of EU member states elude this topic, because they are ashamed to talk about it. Just as they were ashamed to include in what was then the EU constitution drafted by Valery Giscard d'Estaing a phrase that Europe has Christian roots.

If you don’t remember or respect your own roots and traditions, how would you respect the traditions and values of other people? This is straightforward logic. Comparing what’s happening now in the Middle East to a period of religious wars in Europe, Israeli political scientist Avineri said that the current turmoil is unlikely to end with what the West means when it says “democratic reforms.”

The Arab-Israeli conflict is dead in the water. It's hard to play on several boards at a time. The Americans are trying to accomplish this, but it doesn’t work for them. In 2013, they took nine months to sort out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will not go into the reasons, they are known, but they failed at this as well. Now, they asked for more time to try to achieve some progress before the end of 2014, so that the Palestinians wouldn’t go to the UN and sign the Statute of the International Criminal Court, etc. Suddenly, it transpired that negotiations on Iran are underway. The US State Department dumped Palestine to focus on Iran.

US Secretary of State John Kerry and I agreed to talk on this subject some time soon. It’s important to understand that you can’t keep the problem of the Palestinian state deeply frozen forever. Failure to resolve it for nearly 70 years has been a major argument of those who recruit extremists in their ranks, “there’s no justice: it was promised to create two states; the Jewish one was created, but they will never create an Arab state.” Used on a hungry Arab street, these arguments sound quite plausible, and they start calling for a fight for justice using other methods.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the Valdai Club meeting in Sochi that we need a new version of interdependence. This was a very topical statement. The leading powers must return to the negotiating table and agree on a new framework that takes into account the basic legitimate interests of all the key parties (I can’t tell you what it should be called, but it should be based on the UN Charter), to agree on reasonable self-imposed restrictions and collective risk management in a system of international relations underpinned by democratic values. Our Western partners promote respect for the rule of law, democracy and minority opinion within countries, while failing to stand up for the same values in international affairs. This leaves Russia as a pioneer in promoting democracy, justice and rule of international law. A new world order can only be polycentric and should reflect the diversity of cultures and civilisations in today’s world.

You are aware of Russia’s commitment to ensuring indivisibility of security in international affairs and holding it in international law. I won’t elaborate on this.

I would like to support the point the SVOP has been making that Russia won’t succeed in becoming a major, successful and confident power of the 21st century without developing its eastern regions. Sergei Karaganov was among the first to conceptualise this idea, and I fully agree. Taking Russia’s relations with the Asia Pacific countries to a new level is an absolute priority. Russia worked along these lines at the Beijing APEC meeting and the G20 forum. We will continue moving in this direction in the new environment created by the upcoming launch of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) on 1 January 2015.

We have been treated as “subhumans.” For over a decade, Russia has been trying to establish partnership ties with NATO through CSTO. These efforts were not just about putting NATO and CSTO “in the same league.” As a matter of fact, CSTO is focused on catching drug dealers and illegal migrants around the Afghan border, and the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation is the backbone of the international security forces, which, among other things, were tasked with fighting the terrorist threat and eliminating its financing schemes, which involve drug trafficking. We tried everything: we pleaded and then demanded real-time contact, so that once NATO detects a caravan transporting drugs and is unable to stop it, it alerts us across the border, so that this caravan could be intercepted by CSTO forces. They simply refused to talk to us. In private conversations, our NATO well-wishers (and I actually mean this in the positive way) told us that the alliance can’t view CSTO as an equal partner for ideological reasons. Until recently, we saw the same condescending and arrogant attitude with respect to the Eurasian economic integration. And that despite the fact that countries intending to join the EAEU have much more in common in terms of their economies, history and culture than many EU members. This union is not about creating barriers with anyone. We always stress how open this union is expected to be. I strongly believe that it will make a significant contribution to building a bridge between Europe and Asia Pacific.

I can’t fail to mention Russia’s comprehensive partnership with China. Important bilateral decisions have been taken, paving the way to an energy alliance between Russia and China. But there’s more to it. We can now even talk about the emerging technology alliance between the two countries. Russia’s tandem with Beijing is a crucial factor for ensuring international stability and at least some balance in international affairs, as well as ensuring the rule of international law. We will make full use of our relations with India and Vietnam, Russia’s strategic partners, as well as the ASEAN countries. We are also open to expanding cooperation with Japan, if our Japanese neighbours can look at their national interests and stop looking back at some overseas powers.

There is no doubt that the European Union is our largest collective partner. No one intends to “shoot himself in the foot” by renouncing cooperation with Europe, although it is now clear that business as usual is no longer an option. This is what our European partners are telling us, but neither do we want to operate the old way. They believed that Russia owed them something, while we want to be on an equal footing. For this reason, things will never be the same again. That said, I’m confident that we will be able to overcome this period, lessons will be learned and a new foundation for our relations will emerge.

The idea of creating a single economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok can now be heard here and there and is gaining traction. Germany’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, has said publicly (while we have been saying it for a long time) that the EU and the EAEU should engage in dialogue. The statement President Vladimir Putin made in Brussels in January 2014, when he proposed the first step by launching negotiations on a free-trade zone between the EU and the Customs Union with an eye on 2020, is no longer viewed as something exotic. All of this has already become part of diplomacy and real politics. Although this is so far only a matter of discussion, I strongly believe that we will one day achieve what is called “the integration of integrations.” This is one of the key topics we want to promote within the OSCE at the Ministerial Council in Basel. Russia is about to assume BRICS and SCO presidency. The two organisations will hold their summits in Ufa. These are very promising organisations for the new age. They are not blocks (especially BRICS), but groups where members share the same interests, representing countries from all continents that share common approaches regarding the future of the global economy, finance and politics.

Speech of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov at the UNGA on September 27th

September 26th Press Conference of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the UN in NY

Listening to Lavrov giving up on the West

Yesterday, I watched with interest a talkshow called "The Right to Know" which featured an hour long interview with Sergei Lavrov (those who understand Russian can watch it here).  It was an interesting exchange between Lavrov and five Russian reporters.  It was not important enough to warrant translating it all into English, but I want to share with you something which I had noticed in the past but which was powerfully expressed during this conversation.

Predictably, the topics included the civil war in the Ukraine, the status of the investigation about the shooting down of MH17, sanctions against Russia, the expansion of NATO, the negotiations in Minsk and Russia's engagement with the BRICS countries.

All all these topics, the Q&A had a similar format.  One of the reporters asked Lavrov to comment on what appeared to be a dead-end situation and Lavrov confirmed saying "we tried our best, but to our great regret, that had no effect".  What was so interesting is that while the reporters were expressing bafflement that things had gone so far, Lavrov's reaction was "yes, you are right, this is truly hopeless".  The overall effect was one of a PTA meeting discussing some hopelessly stupid and incapable student.  Except the "student" in this case was the entire West.

For example, about MH17 the reporters voiced their amazement at the sterility and vagueness of the recently released report.  They noticed that while the entire western media went into a full hysteria mode with headlines like "PUTIN THE TERRORIST!!!!" or "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!" they all apparently totally forgot that the investigation was still ongoing.  Lavrov's reaction was "yes, I agree, well, we tried at the UN Security Council, we submitted our questions, we wanted a full ceasefire with a thorough investigation of the debris, we offered our own information, we spoke to the Malaysians, we wanted to speak to the experts, but they spent three weeks in Kiev talking to the Junta officials,, we still have questions but we are the only ones who apparently are still interested in getting a full transparent and accountable investigation going" (this is no a quote, but a faithful paraphrase, I think).  The sense one got from listening to this was "frankly, they are hopeless, what else can we do?"

Touching upon the sanctions, the reporters said that many countries were surprised at the speed at which Russia turned away from the West and began building relations with Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Indian Subcontinent and, again, Lavrov replied "yes, we were even surprised by the pace of events ourselves, but we had no choice".

This is not the only show which sends the same message.  The sense that I am getting is that Russia has given up on the West.  Sure, she will continue talking, and she will try, against all evidence, to elicit some adult responsible behavior from western politicians, but nobody in Russia is holding his/her breath.

On another show (Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev) the participants remarked that Germany had taken the lead in putting pressure on Finland, the Slovak Republic and the other nations who did not want to adopt more sanctions.  Again, the message was "forget about the Germans, they are hopeless".

I believe that there is a sincere and widespread sense of disgust and hopelessness in Russia towards the EU countries.  As for the USA, they are mostly seen as a hate-filled messianic lunatic who will do anything and everything to harm Russia in any way it can, no matter how crazy, absurd, useless and hypocritical.

All this builds up to a consensus that while war with the USA and NATO must be avoided, of course, there is nothing much else to be gained from making much efforts.  Many politicians now say "our foreign policy has been way to fixated on the West and that needs to be stopped - our future is elsewhere".

The recent adoptions of sanctions against Russia are a perfect example of that.  While I few hardcore pro-US liberal figures complain, I kid you not, that the French 'belon' oysters will not be available in Moscow, most people see that these sanctions are a blessing in disguise as they force Russia to sever links with the West, something they believe should have been done long ago.  In the short term, the western sanctions will "bite", especially on some high-tech items, but by and large most people understand that being dependent on the West for such items was the real mistake in the first place.

Again, the prevailing sense is one of disgust, bewilderment, and fatigue.  Though somebody as diplomatic as Lavrov will never say the, the general reaction is clearly "you guys are both hopeless and in decline; we don't need, you, goodbye".  This is said without anger, mostly with sadness, really.

I don't think that Russian diplomats will make a big anti-western statement at the UN or anywhere else.  The opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference.  And Russian officials will continue to speak of "our partners" or even "our friends", but while this nice sounding rhetoric will continue, relations with the West will gradually cease to be a priority for the Russian diplomacy, business community and even general public.  In fact, Russia is already building a multi-polar world and if the West wants no part of it - tough.  The Russians know that the West cannot prevent the emergence of this new world, and they don't really care if they refuse accept this reality or play by the new rules.

One more thing: the Russians are most definitely upset about the very aggressive NATO stance because they - correctly - interpret it as a sign of hostility.  But,  contrary to what a lot of bloggers say, the Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO.  Their reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military threat.  As one Russian deputy said "5 rapid reaction diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile".  A simplistic but basically correct formula.  Putin said the very same thing when he clearly spelled out that in case of a massive conventional attack by "anybody" Russia would engage tactical nukes.  In fact, if NATO goes ahead with its stupid plan to deploy forces in Poland and/or the Baltics I expect Russia with withdraw from the IRNF Treaty and deploy advanced successors to the famous RSD-10 (SS-20).  As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway.  You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10'000 strong NATO force by bringing her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36'000 to 72'000.  Having thus taken care of the threat, the Kremlin will simply turn to more important business elsewhere.

Among the many misconceptions we absorb during our training (I cannot call it "education) we, in the West, have a tendency to view our part of the world as the center of the planet, some even would say the indispensable and only truly important one.  This can be seen in our systematically Europe or US centered maps of the world, to our quasi dogmatic beliefs that nobody matters as much as we do.  This is wrong.  In fact, while the AngloZionist Empire is on slow but steady and ineluctable decline, the rest of the world pays it the needed lip service and basically moves on.  If the training facilities we call "schools" had any educated educators we would start hanging China-centered maps of the world in our training rooms, and we would tell out young trainees that nobody takes the so-called "western values" seriously anymore.  Not because they are not good, but because clearly we, in the West, don't take them seriously in the first place.

Obama announced a "pivot" towards Asia but, in a typical AngloZionist manner, all this pivot really meant was more military forces and more pressure to obey the Empire's demands.  Unlike the US, Russia did not announce any "pivot", but Putin already met with Xi Jinping four times this year and both sides have declared that their strategic partnership was the strongest it had ever been in the history of their relationship.

Russia is really turning her gaze to China, Latin America, Africa and elsewhere.  Her diplomats will continue to talk, smile, speak of "partners" and "friends", but I believe that  we are witnessing a historical event: for the first time since the 13th century, Russia is turning away from the West again and betting her future with Asia (and the rest of the planet).

The Saker

Press-conference of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov, Moscow, August 25 2014

Foreign Minister Lavrov interviewed by Bloomberg

I really admire Sergei Lavrov for many things, but listening to this (otherwise interesting) interview, I marvel at his patience with this constantly interrupting "yapping-dog-style" Bloomberg journalist.   I just could not have had that kind of patience.  I would have smashed my fist in the face of this arrogant jerk ten minutes into the interview.  Good thing I am just a blogger and not a diplomat I guess :-)

Anyway, if you could put up with this journalist's interviewing style, this is an interesting interview with Lavrov making a lot of very good points.

Enjoy,

The Saker

The US plan for the Ukraine - a hypothesis

Listening to Lavrov today I came to the conclusion that the regime in Kiev was indeed about to try to attack the eastern Ukraine.  It's not only Lavrov, the Russian Internet is on "red alert" and chock-full of rumors and speculation about an imminent attack.  This begs a number of questions:

1) Why would the junta in Kiev so overtly renege on the Geneva agreement?
2) Why would it attack when the chances of success are very small?
3) Why would they attack know that Russia would almost certainly intervene?
4) Why is the US clearly behind that strategy?

I have a hypothesis which I would like to submit to your attention.

First, the junta in Kiev is reneging on the Geneva agreement simply because it cannot abide by its terms.  Remember, the junta is composed of a few politicians handpicked by the US and a few Ukrainian oligarchs.  They do have money, but no power.  How could they possibly impose anything in the well-armed and determined freaks of the Right Sector?

Second, the eastern Ukraine is lost no matter what.  So the junta in Kiev have to pick on of the following options:

a) Let the eastern Ukraine leave by means of referendum and do nothing about it.
b) Let the eastern Ukraine leave but only after some violence.
c) Let the eastern Ukraine leave following a Russian military intervention.

Clearly, option 'a' is by far the worst.  Option 'b' is so-so, but option 'c' is very nice.  Think of it:  this option will make it look like Russia invaded the Eastern Ukraine and that the people there had no say about it.  It will also make the rest of the Ukraine rally around the flag.  The economic disaster will be blamed on Russia and the Presidential election of May 25th can be canceled due to the Russian "threat".  Not only that, but a war - no matter how silly - is the *perfect* pretext to introduce martial law which can be used to crack down on the Right Sector or anybody expressing views the junta does not like.  That is an old trick - trigger a war and people will rally around the regime in power.  Create a panic, and people will forget the real issues.

As for the USA - it also knows that the Eastern Ukraine is gone.  With Crimea and Eastern Ukraine gone - the Ukraine has exactly *zero* value to the Empire, to why not simply use it as a way to create a new Cold War, something which would be much more sexy that the Global War on Terror or the really old War on Drugs.  After all, if Russia is forced to intervene militarily NATO will have to send reinforcements to "protect" countries like Poland or Latvia just in case Putin decides to invade all of the EU.

Bottom line - the freaks in power in Kiev and the USA *know* that the eastern Ukraine is lost for them, and the purpose of the imminent attack is not to "win" against the Russian-speaking rebels or, even less so, to "win" against the Russian military, it is to trigger enough violence to force Russia to intervene.  In other words, since the East is lost anyways, it is much better to lose it to the "invading Russian hordes" than to lose it to the local civilian population.

So the purpose of the next attack will not be to win, but to lose.  That the Ukrainian military can still do.

Two things can happen to foil this plan:

1) The Ukrainian military might refuse to obey such clearly criminal orders (and becoming a target of the Russian military might help some officers make the correct "purely moral" choice).
2) The local resistance might be strong enough to draw out such an operation and have to come to a grinding halt.

Ideally, a combination of both.

From the Russian point of view things are rather simple: it is infinitely better for Russia to have the East break away without any Russian intervention.  If the attacking force is crazy enough to use armor, artillery or airpower, the Russian could decide to strike from the air without actually sending in ground forces.  They could also use electronic warfare capabilities to further create chaos inside the attacking force.  Limited pinpoint attacks could also serve to demoralize the attacking force.  What Russia has to avoid all costs to find itself forced to engage in offensive urban operations which are always dangerous and bloody.  It is therefore absolutely essential the the locals take control of their own streets, villages and cities.

Lavrov today delivered a very direct warning: if things go out of hand in the eastern Ukraine Russia will intervene.  Hopefully somebody in the West will finally realize that the Russians are never bluffing and that they really mean it.  I am not very optimistic though - if Lavrov felt the need to make a full 30min interview in English in which he clearly compared the situation in the Ukraine today to the one in Ossetia in 08.08.08 it is probably because the Russians have intelligence indicating that an attack is imminent.

We shall know very soon.

The Saker

Sergey Lavrov gives interview in English to "Russia Today"

Lavrov press conference in Geneva after agreement with USA (with link to Kerry's press conference)

Important:make sure to also listen to the press conference by John Kerry gave in another room (to signal that the US and Russia are really enemies I suppose) at the same time.  Click here to listen to it.  The video is choppy and "jumps", blame the US State Department or YouTube, not me.  If I get a clean one I will post a link to it here below.

A chance for you to say "no, not in my name!"

After reading the open letter to President Putin signed by over 300 Germans, one of the readers of this blog decided to emulate their example and write his own open letter to President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov.  Unlike the German letter, this letter is much more simple and very much to the point.  This is its full text:

Many citizens of western countries greatly respect your measured responses to the recent and ongoing threats to Syria, Iran, and Ukraine.

You and your government have several times averted dangerous conflicts. Irresponsible nations heavily armed with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons ache for a war whose outcome they cannot comprehend.  

International diplomacy requires a grasp of history, as well as strength, courage, rectitude, grace, and common sense. Most western leaders today lack these essential qualities. We appreciate how challenging it must be to negotiate with such people.

The above views are neither represented by our leaders nor explored by our corporate media commentators. Reaching over them to extend a hand of friendship and gratitude, we offer you our support and best wishes.

While many of us feel powerless and frustrated with our inability to stop the crazy policies of our 1% overlords, we all can do one thing: refuse to be passive bystanders.  At the very least, we can say "not in my name".  By doing that, we not only express our position, but we show to the people of Russia that there is "another West" just like there was "another Russia" during the Soviet era.

For some signing such a letter might present some risks.  But for most of us, it is still pretty safe if only because our overlords don't care what we think or say, and have no time to waste the common folk like us which they see as irrelevant.

I therefore encourage you all to seize this possibility to take a stand and sign this completely non-ideological letter.  Yes, this will be a symbolic act, but there are moments in history when symbolic acts are important (like refusing to sit in the back of a bus).  Finally, by singing it you 'buy' yourself the option of looking in the mirror and knowing that you did not remain silent.

You can sign the letter here: 

https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/president-vladimir-putin-foreign-minister-sergey-lavrov-godspeed-president-putin-and-foreign-minister-lavrov

A big thank you to John for writing and posting this letter, and a big thank you to anyone who will sign it.

Kind regards,

The Saker

Sergei Lavrov: It's not Russia that is destabilising Ukraine

by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for The Guardian

The west has been needlessly whipping up tension – if we don't co-operate soon, chaos may take hold

The profound and pervasive crisis in Ukraine is a matter of grave concern for Russia. We understand perfectly well the position of a country which became independent just over 20 years ago and still faces complex tasks in constructing a sovereign state. Among them is the search for a balance of interests among its various regions, the peoples of which have different historical and cultural roots, speak different languages and have different perspectives on their past and present, and their country's future place in the world.

Sergei Lavrov

Given these circumstances, the role of external forces should have been to help Ukrainians protect the foundations of civil peace and sustainable development, which are still fragile. Russia has done more than any other country to support the independent Ukrainian state, including for many years subsidising its economy through low energy prices. Last November, at the outset of the current crisis, we supported Kiev's wish for urgent consultations between Ukraine, Russia and the EU to discuss harmonising the integration process. Brussels flatly rejected it. This stand reflected the unproductive and dangerous line the EU and US have been taking for a long time. They have been trying to compel Ukraine to make a painful choice between east and west, further aggravating internal differences.

Ukraine's realities notwithstanding, massive support was provided to political movements promoting western influence, and it was done in direct breach of the Ukrainian constitution. This is what happened in 2004, when President Viktor Yushchenko won an unconstitutional third round of elections introduced under EU pressure. This time round, power in Kiev was seized undemocratically, through violent street protests conducted with the direct participation of ministers and other officials from the US and EU countries.

Assertions that Russia has undermined efforts to strengthen partnerships on the European continent do not correspond to the facts. On the contrary, our country has steadily promoted a system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic area. We proposed signing a treaty to that effect, and advocated the creation of a common economic and human space from the Atlantic to the Pacific which would also be open to post-Soviet countries.

In the meantime, western states, despite their repeated assurances to the contrary, have carried out successive waves of Nato enlargement, moved the alliance's military infrastructure eastward and begun to implement antimissile defence plans. The EU's Eastern Partnership programme is designed to bind the so-called focus states tightly to itself, shutting down the possibility of co-operation with Russia. Attempts by those who staged the secession of Kosovo from Serbia and of Mayotte from the Comoros to question the free will of Crimeans cannot be viewed as anything but a flagrant display of double standards. No less troubling is the pretence of not noticing that the main danger for the future of Ukraine is the spread of chaos by extremists and neo-Nazis.

Russia is doing all it can to promote early stabilisation in Ukraine. We are firmly convinced that this can be achieved through, among other steps: real constitutional reform, which would ensure the legitimate rights of all Ukrainian regions and respond to demands from its south-eastern region to make Russian the state's second official language; firm guarantees on Ukraine's non-aligned status to be enshrined in its laws, thus ensuring its role as a connecting link in an indivisible European security architecture; and urgent measures to halt activity by illegal armed formations of the Right Sector and other ultra-nationalist groups.

We are not imposing anything on anyone, we just see that if it is not done, Ukraine will continue to spiral into crisis with unpredictable consequences. We stand ready to join international efforts aimed at achieving these goals. We support the appeal by foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland to implement the 21 February agreement. Their proposal – to hold Russia-EU talks with the participation of Ukraine and other Eastern Partnership states about the consequences of EU association agreements – corresponds to our position.The world of today is not a junior school where teachers assign punishments at will. Belligerent statements such as those heard at the Nato foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on 1 April do not match demands for a de-escalation. De-escalation should begin with rhetoric. It is time to stop the groundless whipping-up of tension, and to return to serious common work.

Foreign Minister Lavrov's press conference today (in English)

As always, Lavrov makes a brilliant case for his point of view.  I still think that Russia made a major mistake, but I can't help liking Lavrov a lot and finding him absolutely brilliant.  I hope that he has some kind of game-plan I am not aware of.

It's a long press conference, but at least listen to his reply to the first question as it is about Syria and his answer is nothing short of brilliant.  But if you can - listen to the full thing.  It is a major review of Russian diplomatic and political goals for the near future.

The Saker

Lavrov: US blackmails Russia over Syria's entry into the OPCW and demands Chapter VII Resolution at UNSC

RT reports:

The US is pushing Russia into approving a UN resolution that would allow for military intervention in Syria, in exchange for American support of Syria’s accession to OPCW, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

“Our American partners are starting to blackmail us: ‘If Russia does not support a resolution under Chapter 7, then we will withdraw our support for Syria’s entry into the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). This is a complete departure from what I agreed with Secretary of State John Kerry',” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Channel 1's Sunday Time program.

Chapter 7 of the UN charter would allow for potential military intervention in Syria.

Western countries blinded by 'Assad must go' attitude

The head of Russia’s Foreign Ministry went on to say he was surprised by the West’s “negligent” approach to the conflict.

“Our partners are blinded by an ideological mission for regime change,” said Lavrov. “They cannot admit they have made another mistake.”

Slamming the West’s intervention in Libya and Iraq, the foreign minister stated that military intervention could only lead to a catastrophe in the region. Moreover, he stressed that if the West really was interested in a peaceful solution to the conflict that has raged for over two years, they would now be pushing for Syria’s entry into the OPCW in the first place, not for the ouster of President Bashar Assad.

“I am convinced that the West is doing this to demonstrate that they call the shots in the Middle East. This is a totally politicized approach,” said Lavrov.

The Russian foreign minister pointed out that in the case of a military scenario, militants would come to power and Syria would no longer be a secular state. Up to three quarters “of these guys are Jihadists,” including the most radical groups such as Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, who want to create an Islamic Caliphate in Syria and in neighboring territories, Lavrov said.

“If our western partners think at least two steps ahead, they cannot but understand it,” Lavrov noted.

As to why the West would want that, Moscow has so far received no clear answer, but hears “mantras” on the necessity to promote democracy and protect human rights, said the minister. That is important, but “responsible politicians should be guided not only by that. Not to care about stability in a key world region is absolutely irresponsible,” he added.

According to Lavrov, some experts alleged that “someone is attempting to create a guided chaos” in the region for their own benefits. However, the foreign minister said he personally sees no possible advantages that Western countries would gain if they were behind moves to stir up instability.

“There’s only an attempt to grasp a straw, and turn a blind eye to the fact that the world is changing and becoming multipolar,” Lavrov concluded.

'A repeat of Geneva 2012' 

Lavrov harked back to last year’s Geneva accord which was agreed upon by the international community, including Russia and the US. However, when the resolution went to the Security Council the US demanded that Chapter 7 be included.

“History is repeating itself. Once again in Geneva an agreement has been reached which does not contain any mention of Chapter 7. But the Security Council wants to redo the document in their own way to include it.”

He called on the West to observe international law and stop writing resolutions motivated by their “geopolitical ambitions.”

‘Both sides must hand over chemical weapons’ 

Sergey Lavrov has also insisted that opposition forces take part in the decommissioning of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles.

“The solutions currently being worked out at the OPCW suggest that all stocks of Syrian chemical weapons must be brought under control and ultimately destroyed.”

Lavrov further charged that the West was “not telling the whole story” by asserting that chemical weapons are only possessed by the regime, and not the opposition.

He added that the available information provided by the Israelis confirmed that on at least two occasions, the rebels had seized areas in which chemical weapons were stored and those arms might have fallen into their hands.

"According to our estimates, there is a strong probability that in addition to home-grown labs in which militants are trying to cook up harmful and deadly concoctions, the data provided by the Israelis is true,” the Russian FM said.

“Preparatory work for OPCW inspectors to assume control of chemical weapons storage sites requires that those who fund and sponsor opposition groups – including extremists – demand that they hand over the [arms] which have been seized so that they can be destroyed, pursuant to the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.”

Lavrov added that Russia was not a guarantor for the disarmament of Syria’s chemical weapons, as Syria’s commitments fell under the auspices of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which is internationally administered by the OPCW.

Lavrov said Russia and the US were working out a draft resolution to be submitted to the OPCW, although several points were yet to be agreed upon.

Earlier in September, Moscow said it would submit data to the UNSC proving that the chemical weapons in a Damascus suburb were used by the rebels. These “purely technical” documents were handed over to Russia by the Bashar Assad government and are being examined by Russian specialists. This data “is an addition to what we already know and to what is known to…independent experts who give their assessments and confirm that the opposition regularly resort to provocations, attempting to accuse the regime of using chemical weapons” and this way get foreign military support, Lavrov said.

A UN experts team, who investigated the August 21 attack in Syria, presented a report on their findings, in which they described the ammunition and substances they discovered on the scene, but made no conclusions regarding who was behind the incident.

However, the US, along with Britain and France, moved quickly to repeat their accusations against the Syrian government. “Such an approach is neither scientific, nor professional but rather politicized and ideology-driven,” the Russian foreign minister stressed.

According to Lavrov, it was no secret that they did not need any report. Long before the document was prepared, they stated that they already knew everything from their intelligence findings – which have never been presented to the public in full, the Russian minister noted.

“What they did show to us does not convince that the [Syrian] regime is linked to the episode with the use of chemical weapons,” Lavrov said.

He reiterated that there is also evidence by eyewitnesses, including nuns from the Christian monastery close to the scene of the deadly attack, and journalists who visited the area. Reporters, Lavrov said, talked to militants who told them that they “received from abroad munitions that they had never seen before and did not know how to use them, but they used them in the end.” There was also an open letter by the Pentagon and CIA veterans to President Obama, where they say that the rebels could have used chemical weapons.

Moscow expects the UN experts to go back to Syria to finish their investigation there, which should include three other incidents - on August 22, 24 and 25 – when the Syrian army was attacked with poisonous gas, Lavrov said.

Logistics of destruction 

Sergey Lavrov said that the time frame for the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons was not unrealistic.

"The overwhelming majority of the figures as per timing, term, beginning, finishing of the mission have been suggested by the American side," he added.

Even if the time frame is feasible, there remains disagreement on the cost of the venture.

Earlier this week, President Assad said the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal would be a costly venture.

“It needs a lot of money, it needs about one billion [US dollars]. It’s very detrimental to the environment. If the American administration is ready to pay the money, and to take responsibility of bringing toxic materials to the United States, why don’t they do it?” Assad told Fox News

Lavrov said he had heard of the cost estimate, although during his negotiations with his US counterpart in Geneva last week, the figure was much lower. Lavrov said the discrepancy stemmed from the fact that a professional estimate was in order.

“When OPCW experts visit Syria and view the storage sites for chemical weapons, they will understand what can be destroyed on the spot (and this is also possible) with the use of mobile equipment which a number of states have, and those where special factories need to be built, as we did when destroying Soviet chemical weapons stockpiles. But for those which need to be taken out of the country – toxic substances – will require a special decision, because the convention considers it essential that the destruction takes place on the territory of that country which possesses the chemical weapons,” he said.

Lavrov said legal grounds would need to be found to move forward in this case, but if all sides could agree in principle, then drawing up a legally binding document will not be hard.

He further noted the difficulties that would be faced in assuring the security of both the Syrian and international experts tasked with bringing the chemical weapons under control and laying the groundwork for their ultimate destruction.

“We’ve considered that an international presence will be demanded in those areas where experts are working. We are prepared to allocate our own servicemen or military police to take part in those efforts. I do not believe it is necessary to send in a strong [military] contingency.] It seems to me that it will be sufficient to send in military observers. It will be necessary to do it in such a way that the observers will come from all permanent members of the UN Security Council, Arab states and Turkey, so that all conflicting sides in Syria understand that this contingent represents all external forces who are collaborating with one or the other conflicting sides in Syria…so that they don’t resort to provocations,” he said.

Lavrov reiterated previous statements made during his negotiations with Secretary of State John Kerry following their talks in Geneva last week that the opposition was equally responsible for providing for the safety of OPCW and UN experts in the country and not allowing for any “provocations.” 



Full Lavrov interview in Russian:

Joint Press Conference of Sergei Lavrov and Walid Muallem

Sorry - only in Russian and Arabic. If/when I get the transcript, I will post it here. 

Hysteria around chemical attack suits those who want military intervention in Syria - Lavrov

A small but victorious skirmish in a much larger battle of a even bigger war - but a victory nonetheless.

It is impossible to predict what will happen following the recent meetings between US Secretary of State Kerry and President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov in Moscow.  After all, all which can come out of such a meeting are only words.  Still, words matter, and in the case of the highest level officials of the two major powers on the planet, they matter a lot.  And a lot of very important words were spoken in Moscow, in particular about Syria, and I believe that they deserve a closer look.

First and foremost, it is undeniable that the USA has had to back down from its previous "re-interpretation" of the Geneva Agreement.  While the Russian side said that all the parties must negotiate together to appoint their representatives and task them with forming a transitional authority, the Americans declared that it was categorically unacceptable to have Assad or his representatives participate in these negotiations.  But that was when the State Department was run by this bellicose russophobic and, frankly, imbecile bitch Hillary Clinton.  John Kerry is a very different person who is maybe not in the same league as the outright brilliant James Baker, but who is nonetheless a smart and shrewed realist and a competent diplomat.  It appears that he understands the futility of Hillary Clinton's ideological stance since he has clearly indicated that it was for the Syrian people to decide who represents them and for the opposing parties to choose their leaders.  In other words, the USA accepts to negotiate with Assad.

Foreign Minister Lavrov even indicated that the Russians had carefully coordinated their stance by means of personal consultations with President Assad who was fully informed of, and agreed with, the Russian position.  In other words, the Americans are already negotiating with Assad.

Second, Secretary Kerry appeared to fully accept and even endorse the Russian line that external "extremists" are using the Syrian conflict for their own purposes and that these extremists represent a real threat for the entire region.   Kerry confirmed this by stating that the USA supports the Syrian territorial integrity and the multi-ethnic and, most importantly, multi-confessional nature of the Syrian society.  In other words, the USA is also accepting the Russian thesis that the al-Qaeda types cannot be allowed to seize power in Syria.

Thirdly, in regards to the canard about the Syrian military using chemical weapons, Kerry did say that these claims must be very carefully investigated before any conclusions are drawn.   At this point Foreign Minister Lavrov revealed that the US and Russian intelligence services would work very closely to draw a common conclusion about what actually happened on the ground.  Foreign Minister Lavrov said that "we all know that there are parties to this conflict which have a demonstrated capability to organize "provocations" (which, in the Russian language, really implies what is called "false flag" operation in the West) and that the USA and Russia had agreed not to allow that to happen.  Secretary Kerry was clearly not to eager to comment about all this, but he did acquiesce and he most definitely did not contradict Lavrov.   In other words, the USA has dumped any plans it might have had of blaming Assad for using chemical weapons.

I don't know about you, but to me this looks like a full-spectrum victory for the Russian diplomacy who appears to have forced the USA to yield on all key points concerning the Syrian conflict.

There was a rather amusing and very uncharacteristic moment at the end of the joint Kerry-Lavrov press conference when Lavrov suddenly asked the reporters "do you know who won the Russia-USA hockey match today?" (the two teams were playing each other in the playoffs for the world championship) with a totally innocent look on his face.  And when Lavrov "learned" from a Russian reporter that Russia had beat the US (with a score of 5-3 if I remember correctly) - he turned to Kerry and said "it appears that Russia has won!!!".  Kerry, being an savvy diplomat, also laughed at that, and the two were soon back-slapping each other.  Frankly, I think that Lavrov made the American pay with this little comment for all the stupid crap that this bitch Clinton had said about Russia.  Yes, the Russians would kindly agree to work with the USA, but only on Russian terms which they had stated from Day 1 and on which they yielded nothing.  Lavrov really sent a clear message to the American elites: "if you play by civilized rules and treat us as equal partners, we will do our part.  If you f**k with us, then you are on your own and we and the Chinese will watch you fail".  That is, I believe, what this "it appears that Russia has won" really meant.  A kind tease, but a very serious message.

The credit for this positive, if provisional, outcome goes to the firm yet careful stance of the Russian diplomats and to Putin personally for having had the patience to carefully play his hand.  But even before any credit is given to the Kremlin, the one party which deserves the most praise and gratitude is the Syrian military whose excellent performance, courage and skills on the battlefield nothing forced the Americans to come back to the negotiating table.  Had the Syrian military collapsed (as so many had predicted) there is absolutely nothing the Russians could have done to force Kerry to make all the concessions he has made.

This conflict is far from over.  For one thing, there are forces inside the USA - the "deep state" if you wish - who hate Obama, hate Kerry, hate Syria and, above all, hate Russia and who have huge resources which they can use to sabotage Kerry's approach.  Furthermore, the current US and Russian position is placing a wedge between the al-Qaeda crazies (who represent primarily foreign interests and, therefore, also most of the firepower) and the more moderate opposition (who probably represents more Syrians than the al-Qaeda crazies) and it remains to be seen how these two groups will deal with each other.

Still, if - and that is a big "if" - a small step was finally made to force the West to accept that Syria will not be handed over to the Wahabis, partitioned or turned into another failed state a la Somalia, then this is truly thanks to the patriotic courage of the Syrian soldiers and, in particular, the Syrian officer corps which resolutely stood in defense of their country.

And this is how it should be.  Russia, China or Iran cannot "save" Syria.  Nor should they.  Only the Syrians can save Syria, of course.  What Russia, China and Iran can do is stand by those forces in Syria who are carrying the heavy burden of fighting against the US/NATO/al-Qaeda/Israeli coalition.  So while the behind the scenes role of China, Iran and even Hezbollah does not appear to have much to do with the events in Moscow, I am also sure that Russia alone would appear much weaker to the Americans than a informal but nevertheless highly effective alliance of Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah.

To repeat - this is only a small but victorious skirmish in a much larger battle of a even bigger war and this is a small victory of words only, not of actual facts on the ground.  Things can still change a million times over and over again.

But even with these caveats and disclaimers, I call this one as an unequivocal victory for Syria and its *real* friends.

The Saker

Interview of Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov

The West ‘prays’ Russia and China will continue blocking Syria action

RT reports:

The West has “no appetite” for a military intervention in Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Saturday. At the same time, Moscow’s intelligence shows the Arab country’s chemical arsenal is “so far” secured, he revealed.

“No one has any appetite for intervention. Behind the scenes, I have a feeling they are praying that Russia and China go on blocking intervention, as sanctioning it would mean they must act – and they are not ready,” Lavrov told journalists on a flight back to Moscow from an EU summit in Brussels.

The FM was assessing the current mood in the UN Security Council after NATO cleared the stationing of Patriot missiles in Turkey. Ankara and the alliance say this is a containment tool to prevent any further Syrian violence from spilling over the border, but political analysts believe the step might signal the West and their Middle East allies are preparing to intervene in Syria.

Chemical weapons ‘so far’ secured, but US needs to ‘decide on priorities’

Syria’s chemical arsenal remains one of the major international concerns since the topic first emerged in July. Lavrov says that President Bashar Assad’s government is doing whatever’s possible to secure the weapons.

“So far, the arsenal is under control. The Syrian authorities have gathered all the stock in one or two locations. It used to be scattered all over the country,” the FM said adding that Moscow and Washington’s intelligence agree on the matter.

Syria is reportedly in possession of nerve agents, including mustard gas, as well as the Scud missiles needed to deliver them. The country is a non-signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws their production.

Since July, Assad’s government has repeatedly stated that chemical weapons will not be used on Syria, but Syrian officials have not excluded the possibility they might be deployed in the event of “a foreign attack.”

The threat has drawn international condemnation.

The EU, US and many others are also worried that Syria’s chemical weapons might fall into the hands of the Syrian rebels, some of whom have links to Al-Qaeda.

But Lavrov pointed out at some inconsistency in Washington’s approach where the chemical arsenal issues overlap with US support for the Syrian opposition.

“Our American partners admit that the main threat is rebels seizing the chemical arsenal. The opposition forces include all kinds of groups even ones the US has recently proclaimed terror groups. We tell them: ‘Guys but you support the opposition and its armed struggle. This armed struggle might result in exactly what you fear. You decide on your priorities.’ But there is no clear response to that,” said Lavrov.

‘No one will win this war’

Russia refuses to act as an intermediary trying to Assad into fleeing, Lavrov also said. At the same time Moscow is not going to accommodate the Syrian president should he step down: “Assad is not going anywhere, no matter what anyone says, be it China or Russia.”

On being asked whether the rebels will eventually oust President Assad, Lavrov replied: “Listen, no one is going to win this war.”

The situation in Syria remains volatile with new deaths reported daily by human rights groups. According to those reports, the death toll in the country which has been engulfed in the civil unrest since March 2011 has exceeded 40,000 people. The UN Human Rights Committee also says the conflict made 164,000 refugees.

Moscow insists the Syrian conflict should be resolved through direct and unconditional negotiations between the government and opposition. Russia insists the country should be given the right to self-determination and neither side should be supported.

The US, the UK, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and a number of other countries in the West and the Middle East, on the other hand, call on President Assad to step down immediately and grant financial and military support to the Syrian opposition forces. But despite all the support, the Syrian National Coalition which was deemed to become an umbrella for all the Syrian opposition groups still failed to unify Assad’s opponents and therefore does not have leverage on all the forces fighting the goverment’s troops on the ground.

The UN says the Syrian war is growing more sectarian than civic with each day and that there is no end in sight to the conflict.