Schlagwort-Archive: #Assad

Rubikon – Magazin für die kritische Masse | Entscheidung in Syrien

von Günter Meyer

Foto: Karin Leukefeld

03.07.2017

Entscheidung in Syrien

Ist Syrien auf dem Weg zum Frieden oder zur militärischen Eskalation durch die USA?

 

Bereits 1920, als die Staatsgrenzen Syriens und seiner Nachbarstaaten gezogen wurden, war die Region ein Spielball der Großmächte. Fast hundert Jahre später

Quelle: Rubikon – Magazin für die kritische Masse | Entscheidung in Syrien

President al-Assad: Astana talks will focus on ceasefire and allowing terrorist groups to join reconciliation — Réseau International (english)

Damascus, SANA – President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to the Japanese TBS TV channel in which he said the upcoming Astana talks will be about talking between the government and the

über President al-Assad: Astana talks will focus on ceasefire and allowing terrorist groups to join reconciliation — Réseau International (english)

Die Ukraine zwischen Faschismus, Pöbelherrschaft und Zerfall

Die Ukraine zwischen Faschismus, Pöbelherrschaft und Zerfall Und jetzt, im Mai 2016, wird es immer deutlicher, wenn nicht sogar unleugbar, dass das ganze „ukrainische Projekt“ ein völliges Schlamassel ist, womöglich noch schlimmer und weitaus gefährlicher als das Schlamassel in Libyen oder im Irak. von TheSaker                      […]

https://propagandaschau.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/die-ukraine-zwischen-faschismus-poebelherrschaft-und-zerfall/

Syriens Präsident im Gespräch – ARD interviewt Assad

Syriens Präsident im Gespräch mit Thomas Aders

„Bis das Volk mich nicht mehr will“

Stand: 01.03.2016 20:15 Uhr
„Im ARD-Interview hat der syrische Machthaber Assad seine ganz eigene Weltsicht dargestellt: Von einem Bürgerkrieg will er nicht sprechen, zurücktreten will er nur, „wenn das syrische Volk es will“. Hier finden Sie das Interview in voller Länge.“
Als PDF im Anhang:

President Assad to ARD TV: Terrorists breached cessation of hostilities agreement from the very first hour, Syrian Army refrained from retaliating! 1. March 2016

(Interview in full length) PDF attached:
President Assad to ARD TV_ Syrian Arab News Agency 20160301

http://sana.sy/en/?p=70991

KenFM im Gespräch mit Karin Leukefeld über den Status Quo in Syrien – YouTube

Veröffentlicht 01.03.2016

 

Veröffentlicht am 01.03.2016

Syrien ist geopolitisch viel zu wichtig, als es den Syrern zu überlassen. Es ging nie um Assad, so wie es nie um Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak ging. Die gesamte Region hat schlicht das Pech, dass sie schon immer die Begehrlichkeiten des gerade herrschenden Imperiums weckte.

Man muss Syrien als Teil eines Domino-Spiels erkennen, dessen andere Steine seit dem 11. September 2001 schon zu Fall gebracht wurden. Afghanistan, Irak, Libyen wurden bereits im Vorfeld in die Steinzeit zurück gebombt. Das dabei bewusst erzeugte Chaos hilft vor allem den Industrienationen, billig an den Rohstoff Nr. 1 heran zu kommen. Erdöl.

Wer Syrien kontrolliert, schlägt aber weitere Fliegen mit einer Klappe.
In Syrien laufen diverse Pipelines auf, die Gas und Öl aus Russland und dem Iran Richtung Europa schleusen. Der Krieg gegen Syrien ist also vor allem ein Krieg gegen ein wieder erstarktes Russland und gegen die aufstrebende Regionalmacht Iran. Wer hat Interesse an dieser Behinderung?

Allen voran die USA, die mit der Zerschlagung Syriens auch den syrisch-russischen Militärhafen Tartus unter ihre Kontrolle bringen wollen. Tartus und das auf der Krim liegende Sevastopol bilden eine Einheit. Das Spiel der NATO ist offensichtlich, es fehlt den Strategen in Washington an der Fähigkeit zu Tarnen und zu Täuschen.

Der zweite große Strippenzieher in Syrien heißt Saudi-Arabien. Das Land ist der Terrorpate Nr. 1 der Region und stellte den größten Teil der Personen, die offiziell für den 11. September verantwortlich gewesen sein sollen. Allen voran Osama Bin Laden, dessen Familie bis heute enge Kontakte zur Bush-Familie pflegt. Saudi-Arabien ist offizieller Sponsor für mehr Demokratie in Damaskus! Ein Treppenwitz.

Aber auch Israel wäre mehr als glücklich, wenn Syrien endlich in seine Bestandteile zerlegt werden würde. Dann könnte die Besatzungsmacht Israel die seinerzeit erbeuteten Golanhöhen final behalten. Hier geht es vor allem um Wasser.

Kommen wir nach Deutschland.

(…)

 

Stephen KINZER: On Syria: Thank you, Russia!; The Boston Globe, Feb 13, 2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, Feb 15, 2016

In the US voices of sanity are increasing – this calls Realpolitik, entering into negotiations on a par.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/12/syria-thank-you-russia/UNKMxrzQvvAt8j4sJH03mJ/story.html?event=event25

On Syria: Thank you, Russia!
By Stephen Kinzer*
The Boston Globe
Feb 13, 2016

The Boston Globe is an American daily newspaper based in Boston, Massachusetts. Foun-ded in 1872 by Charles H. Taylor, it was privately held until 1973, when it went public as Affiliated Publications. The company was acquired in 1993 by The New York Times Com-pany; two years later Boston.com was established as the newspaper’s online edition. In 2011, a BostonGlobe.com subscription site was launched. In 2013, the newspaper and websites were purchased by John W. Henry, a businessman whose other holdings include the Boston Red Sox and Liverpool F.C.

Once again, Moscow has shown itself better able to make strategic choices than we are. Russia is not an ideal partner for the United States, but sometimes its interests align with ours. In those cases, we should drop our Cold War hostility and work with Russia. The best place to start is Syria.

American policy toward Syria was misbegotten from the start of the current conflict five years ago. By immediately adopting the hardest possible line—“Assad must go”—we removed any incentive for opposition groups to negotiate for peaceful change. That helped propel Syria into its bloody nightmare.

Russia, which has suffered repeated terror attacks from Islamic fanatics, is threatened by the chaos and ungoverned space that now defines Syria. So are we. Russia’s policy should be ours: prevent the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government, craft a new regime that would include Assad or his supporters, and then work for a cease-fire.

The fall of Assad would create a catastrophic power vacuum like those that have turned Iraq and Libya into terrorist havens. This would be bad for the United States, and even worse for Russia and Iran. We should recognize this common interest, and work with countries that want what we want.

This may seem eminently logical, but the very suggestion is hateful in Washington. It violates a central precept of the liberal/conservative, Republican-Democrat foreign policy consensus: Russia is our eternal enemy, so anything that promotes Russia’s interests automatically undermines ours — and that goes double for Iran. Instead of clinging to this dangerously outdated with-us-or-against-us mantra, we should realize that countries with which we differ in some areas can be our partner in others. Russia is an ideal example.

We would have been more secure as a nation, and might have contributed to a more stable world, if we had followed Russia’s foreign policy lead in the past. The govern-ment Moscow supported in Afghanistan, run by Mohammad Najibullah from 1987-92, was more honest and progressive than any that has ruled Afghanistan since Ameri-can-backed forces deposed Najibullah. Later, Russia urged the United States not to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. They were right both times, and we were wrong. In Syria, Russia is right for a third time. Keeping the odious Assad in power, at least for the moment, best serves American interests. The alternative could be an ISIS “caliphate” stretching from the Mediterranean to the Tigris River.

No military solution is possible in Syria. Continued fighting only adds to the toll of death and horror. Russia wants a negotiated settlement. We are reluctant, because our so-called friends in the region want to keep fighting. They calculate continuing war to be in their interest. It may be — but it is not in the interest of the United States.

Opposition groups in Syria that we have half-heartedly supported refuse to negotiate until a cease-fire is in place. By accepting that formula, the United States guarantees continued war. Instead, negotiations should be aimed at creating a new regime that both Russia and the United States could support. From there, peace can grow.

How long Assad remains in power is not crucial to the United States. Weakening ISIS and al Qaeda is. Fighting those forces is the policy of Russia and Iran. We should recognize this confluence of interests, and work with every country or faction that shares our goals in Syria.

Our reflexive rejection of all cooperation with Russia is a throwback to a vanished era. It prevents us from taking decisive steps to ease the crisis in Syria. Its effects are also being felt in Europe. The Obama administration recently announced a four-fold increase in spending for troop deployments near Russia. Russia responded with military maneuvers near its border with Ukraine. This spiral of tension ignores the reality that Europe can never be truly secure without Russian cooperation.

Refusing to work with Russia hurts us more than it hurts Russia. Seeking avenues of cooperation would benefit both, and contribute to global security. Syria is the best place to start. Russia’s strategy — fight ISIS and al Qaeda, defend Assad, and seek a cease-fire that preserves his regime in some form — is the least bad option. Until we accept it, Syrian blood will continue to flow.

* Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.

KINZER_On_Syria-Thanks-Russia160213.pdf

America’s “Dirty War on Syria”: Bashar al Assad and Political ReformBy Prof. Tim Anderson

America’s “Dirty War on Syria”: Bashar al Assad and Political ReformBy Prof. Tim Anderson

Global Research, December 04, 2015
Url of this article:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-dirty-war-on-syria-bashar-al-assad-and-political-reform/5492661

ASSAD-SYRIE

It should go without saying that the internal political processes of a sovereign country belongs to the people of that country, and no-one else. Nevertheless, as Washington insists on a prerogative to determine who can or cannot lead another country, some background on Bashar al Assad and the political reform process in Syria might be useful.
We find little reasonable discussion of either, in western circles, after the Islamist insurrection of 2011. Instead, the wartime discussion descended into caricatures, conditioned by ‘regime-change’ fervour and bloody war, of a bloodthirsty ‘brutal dictator’ mindlessly repressing and slaughtering his own people. None of this helps sensible or principled understandings. Fortunately, there are a range of Syrian and independent sources that allow us to put together a more realistic picture. If we believed most western media reports we would think President Assad had launched repeated and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, including the gassing of children.
We might also think he heads an ‘Alawi regime’, where a 12% minority represses a Sunni Muslim majority, crushing a popular ‘revolution’ which, only in later years, was ‘hijacked’ by extremists. A key problem with that story is the President’s great popularity at home. The fact that there has been popular dissatisfaction with corruption and cronyism, fear of the secret police, and that an authoritarian state maintains a type of personality cult, does not negate the man’s genuine popularity. Even most of his enemies admit that. We have to look a bit deeper. (…)