GRANews-Episode 2 Gaddafi's end

The tragic end of Muhammar Gaddafi

(special issue of GRAnews channel)

Global Revolutionary Alliance News with Natella Speranskaya (Russia) as a host "Global revolutionary approach to the Lybia occupation"  

Dissonance with Alexandre Latsa (France) "Sarkozy and his atlanticism" 

Arise! with Antonio Grego (Italy) "Berlusconi's  betrayal"

Stratagems with Leo Savin (Russia) "Arab spring as the result of the network centric war"

Dissent with Mark Sleboda (USA) "Right To Protect doctrine is criminal one"

 

Topics: 

GRANews-Episode 3. Syria - Armageddon

Episode 3. Syria - Armageddon

The Problem of Dajjal.

Natella Speranskaya: Syria - the last call and final mobilization.

Leo Savin (Stratagems): the oil factor in geopolitics of Syrian conflict.

Bernard-Henri Levy - not dead (yet).

The geopolitics and the eschatology. The symbolism of Damascus.

Tim Kirby (Offensive): the double standards of USA.

Putin's Russia stands firmly

Mark Sleboda (Dissent): the Syria in new IR world structure.

Topics: 

Interview with Orazio Maria Gnerre,

GRA: Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

Orazio Maria Gnerre : The first weapon in the hands of the West is clearly the the media power, through which are fighting and winning virtual conflicts. Very often a contrived news is much more advantageous than a real victory, and who knows this auric law, in the time of the liquid information and of the Reign of Quantity,  exploits it in his favor to fully exhaust of its possibilities. But the ambivalence that characterizes certain social phenomena show itself more than ever: that is why the dissenting information, promoted through channels alternatuve to the mainstream portals and noticiaries, in the unfoldment of the post-modern disorder, is ble to filter more easily through the mesh of the dogma of the media. The alleged weakness of Syria in respect of the attempt to destabilization operated by organized terrorism on behalf of the West, of the Gulf Countries and of Israel turns out to be nothing more than yet another fallacious biased claim . Syria has to his advantage - in addition to a well-trained army, an unwavering institutional structure , a strong regional alliance with Iran (which announced that he had already committed its troops on the scenario of conflict) and, last but not least, the trust of the people that manifests itself in the solid national cohesion around the President - the alliance of superpowers like Russia and China, that claims at the UN his political weight by opposing strenuously to the possibility of any external military intervention for normalization. The only solution that promises at this stage, provides international support of Russia and China, two of the pins of the multipolar turning engaged in the defense of the rights of the Peoples, and a possible mediation between the warring factions assigned to Iran, which has already been proposed for this role.

Tags: 

An interview with Alen Horvat

GRA: Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

A.H.: This is not prediction in the right meaning of the word, but only a wish of Western imperialists and their Middle Eastern allies. Theirs "predictions" are only a part of psychological war against Syria, only a method among others of the information warfare. There is no such power inside Syria which is capable to overthrow Assad only by its own power. Only no-fly zone would give them a little chance, but this is also too risky because of the Syrian air defence.

GRA : How likely is a forceful U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict and attempt to violently overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad (or the U.S. will keep a distance and will not dare to risk)? Under circumstances of such a possibility, what consequences it will bring to America itself?

A.H.: USA is in the middle of the presidential race, presidential elections are in two months and because of this Obama administration will definitely not risk a war. Limited intervention as in the case of Libya is also very questionable. Foreign attack on Syria would mean activation of Iranian-Syrian mutual defence agreement, in other words it will mean war with Iran. The fact is, USA does not want war with Iran, because war would be too harmful for the USA and whole world. The objective of USA was a orange revolution in Syria and breaking the Syria-Iran pact without of big war. They lost the first round and worse for them, they have lost their moral ground and legitimacy as the world leader - as Brzezinski have said. We are not living in the time of Iraq invasion, the world has changed. U.S. one-sided actions could lead to dissolution of UN.

 
Tags: 

An interview with Daniele Scalea

An interview with Daniele Scalea, scientific secretary of the Italian Institute of Geopolitics (IsAG), co-editor-in-chief of the Italian journal Geopolitica.

GRA : Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

D.S.: I think that the Syrian regime has so far shown a stunning solidity. There was a period in which Syrian army lost a substantial part of national territory, but it has managed to reconquer it; there was then a surprise attack to Damascus (similar to the surprise attack against Tripoli which toppled Gaddafi), but the government has regained control of the city; there were some important defections among the power establishment, but the latter remain so far close and gathered around Bashar al-Assad. So, I don't think that a violent overthrow of Syrian government is imminent nor probable, except for the case of a foreign invasion.

Thus who can bring order to this situation is a NATO-led invasion (which would obviously create an order favorable to US hegemony, which could also be a "disorder", i.e. a sectarian division of Syria) or a peaceful negotiated agreement between involved great powers, which would put an end to foreign interference that is feeding the civil war in Syria.

GRA: How likely is a forceful U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict and attempt to violently overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad (or the U.S. will keep a distance and will not dare to risk)? Under circumstances of such a possibility, what consequences it will bring to America itself?

D.S.: I hold really unlikely a direct armed intervention of US in the Syrian conflict, i.e. an intervention further that the arming of rebels (which is probably already underway). New US strategy provide for the use of proxy countries in war - especially in the Near East, since US focus is shifting towards Far East - with at most a limited direct contribution. Lybian war is the model: France, UK, Italy and Qatar were in the frontline, while US remained on the second row. In the Syrian case proxy roles is assumed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It is so more probable an intervention by those countries. But I believe it is unlikely too. In fact, such an action would risk to bring in the conflict also Iran, and then US would be obliged to intervene in first person. That is a dream scenario for Israel, and also for a part of US establishment, but I guess that the main part of Washington rulers - and especially Obama and his entourage - want to avoid it.

An interview with Giacomo Guarini

GRA : Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

G.G.: I do not think that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. At the moment it seems that the anti-government fighters are for sure a strong factor of destabilization in the country, but they are not able to get a substantial and prolonged control of relevant or strategic areas of the country itself. The government indeed keeps the control of the country and seems to enjoy still a wide support from its people; moreover it demonstrated its resilience in case of strong attacks such as that one of the 18th July, when top figures of the establishment died in a bomb strike: the political and military reaction of the establishment after that event showed its firm structure and its strong determination in defeating anti-government forces.

However, according to informed sources we can suppose that the presence of foreign fighters in the country is going to highly increase in the short term. Assuming that, I doubt that all this would drastically upset the actual scenario, even if there would be a consequent increase of waves of destabilization along the country.

Assuming the hypothesis of the end of the regime, a new order will strongly depend on the will, power and ability of regional and continental powers. Referring to these last ones, Russia and China, we can say that for a series of reasons they can be considered much more interested in the stability of the region than the US which, on the other side, seem to have compensated the partial loss of control of the area with a “geopolitical of chaos”; a strategy marked also by the incitement to conflicts in the area (starting from the rivalry between Sunnis and Shiites) and – in the case of Syria – working on opening deep rifts inside the complex ethno-religious composition of the country. .  

GRA : How likely is a forceful U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict and attempt to violently overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad (or the U.S. will keep a distance and will not dare to risk)? Under circumstances of such a possibility, what consequences it will bring to America itself?

G.G.: Two statements made by journalists are in my opinion to be considered simple but true: “Syria is not Libya” and “Nothing before US elections”.

Syria is not Libya because it is in a geographical and political position marked by strong interests and fragile political equilibria which could easily bring, in case of conflict, to unpredictable extensions and consequences. Without considering Syrian weaponry potential and the strategic support it would probably get by foreign powers: two factors to keep in much higher consideration than in the Libyan case.

Going on the other statement, a US intervention would be quite improbable before elections, considering the referred unpredictability of  the conflict, which could easily damage the run of Obama for re-election. Such a risky choice like a war, would probably be acceptable in an electoral campaign only if the actual president was in an unfavorable position of “nothing to lose” in the competition against his adversaries.

Tags: 

An interview with Claudio Moffa

GRA : Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

Claudio Moffa: La crisi della Siria è di difficile lettura, perché l’analisi della situazione subisce ogni giorno le interferenze di disegni politici volti a destabilizzare e rovesciare il regime di Assad. Due soli esempi recenti, tratti dalla cronaca italiana: uno speaker del TG 1, nei titoli di apertura, parla di 200.000 profughi, il corrispondente nel suo servizio di 2000. Un titolo di un take d’agenzia annuncia: partono gli ultimo osservatori dell’ONU, evocando lo scenario iracheno poco prima dell’aggressione del marzo 2003.Vai a leggere il testo, e scopri che in partenza sono i membri di una missione ONUad hoc, e che nel paese restano in realtà 90 osservatori delle Nazioni Unite. A me pare che il regime possa reggere,a meno che non ci sia una aggressione tipo Libia: al vertice dei Non Allineati è stata confermata la linea del dialogo e della non interferenza negli affari interni dei paesi membri dell’OU. Anche  presidente egiziano Morsi, pur schierandosi con Assad, ha detto che non ci deve essere intervento militare.

D’altro canto, che ci sia una crisi è evidente, ma è altrettanto certo che essa è iniziata, come nella rivolta di Bengasi in Libia del febbraio 2012, grazie all’intervento di gruppi terroristi stranieri legati ai servizi britannici e a Israele. Una deriva inaccettabile:credo che la base di partenza debba essere la difesa del legittimo governo siriano, dentro un’azione di pushing per il dialogo tra siriani. La posizione della Russia e della Cina sono al proposito fondamentali: la proposta iraniana di un coinvolgimento dei paesi della regione nella fuoriuscita dalla crisi è altrettanto utile. Il problema è però l’Occidente e le solite forze oltranziste che sostengono l’opposizione armata alimentando il fuoco della guerra.   

 

GRA: How likely is a forceful U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict and attempt to violently overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad (or the U.S. will keep a distance and will not dare to risk)? Under circumstances of such a possibility, what consequences it will bring to America itself?

Claudio Moffa: Non so se gli USA hanno veramente intenzione di intervenire, almeno adesso, in Siria: innanzitutto l’Amministrazione tutta deve fare i conti con la Russia, la Cina e paesi come l’Iran e i suoi alleati che sono assolutamente contrari a un intervento cosiddetto “umanitario” del tipo di quello della NATO in Libia. Inoltre, come nello scenario iraniano, l’Amministrazione  è divisa, con Obama che nei fatti non comanda ma che al di là delle parole appare più cauto, e la Clinton che guida i falchi puntando al rovesciamento del governo di Damasco: ma la loro politica appare quella di uno “step by step” per far collassare in modo “naturale” il regime siriano, armando i ribelli, amplificando mediaticamente la crisi al fine di aumentare il numero di profughi e dunque le condizioni di un “intervento” umanitario, suscitando schermaglie con la vicina Turchia dove Erdogan deve fare ancora i conti con la vecchia guardia kemalista, che è sempre stata pro israeliana. Del resto lo stesso attacco alla Siria è nella logica della strategia “step by step”, con l’occhio puntato verso l’Iran. Non ce la fanno, e quindi seminano il caos dovunque possono, tentando una tecnica di accerchiamento a carciofo, foglia dopo foglia.

 
Tags: 

An interview with Max Russo

GRA : Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

M.R.:  While talk of the inevitability of President Assad's fall seems arrogant and presumptuous (certainly not out of character for the West), I am certain these expectations are governed by very definitive strategic planning proposals and logistical maneuvers that are well under way. This does not guarantee the regime's fall, but it certainly explains the confident tone of the western geopolitical narrative. We must remember that the West is unaccustomed to being opposed by super powers comparable to itself in the Middle East region, or even by collective alliances capable of stemming or even significantly slowing its imperial ambitions. From Afghanistan to Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and beyond, the West has imposed its collective will upon sovereign states virtually unmolested, and it expects very little in terms of real opposition from anyone on the Syrian front.

On the other hand, this confident tone within the western media has proceeded apace for the better part of a year and a half, while Mr. Assad appears to remain in the driver's seat, well in command of the situation. NATO's military performance in Libya was not as swift, decisive or impressive as one might have expected given its track record since the early 90's. The Syrian regime is not the Libyan regime. It will fiercely resist and hold out much longer. It is much better prepared to do so, and also benefits from its close alliance with Hezbollah (Lebanon), Iran, and Russia. It would also seem that Syria maintains a stronger level of cultural cohesion among its peoples in spite of religious differences, not having succumbed to the tribalized disputes and conflicts characteristic of weaker regimes. In terms of the information war inside Syria (combined with mounting atrocities by foreign terrorists), the latter factor ensures Mr. Assad's victory on that front. He need not worry about losing the hearts of the people. The loyalty of the average Syrian remains.

Tags: 

An interview with Filip Martens

GRA : Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

F.M.:  In the beginning of the Syrian conflict, there were obviously sincere demonstrations for political reforms. And president al-Assad did listen to them: he started a political proces of reforms, which resulted in a new constitution, parliamentary elections and a new government that is composed of all political tendencies in Syria. Moreover, presidential elections will take place in 2014 and the new Syrian constitution clearly states that the president can remain just two terms.

The terrorists consist of jihadists and by Saudi Arabia and Qatar financed mercenaries from Turkey, Libanon, Jordanië, Libya, Chechnya, Yemen, Afghanistan, … They are supported by Syrian Muslim Brothers and by American, British, French, Turkish and Qatarese Special Forces. In addition, criminal gangs abuse the insecurity to rob and plunder. So once again the Western media play a game of disinformation.

Only since about two months, the Syrian army strikes back hard. And of course with extreme caution in order to spare the civilian population as much as possible. First there was the agreement with the Arab League in which the Syrian goverment promised to withdraw the army from the cities and to respect a truce. The Syrian goverment has kept its word, but the terrorists only abused this truce by immediately infiltrating the cities where the Syrian army withdrew.

Than there was the mediation attempt by the U.N. and the observers. Here happened the same. The Syrian army kept itself as good as possible to the armistice, but again the terrorists only abused the situation to sow terror, to infiltrate and – with help of the West, the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) and Turkey – to spread disinformation and lies. This was followed by the attack in Damascus on 18th July 2012, which killed some senior officials of the Syrian state. And afterwards, there was the withdrawal of the U.N. observers.

After all this and after 18 months of practicing patience, the Syrian army decided to eradicate terrorism. Now the army rules firmly and the terrorists are on the run. Daraa, Homs en Damascus are largely safe. In Aleppo, the terrorists are also driven out and this city will be again under full control of the Syrian authorities very soon. Of course, there are still serious incidents, like bombings and shootings. But this absolutely doesn’t mean that the jihadists and mercenaries still occupy entire neighbourhoods and terrorise the civilians. These acts of violence are the last convulsions of the terrorists. Wherever the terrorists resurface, they are immediately eradicated by the Syrian army, that can rely on the strong support of the people.

Tags: 

An interview with Alfredo RR de Sousa

GRA : Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

A.R.R.S: The western media, clearly on mercenary basis regarding atlantist and zionist’s matters, has no intention on revealing precisely the facts occurring in Syria. Instead of what these media jerks pathetically intent to endorse as true, Bashar al Assad’s government holds tactical and strategic precedence at military angle, and has defeated the rebels in Aleppo and restored control  over Damascus. Despite north-american and their european satellites, alongside the zionist entity, desire to control the situation, the final victory of the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic is only a matter of time.

GRA: How likely is a forceful U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict and attempt to violently overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad (or the U.S. will keep a distance and will not dare to risk)? Under circumstances of such a possibility, what consequences it will bring to America itself?

A.R.R.S: I do not suppose EUA has conditions to any kind of direct intervention at the present context. That  would be a political and military adventure of unpredictable consequences, owing to a military attack against Syria is, at the same time, envolving libanese Hizbollah’s militias such as the Islamic Republic of Iran’s armed force and of the zionist entity. It is, as anyone can ascertain, the threshold for a war of vast proportions, able to submerge the EUA, and even the Western as a whole, in a deep swamp enough to make Vietnan looks like a picnic. 

GRA: How do you assess Russia's position in this issue? Is Russia able to compromise, yielding to the wiles of the West (for example, the proposal of Hillary Clinton to establish demilitarized zone), despite the fact, that Russia has already received a very difficult experience in the situation in Libya?

A.R.R.S: I entirely trust on the strong disposition exhibited so far by president Putin for the no acceptance of any form of military intervention at the syrian conflict.The ba’athist’s Syria has always been a staunch Moscow’s ally,  under Hafez al Assad as well as today at his son Bashar, keeping on Tartur, as we all know, the only naval base on Mediterrian of the Russian War Navy. Therefore, allow Syria to be converted into an EUA and its allies’ satelite-State would be a catastrophic event for the great slavic nation‘s geopolitical affairs, which will oppose itself to this maneuver at all costs. Furthermore, the Islamic Republic of Iran, in consonance with the russian’s position, is also in terms to obliterate western’s indemnities in the area.

 
Tags: 

An interview with Flávio Gonçalves

 

GRA : Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

F. G. : As far as we can see it’s a false prediction, given Assad’s forces are winning on the field (thanks to China and Russia pressuring the UN’s Security Council not to intervene, remember Gadhafi’s forces were also winning until the westerners bombed their positions), but the media will insist on it to convince both our politicians and voters until everyone believes a change of regime is the only solution for Syria. If we can’t trust the UN to bring order, what other political power exists?

GRA : How likely is a forceful U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict and attempt to violently overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad (or the U.S. will keep a distance and will not dare to risk)? Under circumstances of such a possibility, what consequences it will bring to America itself?

F. G.: That depends on who wins this year’s elections, Romney (a Mormon, a Christian sect far more radical than most Muslim fundamentalists) or Obama. Obama will not risk it outside the UN, just like in Libya (remember Sarkozy had to thrown the first punch).

GRA : How do you assess Russia's position in this issue? Is Russia able to compromise, yielding to the wiles of the West (for example, the proposal of Hillary Clinton to establish demilitarized zone), despite the fact, that Russia has already received a very difficult experience in the situation in Libya?

F.G. : After the experience with Libya, I have to be honest my opinion regarding Russia, Venezuela and Iran was a bit shaken, personally I believe they were all to coward to act. Will they compromise now or risk a world war? I’m not seeing any of them, not even Iran right next door, risking a world war, and they can make up all the excuses they want, I will still behold it (and I’m sure the same goes for the USA strategists) as an act of cowardice if they fail to send in troops to defend Syria.

An interview with Vincenzo Maddaloni

 

GRA : Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

V.M. : At the moment there are no shortcuts International to stop the civil war. A no-fly zone is impractical in the skies of Syria. Because unlike Libya, the Syrian air force is true that before being annihilated can do much damage. And because Syria is defended by anti-aircraft missile system among the most modern, ceded by Russia, that the Israelis treat you with respect. In these circumstances I do not believe in a fall of the Syrian regime.

GRA : How likely is a forceful U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict and attempt to violently overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad (or the U.S. will keep a distance and will not dare to risk)? Under circumstances of such a possibility, what consequences it will bring to America itself?

V.M. : The latest confirmation comes from the “New York Times” a few days ago, when he writes that Obama "is increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts (literally, ed) to build a coalition of countries agree to cut forcefully government of President Bashar al-Assad. " So if "is increasing" means that the aid to the rebels already there. Namely, that the United States was already in violation of the UN Charter and attempted to subvert outside a sovereign country. Now he says "double their efforts". That is more than a year the U.S. is waging a war by proxy against Syria and the ineffable “New York Times” (with the retinue of West newspapers and TV news) there pretends that what has happened so far was for a "diplomatic Regulation ".

GRA : How do you assess Russia's position in this issue? Is Russia able to compromise, yielding to the wiles of the West (for example, the proposal of Hillary Clinton to establish demilitarized zone), despite the fact, that Russia has already received a very difficult experience in the situation in Libya?

V.M. :  Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, continues to accuse Russia of selling military helicopters to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, a charge denied by Moscow, who spoke of easy maintenance and updating of helicopters provided several years ago. But in addition to the allegations Hillary Clinton also addressed pressing invitations to Russia to cooperate in the creation of a demilitarized zone. We can only hope that Russia will not agree to take part in these "diplomatic initiatives". Washington wants to have their cake and eat it too. Break down and kill (yes, kill) Bashar, and have a nice friendly regime in Syria. And he wants everyone to be in agreement with the plan including Russia and China. Even if, collapsed Bashar thugs come to power, as happened in Libya

Pages