Texts

An interview with Alexandre Latsa

 
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.L.:Technically and militarily, it seems to me that the Syrian army has the ability to defend the constitutional order in Syria as it has close to 500,000 soldiers, and also because the army has been well-trained and equipped by the Soviet Union and then, by today’s Russia.

Tags: 

Интервью с Али Реза Джалали

 
- Западные СМИ уверенно утверждают, что падение нынешнего сирийского режима неизбежно. Как вы считаете, насколько основателен этот прогноз и существует ли некая политическая сила, которая способна навести порядок в этой ситуации?
- Текущий сирийский кризис - главный геополитический вызов на Ближнем Востоке, оказывающий значительное воздействие на стабильность в международных отношениях, как в регионе, так и в мире. Можно сказать, что данная международная проблема является началом новой эры и означает переход от так называемого однополярного мира к многополярному мировому порядку.
Как мы видели в последние месяцы, отношения между странами-членами Совета Безопасности ООН дали большую трещину, наметив западную ось (США, Великобритания, Франция), которая поддерживает сирийскую оппозицию, противоположно евразийской оси (Россия, Китай), поддерживающей Башара Асада и стабильность Дамасского режима.
С другой стороны, в регионе Ближнего Востока можно увидеть две другие оси: Саудовская Аравия, Турция и Катар (союзники США) против «Оси Сопротивления» (Иран, Сирия, Хизбалла и некоторые палестинские партии).
Катар и Саудовская Аравия направили свою пропаганду в СМИ против сирийского правительства, в то время, как Турция поддерживает оружием и деньгами сирийскую оппозицию (сторонники Аль-Каиды, Братья-Мусульмане [сирийское отделение], либералы, террористы из арабских стран, Афганистан, Европа).

 

Tags: 

Интервью с Еленой Громовой

 
- Западные СМИ уверенно утверждают, что падение нынешнего сирийского режима неизбежно. Как вы считаете, насколько основателен этот прогноз и существует ли некая политическая сила, которая способна навести порядок в этой ситуации?
- Прежде всего, хотела бы сказать (и это моя твердая позиция), что в Сирии нет никакого «режима». Есть законное правительство, есть легитимный Президент, которому народ оказал доверие в 2000 году и подавляющим большинством подтвердил свое доверие в 2007 году на выборах. Если кому-то 7-летний срок президентства кажется большим, то по этому поводу могу сказать следующее: во Франции президент избирается точно так же, на 7-летний срок, но никто не говорит, что во Франции «режим». Если Башара Асада обвиняют в том, что он сын Президента Хафеза Асада, то можно взглянуть на США, где были Буш-старший и Буш-младший. Но, опять же, никто не называет власти США режимом.
Зато эти страны и другие государства, враждебные Сирии, и подконтрольные им СМИ все неугодные им правительства называют «режимами», иногда добавляя прилагательное «диктаторские». Такая риторика используется исключительно для оправдания преступных действий против неугодных им стран. Мол, «мы не на страну нападаем, а нехороший режим свергаем»… Фашизм под оберткой «демократии» и «защиты народа от режима»… Сколько при этих действиях погибает людей – это «борцов с режимами» абсолютно не волнует – они несут знамя своей псевдодемократии, ступая по миллионам человеческих тел.

Tags: 

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: 

Intervista a Orazio Maria Gnerre

GRA: I media occidentali dicono fiduciosamente che la caduta dell’attuale regime Siriano è inevitabile. Secondo lei, quanto può essere fondata questa predizione, e c’è qualche potere politico che può portare ordine in questa situazione?

Orazio Maria Gnerre: La prima arma nelle mani dell’Occidente è chiaramente il potere mediatico, attraverso il quale si combattono e vincono veri e propri conflitti virtuali. Molto spesso una notizia artificiosa risulta molto più vantaggiosa di una vittoria reale, e chi conosce questa legge aurea, nei tempi dell’informazione liquida e del Regno della  Quantità, la sfrutta a suo favore fino all’esaurimento delle sue possibilità. Ma l’ambivalenza che caratterizza certi fenomeni sociali si dimostra oggi più che mai: è per questo che l’informazione dissenziente, promossa attraverso canali alternativi ai portali ed ai notiziari mainstream, nel dischiudersi del disordine post-moderno, riesce a filtrare con maggiore facilità attraverso le maglie del dogma mediatico. La presunta debolezza della Siria nei confronti del tentativo di destabilizzazione operato da parte del terrorismo organizzato per conto dell’Occidente, dei Paesi del Golfo e di Israele si rivela essere null’altro che un’ennesima fallace pretesa dell’informazione faziosa. La Siria conta a suo vantaggio – oltre che un esercito ben addestrato, una struttura istituzionale incrollabile, una salda alleanza regionale con l’Iran (che ha comunicato di aver già stanziato proprie truppe sullo scenario del conflitto) e, non ultima, la fiducia del popolo che si manifesta nella solida coesione nazionale attorno al Presidente – l’alleanza di superpotenze al pari di Russia e Cina, che in sede ONU fanno valere il proprio peso politico, opponendosi strenuamente alla possibilità di qualsiasi intervento militare esterno di normalizzazione. L’unica soluzione che si prospetta, a questo punto, prevede l’appoggio internazionale di Russia e Cina, due dei perni della svolta multipolare impegnati nella difesa dei diritti dei Popoli, e una possibile mediazione tra le fazioni in lotta assegnata all’Iran, che si è già proposto per questo ruolo.

GRA: Quanto è probabile un intervento energico degli Stati Uniti nel conflitto Siriano e un tentativo di rovesciare violentemente il regime di Bashar al-Assad (o che gli Stati Uniti mantengano invece una certa distanza e non oseranno rischiare)? Nel caso di una tale possibilità, quale conseguenze porterà tutto ciò alla stessa America?

Orazio Maria Gnerre : La Siria rimane innanzitutto un obiettivo Israeliano, da considerare come tappa precedente ad un probabile attacco all’Iran. Gli Stati Uniti hanno interessi “indiretti” nel conflitto, che non rispondono a necessità o urgenze strategiche, ma possono essere considerati “obiettivi secondari”. Tra questi, innanzitutto quello di eliminare uno Stato non allineato dallo scacchiere geopolitico. Le vere urgenze statunitensi si chiamano rispettivamente Cina e Russia. Anche in tal senso, la riuscita della destabilizzazione siriana significherebbe per gli Stati Uniti un indebolimento notevole della stabilità continentale, quindi un vantaggio strategico nei confronti dei primi nemici della sfida globale. È difficile prevedere cosa faranno effettivamente gli Stati Uniti, e come sarebbero in grado di giustificare davanti all’opinione pubblica l’ennesima dichiarazione di guerra del premio Nobel per la pace, Barack Obama. O, più probabilmente, l’attacco verrebbe condotto dopo le elezioni incombenti. In tal caso, potremmo solo osservare gli eventi precipitare verso scenari apocalittici.

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: 

Многополярный мир. Новые акторы, новые вызовы

 

Американское правительство было готово к тому, что теория многополярного мира однажды появится. В своём фундаментальном труде «ТММ» Александр Дугин, создатель этой теории, пишет, что опасения американцев были отмечены в докладе «Глобальные тенденции 2025» Национального Совета по разведке США ещё в ноябре 2008.

В рамках многополярного мироустройства, где в роли политических акторов выступают уже не национальные государства, как это было в Ялтинской системе, а цивилизации, потестарная проблематика разрешается в признании тезиса о необходимости наличия стратегических полюсов в каждой из цивилизаций. Функция этих полюсов заключается в принятии решений, связанных с отношениями между цивилизациями. Иными словами, каждый отдельный полюс признаётся субъектом межцивилизационного диалога. Критерий определения локализации полюсов или центров власти Александр Дугин предлагает выработать на основании шмиттианской концепции суверенитета: «Суверенен тот, кто принимает решение в условиях чрезвычайного положения». Следовательно, центры власти каждой цивилизации будут вынуждены реагировать на стохастические вызовы истории, всякий раз принимая решение и, тем самым, утверждая свою суверенность и право на власть. С.Хантингтон был уверен, что глобальная политика является политикой цивилизаций, и соперничество сверхдержав, прежних акторов международных отношений, должно уступить место столкновению новых акторов, то есть  цивилизаций. Хантингтон говорит лишь о таком сценарии, и не уделяет внимания критическому анализу межцивилизационного диалога. Но должны ли мы говорить только о конфликте?

Теория многополярного мира допускает реализацию двух сценариев: столкновения (войны) цивилизаций и диалога между ними. Александр Дугин, уточняя суть концепции диалога, среди прочего останавливается на том, что диалог может быть как мирным, так и агрессивным («война как форма диалога»). Кроме того, межцивилизационный диалог не обязательно означает равенство сторон. В диалоге может быть явлена доминация той или другой цивилизации. Профессор М.Легенгаузен ставит вопрос о том, каким будет этот диалог, и кто возьмёт на себя ответственность представлять целую цивилизацию, и совершенно справедливо замечает, что «не всякий диалог между представителями различных цивилизаций будет считаться диалогом между цивилизациями. Если хирург из Китая обсуждает хирургические технологии с коллегой из Туниса, диалог может целиком проходить в рамках западной медицины». Подобным же образом будет проходить диалог в рамках наций, религий и т.д. Легенгаузен уверен, что один человек никоим образом не может представлять целую цивилизацию, поскольку это потребовало бы от него широких познаний во всех областях, будь то антропология, культурология, философия, социология, литература, политология, лингвистика и т.д. По мнению Александра Дугина, носителем межцивилизационного диалога следует считать интеллектуальную элиту. Таким образом, в каждой цивилизации наличествуют: центр принятия решений и смысловой центр, коим являются представители интеллектуальной элиты. Они формируют так называемую голограмму цивилизации. В рамках многополярной модели сам взгляд на дипломатию претерпевает существенные изменения. Теперь необходимо опираться на коммуникации иного рода: не одно национальное государство говорит с другим (или другими), - в диалоге участвуют цивилизации, а значит, сама идентичность становится цивилизационной, что означает переформирование всего дипломатического корпуса, который становится в новой парадигме интегральной частью интеллектуальной элиты. Если этой элиты пока нет, она должна быть подготовлена и воспитана.

 

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: 

Pages