SURREPTIOUSLY, THE SYRIAN CRISIS IS BECOMING THE GREAT CRISIS

TRANSLATED FROM DEDFENSA.ORG, 22/08/12

 

It was on the 4th February 2012 that the Syrian crisis really took off, with the Russian and Chinese vetoing a resolution proposed to the United Nations by the American & Western Bloc (AWB), which would also have constituted a sort of riposte to the Libyan coup which took place roughly one year before. This time we are seeing the ‘Syrian crisis’ take up its place in the complex web that constitutes the great crisis in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, in Iran etc. At the beginning when it was just taking off, the Syrian crisis did not hold first place in the Great Crisis – this is no longer the case.

As the weeks and months have passed, the crisis has developed in the manner we have all witnessed, with such extreme communicative stances being taken that the American & Western Bloc’s editing and narrative has trapped it in an extremist position (i.e. the elimination of Assad as a precondition of anything whatsoever), whilst the probability of a rapid victory by the rebels – the only thing propping up this extremist stance – has gradually faded away. Meanwhile, Russia (with the unceasing support of China) has maintained a position of extreme firmness founded on the affirmation of international law (respect for sovereignty) and the presence of all parties concerned in any peace or negotiation process, which obviously includes Assad.


Russia has gradually broadened its reflection; or rather it has heightened it.                

Now let us cite two observations from the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov (Russia Today, the 21st August 2012.)…

• Discussing the behaviour of the American & Western Bloc, specifically France, the UK and the USA, in particular with regard to the Geneva agreement of the 30th June which implied serious commitments according to him, Lavrov remarked – the idea is not new but the terms are particularly harsh and not especially diplomatic- : “We have managed to get support for the Geneva communiqué from the Syrian government. But our partners haven’t even tried to do something like that; moreover, the main opposition groups publicly rejected the document. Nobody even tried to work with them…”  (These remarks were made as Russia had just publicly announced that the countries mentioned above, in particular the USA, have been delivering huge quantities of weapons to the rebels. Here again, nothing really new, but the public and assertive aspect of the declaration is very noticeable.)

• Above all there is this general remark … which is not theoretical but factual, addressed in terms of some violence to the American & Western bloc : “We believe this issue attracts so much attention not only because of the scale of the bloodshed, which worries all of us, but also because the outcome of the crisis will significantly influence the patterns for conflict settlement – either everything will fall in accordance with laws, that is according to the UN Charter, or ‘bomb democracy’ will prevail…»

During this time, and to complete the round-up of current events, let us mention an insight into the US position, which includes the recent announcement from President Obama of the possibility and pre-conditions for any US intervention, and the even more exotic announcement from the spokesperson for the State Department, Virginia Noland, in which she asserts that the Russians are blocking the “United Nations” …..

The statement, obviously completely at odds with the reality of the situation, is only interesting, as is Obama’s declaration, in as much as it shows how the positions of the American & Western Bloc are, at least in their own minds, completely opposite to Russia’s. They are backed up by a logic of confrontation, and, with regard to Nolan’s accusation, still based on a crass denial of reality leading to anti-Russian positions which can only serve to reinforce the Russians’ determination ….

 "I think Russia is deflecting attention from the fact that it has been unwilling to use Security Council mechanisms to try to hold Assad’s feet to the fire on implementing agreements that he made with Kofi Annan to end the violence and proceed to a political transition, nor have they been willing to put any teeth behind the transition strategy that we all came up with in Geneva. So again, there are very important things that Russia could do if it wants to help hasten the day, as we are all trying to do"

Are these strange declarations just part of the habitual comic opera from Washington with regard to the current narrative, or do they reveal something more interesting? Doubtless, both. Tony Cartalucci of the site Land Destroyer, sworn enemy of Washington but with the habit of seeing things in a very negative light and endowing Washington with a power and a capacity for harm which generally seem to us rather exaggerated, concludes this time that Washington is in a profound despair that none of its little schemes have been crowned by even the impression of success – in Syria, with regard to Iran etc. Cartalucci writes on the 21 August 2012, in his text ‘US Desperation Surfaces in Syria’:

"To say that the US is overstretched is an understatement. It is overstretched politically, economically, and tactically. It risks a historically unprecedented collapse that would destroy all shareholders invested in its increasingly unhinged and transparently illegitimate ambitions. Nations, in particular GCC members, are beginning to realize with acute alarm that their support of Washington’s agenda is now threatening their very self-preservation. A victory even at this point would still likely be Pyrrhic…"

Washington is desperate? So, is Washington going to go back home, make concessions etc? No, because that would mean capitulating, and Washington is not psychologically equipped, even less so than normal in the current climate, to conceive of anything if it is not assuming an even more radical position, because the idea of going back home, of making concessions, would indeed in its current exaggerated vision of things signify capitulating, and this concept has no place in the minds of these people due to the total and absolute refusal of their psychology to lend it any substance. Americanism’s psychology forbids envisaging, according to this exaggerated vision of affairs, as simply unthinkable and unconceivable, the concept of any capitulation even spun by “the indispensable nation”…

The die has been cast

In this way, we catch a glimpse of the state of mind in the US, and it is the most dangerous thing we could imagine : cornered by repeated failures, and more and more incapable of accepting, or even conceiving failure ; thus thinks, judges and reacts the empire at bay…… But above all, in respect of the Russians, the mentality has changed. It seems to us that Lavrov’s remark is starting to touch on the heart of the subject, no longer merely in theory, but also from the “operational’ point of view, as much of communication as of the potential situations on the ground.

What Lavrov is saying to us, is that Syria is to become a final test, fundamental, and that, consequently, for Russia it is politically unacceptable that the doctrine of ‘bomb democracy’ triumphs: what Lavrov is saying to us, - interpreting his words but an obvious interpretation according to the logic of the remarks – is that Russia will do everything in its power to make sure that that - the triumph of this theory - does not happen.  What the Russians are saying, at the end of the day, is that that they cannot permit the ‘bomb democracy’ doctrine to triumph, because they would then find themselves faced with a potential unleashing of forces knowing no bounds, that nothing could halt, which might even, who knows, affect Russia itself.

From now on, the Syrian crisis is far more than just the Syrian crisis. We have seen it take off, but right now we are seeing the Syrian crisis in full flight, becoming the central driving force of the great crisis, that from which major developments, - explosions or other things, - may emerge. Lavrov’s declaration (“We believe this issue attracts so much attention not only because of the scale of the bloodshed, which worries all of us, but also because the outcome of the crisis will significantly influence the patterns for conflict settlement…”) perfectly illustrates the Russian awareness that this crisis is now a defining event, the outcome of which goes far beyond the framework of the country, the region, indeed of all geopolitical situations, to become a fundamental event or a unifying event in the general situation of international relations. This analysis would seem to indicate that Russia is in the process of making its choice, if it has not already done so: if it proves, or even since it proves, that an agreement on an issue acceptable in relation to international laws proves impossible, then things will be sorted out on the ground of a crisis turned into civil war, and which would then threaten to turn into an international conflict… Certainly, it is extremely difficult not to see in Lavrov’s observation, after Obama had just stated that the USA could intervene in Syria, the simple conclusion that in this case the Russians would intervene against any American venture.

Psychology and the communication which accompanies it, is playing a fundamental role in a conflict which is still a crisis and not yet a war, despite appearing to have all the attributes of one……it is because the “war” seems to be bogged down suddenly that the crisis is in danger of going to another level. It is important to understand that the psychology of the American & Western Bloc (AWB) can no longer accept the current situation, one in which Assad is still in place, and the rebels increasingly shattered into extremist groups and bands of organized criminals, because it is engaged in a vital race to avoid confronting the reality, the dynamic of which alone, will obscure the truth of this debacle and the unbearable nature of the situation. This is obviously how psychology lies behind the evolution and transformation of the dynamic of excessive power into a dynamic of self-destruction.

In this way the Syrian crisis has taken on colossal proportions when nothing would have seemed to have indicated this at the outset. All this is taking place “strangely”, without any irremediable commitments having been made, without anything having actually happened, if you like, as if the interior representation of each of these possibilities were enough to represent the act. It is in this way that the crises of the current era occur, until the possible collapse of the empire, ditto the system.