We now come to the Middle-East and before answering the question related to Syria, I would like to mention the Russian position regarding the Libya events:
The Libyan popular movement began on 17/02/2011 and the end of February 2011 and the beginning of March, Europe and particularly France was preparing the atmosphere for military intervention in Libya and even to undertake it itself on a limited scale.
During this time the American Secretary of State on Wednesday 02/03/2011, during a Senate Hearing about intervention in Libya that the United States ‘is not ruling out any option’. However, it also warned that any military intervention to help those opposing Gaddafi will be a matter that ‘stirs debate’ not just in Libya but the Arab world as a whole.
After that the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed that his country was against foreign military intervention in Libya. He made clear the firm stand of his country regarding Libya in a press conference held on Tuesday evening 07/03/2011 in the city of Leningrad when he said: ‘Russia opposes foreign intervention specifically military intervention as a means to solve the crisis in Libya.’ Adding, ‘It is upon the people of Libya to solve the problem themselves.’
A few days later America agreed upon military intervention and was behind the Security Council Resolution No. 1973 on 17/03/2011. When the time for voting came Russia swallowed its previous statements, it did not use its veto and did not put forward any objection. Rather it abstained from voting and as a result the resolution was passed and American and European military intervention commenced. I.e. Russia opposed military intervention when America did not want it and then when America wanted to go forth with military intervention Russia did not oppose it.
And now we arrive to the issue of Syria:
Something new occurred with Syria from the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. This new occurrence was the raising of Islamic slogans which frightened America amongst others. These slogans were those of the Khilafah which stoked the feelings of the people in a striking manner. The new matter generated an occurrence that the western states and in particular America who controlled the political affairs of Syria since the time of Hafez and his son, were made to stop and take notice.
The revolutions surprised the West from the time Bouazizi set himself on fire from the oppression, humiliation and insult of Ben Ali’s regime and police… the West was able to divert those revolutions from their aims by assigning agents to infiltrate the ranks of the revolutionaries to be amongst the loudest chanting slogans with the most energy. Afterwards, they removed the former tyrant whose face was grim and dark and replaced him with another not so grim face whilst the infrastructure of the regime remained a secular republic. All that changed was a replacement of faces. And they took this matter like a set doctor’s prescription so that every time people discover that change has not occurred, they revolt and call for freedom, in which these colonising powers bring their agents who then call with the loudest voices and thus any change remains confined to the agendas of the these countries.
As for what has happened in Syria the slogans were not for nationalism, a civil state, freedom and democracy so as to allow for western agents to infiltrate and to call making their voice the loudest and most energetic so as to seize the leadership of the people to exchange of one face for another to conclude the matter. Rather the slogans were calling for the Khilafah or Islam and in a way and by those who not under their influence like the supposed ‘Moderate or Middle Islam’ groups that are sung by the west. Although these slogans were mixed with other revolutionary slogans like those of democracy, civil state and the like, rather these slogans were not the dominant in the revolutionary arena to easily penetrate as the other revolutions.
Therefore the American apparatuses abroad such as the National Council and the Coalition and even American apparatuses at home such as a national coordinating body were all unable to gain acceptance from the people and America as a result has found itself in problems:
On the one hand it can see that its agent Bashar is in a doomed rule and that his regime can no longer realise the American interests or the security of the Jews as he and his father had the past forty years. And on the other hand, their productions are not accepted in Syria by the revolutionaries and it (U.S.) fears that if Bashar was to fall without prior arrangements being in place to follow him then the next rule could be other than what it wants, either the Khilafah or another rule not from its path. In addition to this there is the problem that it wants to appear to be on the same side as the revolutionaries in Syria and against oppression and tyranny like it did with all other previous revolutions!
Therefore America seeks an exit from its dilemma that maintains it appearance that stands on the side of the people against the tyrant. At the same time it does not want the tyrant to leave before it has guaranteed the replacement of an old agent with a new agent. This exit came from Russia which supports Bashar while America appears incapable of solutions because of Russia. So you see it going to Russia to negotiate with it giving the impression that Russia is on Bashar’s side whilst the US is on the revolutionary’s side appearing as if Russia and America are at odds with the solution. The comings and goings, grace periods one after another provided to Bashar so that he can increase the killing and destruction with Russian weaponry. All of this is done to provide America with time to mature its replacement agent who will come after Bashar whether this objective occurs by increased killing so that the people concede and accept their manufactured agent or through military intervention at the end of the matter legitimised by a UN security council resolution under the pretext of the need to protect the security of the new rule.
Thus every time it was in an awkward situation it would go and meet with Russia, appearing as though there was an agreement for a negotiated solution and then claim there was a disagreement between Russia and America. Then even when it stated that the use of chemical weapons was a red line and France provided evidence of its use, America then responded by stating that the evidence was not conclusive. Then when the evidences mounted up Obama stated that we have evidence but Russia remains doubtful! And all this is because America has not found an alternative agent that is acceptable to the people to replace their current agent. So none of their foreign manufactured agents have found any acceptance amongst the people and no proposed transitional government made up of the current regime and a mixture of external and internal opposition is acceptable to the people. So it is currently attempting a mix between the carrot and stick approach at the same time. It is not using one at a time but rather it makes use of the warplanes and missiles of Bashar and his allies as the stick whilst offering the carrot of providing weapons upon conditions to resist the planes and missiles of Bashar i.e. the weapons of Russia that have sided with Bashar in his campaign of murder and destruction. This is whilst the American, European and their allies and followers’ weapons are made upon the condition of a speedy death. They then market this with the argument of repelling Bashar’s aggression so as to drive him towards the Geneva Convention for negotiations between the opposition and the regime to establish a transitional government as was what took place recently in the Doha Conference. So what concerns America is to steer the change itself and Russia has not opposed this direction and indeed serves it!
Therefore the one who scrutinizes the American and Russian positions will find that they are not in opposing directions. Rather the actions of Russia serve the aims of America by paving the path for a new American agent to take the place of the current older agent.
And like in Libya, once America decides upon a political or military solution, then it is expected that Russia will not uphold its right to be critical but will pass a Security Council Resolution. And all of this is because the Middle-East is not an area in which Russia strives to assert its political influence but rather it proceeds within it upon the path that is in agreement with the American path.
In conclusion, Russia does not politically oppose America regarding the Syrian crisis but rather is at the forefront of its solution, supporting Bashar in its killing and massacres as pressure upon the people to accept America’s creation.
This is in respect to the America, Russian, European side in addition to their allies and followers. As for the side of the Ummah then within it are sincere and truthful men, with the permission of Allah, and no matter how long or severe the oppression and darkness, however, the good result belongs to the Muttaqoon (Pious) and even if this after a short while and Allah is Al-Azeez Al-Hakeem.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
The link to the answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=201578106676941
