There is a very fundamental political interest by Russia about the events in Syria. Russia believes that the conviction of the rulers of NATO countries in general and the U.S. in particular, to think that they are allowed to take the injustice to carry out crimes against the international law, propaganda, terror, mass murder and to perform regime changes, in order to impose their wills and to implement puppet regimes, in states that are friendly states of Russia, just as they like, must be stopped.
Russia’s impression is that the U.S. and its allies under the guise of enforcing freedom, democracy and human rights pursue a systematic policy in states that are more befriended with Russia and China than with the United States.
This systematic policy includes the performing of measures of destabilization by the use of propaganda, sanctions, the targeted support of government opponents, the promotion of extremism, terrorism and crime as well as threats of war and wars of aggression as well as the installation of U.S. puppet regimes in these states, which all aim to subdue the world, including Russia and China, by all means.
The NATO wars of aggression, built on lies, against Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya serve Russia in connection with the US-led subversion campaigns against liberal-democratic with great emphasis on human right guided states like Venezuela, with simultaneously best relations with absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia as an ultimate proof that this theory is true, and regardless of who currently governs the United States
Russia believes that the U.S. and its allies can only be persuaded against this policy of aggression, namely against the sovereignty of states, which runs contrary to fundamental principle of international law, when the U.S. and its allies will suffer painful setbacks in their illegal attempts of regime changes in foreign countries.
This Russian conviction can be found, couched diplomatic and in a positive way, in the publicly stated intention by Russia with respect to Syria, that Russia pursues the aims in its policy in terms of Syria to protect the international law.
Since Russia is pursuing a foreign policy that is based on sovereignty in terms of the principle of international law, Russia very well supports in terms of Syria the law of the Syrian population to choose a state leadership according to their own preferences, and these do not need to necessarily to maintain a friendship with Russia, and at the same time, however, it vehemently rejects an external operation of regime change in order to implement an American or Turkish NATO puppet regime.
If the U.S. is able to again and again get through it with their illegal regime-change attempts, because of its economic and military power, in states that are befriended with Russia, so the U.S. will not stop its policy of aggression against foreign states before they not also have gained the mastery over Moscow and Beijing.
In this regard it was very well apprehended by Russia that the U.S. and its allies are trying for years to stoke mass protest with the aim of “colour revolution” and regime change – such as in Eastern Europe in 1989 – even in Iran, China and Russia.
Besides the military power and a world-class defence industry, the Russian governance also has available substantial resources of soft power. In addition to some relatively modest internationally active media such as Russia Today, which do ensure that Russia’s voice is heard in the world, Russia has also a powerful veto right as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. As the wars of aggression, despite a Russian veto, against Yugoslavia and Iraq by the NATO states show, a Russian veto is no guarantee that the NATO refrains from wars of aggression.
However, a veto for the war willing governments of the NATO countries in the UN Security Council means, if they nevertheless conduct a war of aggression with heavy military equipment and troops, that they must be aware, that they could be branded by their own population as war criminals of a war of aggression and are voted out of office afterwards. This is true, as the cases of Bush and Blair make it clear, even more if the war does not run as well as it was previously planned.
Russia has the military means to ensure that wars of aggression by NATO countries do not run as well as they were planned by NATO, and that’s exactly what gives the Russian veto in the UN Security Council its justification. To lead a war of aggression against a Russian veto means, at least, that there could be problems of a vast scale, e.g. the risk of situations from well-organized guerrilla campaigns to a real nuclear confrontation.
However, the Russian economy is comparatively weak and vulnerable. Although the Russian economy is ranking among the ten largest economies in the world, but the Russian economy can be strangled in principle with collective sanctions on the pattern of the applied CoCom embargo regimes against the Soviet Union in the East-West conflict.
In conjunction with the fact that the Russian people are appreciative of a high standard of living and preferably trouble-free traveling in Western states, the Russian dependence on civilian imports of technology from NATO countries delivers a lever in order to be able to establish a long-term domestic political pressure in Russia, as they did that with the Soviet Union.
Russia is at the same time not able to counter this with the Western dependencies of Russian energy exports because Russia needs the revenue from its energy exports to Europe as well as the European countries need the energy imports from Russia. This dependence is based on reciprocity.
Due to the affectation by the Russian population for Western products and the not overly large importance of Russia as a market for companies from NATO countries, Russia is only able to establish a very little economic counter-pressure with the access authorization for its market against the NATO countries. With economic sanctions and travel restrictions on the Russian population in Western countries, the US-led NATO countries have in terms of light and medium disputes a potentially very powerful lever against Russia in their hands.
On the other hand, potential oil production downtime and associated oil- and gas price increases by the conflicts in the Middle East play, however, in terms of finances in the hands of Russia. If the NATO / EU countries stoke the conflicts in the Middle East, which push up the prices for oil, and Russia puts up some resistance with military assistance, however, then Russia is able to finance these additional expenditures – also the gas prices, arranged by Russia with the EU, are linked to the oil prices – by the increased sales revenues of its energy exports to the EU.
This means for the NATO / EU countries, that they have to pay twice for the conflicts that they perform against Russian friends in the Middle East: on the one hand as the financing costs of its involvement in the conflict, and on the other hand, among others, indirectly as higher prices for Russian energy.
With respect to Syria, the oil-superpower Saudi Arabia, which is also very interested in the conflict in Syria, has turned up its oil production to the stop in order to counter the conflict-driven energy price, but the oil prices, however, remained on a high level.
Russia’s behaviour in relation to the development of the situation has left nothing to be desired in terms of the clarity in the Russian position in November 2011.
So the Iranian channel “Press TV” reported on 19 November 2011, three days before the Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu has shared his views for the obtainment of Turkish “hinterland” by the upheavals in the Arab world at Goldman Sachs, citing the newspaper “The Nation”, that Russia has sent warships into Syrian waters and Russian officials had stated correspondingly, that Russia is determined to block any NATO-led attack against Syria under the pretext of humanitarian intervention.
The clear Russian message was acknowledge in the UN Security Council (UNSC), where Russia has rejected every unilateral declaration that has only condemned the Syrian government, and certainly all resolution drafts, which have led towards sanctions or the authorization for war, as well as by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Of a particular importance is the attitude of China. The nuclear power China is equipped with weapons that are often based on Russian designs and is already due to its sheer size and the size of the army, which is associated with the population size, militarily invulnerable, it also has a veto right in the UN Security Council and is in terms of the national economy the second largest economy in the world.
Looking at the annual economic growth in absolute terms, China is the largest economy in the world. A good market access to the huge Chinese market decides about the global competitiveness and therefore over the fate of a lot of investment- and consumer goods manufacturers.
The imparted sovereign right by China, granted by the terms of the WTO agreement, about who is allowed to contribute to the further development of the Chinese economy in what a way, decides decisively on where export-oriented jobs occur in the Western countries or are maintained, and where factories are closed.
On top of that, China has thousands billion heavy foreign exchange reserves and China can decide confidently, in which states and regions China will invest these reserves, for example, in the national debt of foreign countries, in the development of infrastructure or in foreign production centres. If China decides to reduce the stock of debentures of a foreign state and otherwise to invest less in another state, then there threatens the breakout of recessions, which will sweep the governments of these states out of office in the next election.
For example, the fairly China-friendly German government was in that manner able to enjoy a flourishing German automotive industry due to an outstanding business in China as well as low interest rates on their government debt, while the not so China-friendly Frenchman Sarkozy had to struggle with an ailing French car industry and demand problems in the refinance of the French state budget in 2011 that were (short time later) some of the reasons for his deselection.
Vice versa, the NATO and GCC countries have hardly effective ways to put pressure on China. Although China attaches great importance on the access to markets in Europe and the U.S., and is interested to furthermore import technology from the G7 countries, but if the United States and the European Union (EU) will try to put the economic thumbscrews on China, then China will sit at the longer leverage.
Sanctions lead in the trade with China to the fact that China’s economic growth slows a bit down, while the respective G7 countries slide towards a recession, which will lead to the situation that the China-unfriendly states will be under more pressure than China itself. Even with a technology boycott after the CoCom-pattern in the times of the Cold War, it is nowadays barely still possible to put China under pressure.
In an emergency, China is nowadays practically technologically capable of producing the whole range of investment and consumer goods that China needs to further develop its economy. Even with a full military and economic blocking such as during the Cold War, China is no more to subjugate by the OECD countries. If China would in turn form a bloc with the other BRICS countries, then this block has more growth and due to the greater population ultimately also better economic prospects than a NATO/G7-Block.
The global Chinese foreign policy, although China is governed by a clearly ideological defined communist party, is generally characterized by ideological restraint and the search for economic partnership and good relations with all sides.
China usually tries to defuse territorial disputes with its neighbours by a freezing, so that they do not hinder the development of good neighbourly relations. The foreign policy that is practiced by China for many years is very close to the pattern of a zero problem policy. Normally, China only responds sensitive to provocations that are aimed on the disturbance of the unity of the Chinese territory or on a deliberate disregard of the sovereignty of China.
In such cases, however, China reacts very harshly and makes it clear that if one seeks a dispute with China, he has to expect fiercely answers, no matter who seeks dispute. China works together with Russia and some Central Asian states in the terms of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization SCO, in order to jointly combat separatism, extremism and terrorism in their states – evil, that likes it to spread over borders, and to affect the welfare and stability of all the affected states.
In Syria, China has no special interests. The entire civil and military Chinese trade with the small Syria is completely negligible for the huge Chinese economy. It is China’s interest in the Arab world and in the surrounding area to carry on commerce of mutual benefit and to maintain good relations – with all sides, with Iran as well as with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
China has no military interests in the region of West Asia. The usual procedure of the Chinese zero-problem foreign policy on conflicts in parts of the world that are far away from China is to give all sides politely the advice to resolve conflicts by talks, to support mediation efforts by regional and international organizations with kind words, and otherwise to stay out of foreign disputes and to further seek for good relations with all sides.
The reticence and courtesy of the Chinese leadership can easily be confused with a lack of opinion. However, this is a mistake.
The Chinese government tends to hold back as much as possible, but whoever follows the Chinese media with some attention is able to frequently seen in a roundabout way that the sympathies of the Chinese state leadership, following the Communist ideology, are with the victims of plagues like U.S. imperialism and neo-colonialism. The Chinese government also does not rely on the propaganda of foreign media for its opinion-forming, but it has a own close-knit global network of correspondents of the Chinese state news agency.
Thus, the Chinese news agency Xinhua reported colourfully illustrated on 13 November 2011, for example, and in contrast to the NATO/GCC media, which tried to cover this news as much as possible, the fact that millions of Syrians have demonstrated for the Syrian government and against the Arab League, on the occasion of the fact that the Saudi-dominated Arab League had excluded Syria and called for the withdrawing of ambassadors from Syria. One may assume very well that the Chinese state leadership has taken this information of their news agency to account.
The following day, on 14th November, the spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry has, according to Xinhua, nevertheless stated that China supports the efforts of the Arab League to adjudicate the crisis in Syria and, at the same time, called on all sides that they should stop with the violence and begin a balanced political process. This positioning was completely in line with China’s policy to support regional organizations in resolving regional conflicts by dialog. The problem in this case was, however, that the call of the regional organization “Arab League” to withdraw all the ambassadors from Syria was a completely unsuitable step in order to begin a “balanced political process” in Syria.
On the contrary, the withdrawal of ambassadors is a clear indication to not strive for a “balanced political process” by the help of dialogs, but an escalation of the conflict – and potentially military force. That China has, by using its veto-right jointly with Russia in the UN Security Council (UNSC) against a resolution draft on Syria that aimed on a regime change at the 4th October 2011, already taken a very strong position, was in this manner probably easy to overlook.
So, this was the situation on 22 November 2011. Since the regime change-coalition has successfully implemented a regime change in Libya by the genocidal crimes in the war of aggression against Libya that was based on lies, and was never charged for their crimes against Libya, even celebrated its propaganda, it seems that this has encouraged the Turkish government and their accomplices to try the same with Syria – again based on lies and with the same scheme of genocidal violence for a regime change like they did in Libya.
China’s position was seen as a “we stay out”, and in relation to Iran and Russia, the state leaderships of Turkey and other NATO states calculated that they could persuade them with a mixture of threats or rewards to open the path for an external implementation of a regime change by force. The Turkish state leadership seems to have maintained the opinion that Syria, Iran and Russia would not seriously resist against the entire economic and military power of NATO and the GCC states. In Libya, the NATO / GCC coalition for regime change was finally also successful.
And so, the Turkish JDP-Prime Minister Erdogan has called on the Syrian President Assad by television on 22 November 2011, i.e. on the same day as Foreign Minister Davutoglu has touted its neighbours as a Turkish “hinterland” at Goldman Sachs, to withdraw from his office, and Erdogan compared him to Hitler, Mussolini and Ceausescu, and also added threateningly to his statements, that Assad would otherwise end up like the Libyan leader Gaddafi, who was murdered with the participation of Turkey, if he does not bow to the Turkish demand.
After the threat of war against Syria that was delivered by Davutoglu in August, this was now the affirming of the threat of war against Syria and also a death threat against the head of state in Syria, coupled with an insulting comparison to Hitler – intentionally, clearly, openly and publicly expressed by the Turkish Prime Minister in television.
Thus, the Turkish JDP (AKP) government had also practical wagered on their own destiny that its jointly alliance for a violent regime change in Syria with the other NATO states of aggression, the Zionist regime, the autocratic Arab monarchies and the so-called Lebanese March-14 fraction (composed of supporting components from these countries) will be as successful as it has been in Libya. If Turkey will not be successful with the regime change in Syria, the Turkish government would have to accept the accusation in future, that it has wilfully destroyed the good relations with its neighbouring country Syria by criminal lies, supporting terrorism and threats of aggression.
The operating of a mendacious and murderous terroristic policy against the Muslim brothers of a friendly neighbouring state in collaboration with the apartheid state of Israel is not well accepted by the Arab street (path) and the Arab youth, as well as by many voters of the JDP (AKP) in the Islamic Turkey. Only when the regime change in Syria succeeds, the Turkish government could be celebrated as a courageous “liberator”, otherwise the Turkish government would only be able to come out of this act, in terms of domestic policy, if anything, very damaged.
In order to substantiate Erdogan’s threat militarily, the U.S. had stationed the aircraft carrier of the USS George H.W. Bush off the coast of Syria at the same time. The NATO nations had simply ignored the Russian refusal of a condemnation of Syria at the UN Security Council as well as the clear outgoing military message of the Russian warships in front of the Syrian coast with this threat of war.
Not seriously considering the strict Russian rejection of the NATO war plan against Syria backfired, because the Russian response was not long in coming. On 2 December 2011, the state-run Russian television channel Russia Today reported that Russia had supplied Syria, in fulfilment of an old contract, with several batteries of advanced Russian anti-ship missiles of the type Yakhont. These Russian missiles were specifically designed to sink naval convoys that are equipped with modern missile defence systems, for example, NATO aircraft carrier and their convoying ships.
Should the NATO still try a sea-based attack on Syria, from aircraft carriers such as against Libya, NATO would have to expect thousands killed NATO soldiers and the loss of their entire attacking fleet when being confronted with this coastal defence. Neither the United States nor Turkey has expected this harsh Russian response.
The U.S. aircraft carrier veered round, Bashar Al-Assad was still the president of Syria, and the trigger-happy leaders of NATO countries, led by the Turkish government, were plentiful disgraced, and they already had to calculate the disastrous political consequences for them, when their plot that is based on lies, terrorism and threats of war against Syria will not lead to an overthrow of the Syrian government.
The Turkish government would have to expect the wrath of the Syrians that were unsuccessful incited to rebel by them, as well as the wrath of its credulous Turkish supporters, when their lies can no longer be kept under the carpet, and the U.S. president Barack Obama had no need to again take part in the 2012 presidential election as an incompetent weakling who is not able to successfully enforce in self-imposed conflicts.
And so both the U.S. and NATO have followed their project of a “regime change” in Syria, although their attempt already failed in November 2011. The idea of being able to persuade Russia and Iran that they clear the way appeared more promising for both the Turkish government and for the U.S. administration than to suffer under the consequences of a termination of the “regime-change” operation. They hoped to be able to win against Iran with military and economic pressure and against Russia with economic pressures. Finally, the NATO countries have the strongest army in the world and the G7 countries have around 50% of the global economic output.
From the motive of greed to obtain Turkish “hinterland”, became at this time, however, the subject of fear, to lose the own power in case of a failure of the “regime change” in Syria and to be actually held accountable for the aggressive efforts for this regime change – and perhaps even personal.
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 1
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 2
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 3
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 4
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 5
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 6
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 7
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 8