Hit Syria – Target Russia: How did little Syria spoil things for the powerful West?

The following conversation with Professor Andrei Ilyich Fursov, Director of the Centre of Russian Studies at the Institute of Fundamental and Applied Research of Moscow University for the Humanities (MosGU), a member of the International Academy of Sciences, and a member of the Writers’ Union of Russia was published on 9 August 2012 at KP.ru.

24 SEPTEMBER 2012

Given the initial question it reaches unexpectedly far into the sphere it covers. Starting from the current situation in Syria and the “Arab Spring”, the Russian historian tries to provide considerations on and prognosticate the further development there, ranging from the concrete to the global
Last remark: the term “regime” does not necessarily have a negative connotation in the Russian language.

“Worse than a feud with the Anglo-Saxons can only be a friendship with them.” (Alexej Jedrichin-Wandam)

Question: Why is the West in such a hurry to hammer the nails in the coffin of the Assad regime?

Andrej Fursov: This small Middle Eastern country has suddenly become a major sore spot of the planet. The UN has meetings on it, continually. China and Russia take a hardliner stance. A squad of our warships with marines headed for the Mediterranean also stopping in Syria on the way. The US provides the “rebels” with another $ 15 million. Is there a sense of a greater war here?

Gas war

Question: How did little Syria spoil things for the powerful West?

Andrej Fursov: Actually by everything. Let’s look at it one by one – from small to large, from regional to global. In all the constellations in the Middle East in general and in the Americans’ and the Sunni monarchies’ (Saudi Arabia, Qatar) fight against Shiite Iran, the country is not just an ally of Tehran, but also the link connecting it to the Shiite factions in the Arab world. Without such a link Iran’s influence in the Arab world would be greatly reduced. I am not talking even about the oil pipeline running from Iran through Syria. Without a solution to the Syrian issue, the Anglo-Saxons, i.e. the British and the Americans will not dare to tackle Iran

The Syrian regime is in fact the only strong secular regime in the Arab world. The fact that it is strong irritates the Atlanticists with their plans of restructuring the Middle East and the world. The fact that it is a secular and economically successful regime annoys the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Question: Some say that this is the first war for gas.

Andrej Fursov: Gas fields were indeed discovered in the Southern Mediterranean – in the sea and on Syrian territory (Kara). It is hard to say how big the reserves are, but they are there. Qatar exports liquefied gas with the help of a tanker fleet. If the Assad regime collapses, Qatar will be able to transport the “blue fuel” directly from the Mediterranean coast to Syria. This would at least double the volume of its exports and at the same time complicate Iranian exports. The strengthening of Qatar on the gas market will worsen Russia’s position. Well, if the Americans succeed in controlling the Algerian gas, it looks like a blockade of the Russian oil and gas exports. So the economic interests of Qatar coincide with the US’ geopolitical interests in their efforts to maximally weaken Russia, which is not to not be reinvigorated.

The Anglo-Saxons are global billiard players: They make use of the “controlled” chaos

Question: Does that mean that the Yankees in Syria indirectly attack Russia’s beloved Gazprom?

Andrej Fursov: The Anglo-Saxons are global billiard players; they work by the principle of more than one ball into the hole (which we have to learn from them). The greater Middle East with its ongoing controlled chaos separates China from the necessary sources of oil and gas, while at the same time it is cutting the Chinese off from the Western European part of Eurasia. The control over gas and oil from the Middle East means first of all control of the US over Europe, especially Western Europe, which to a great extent contributes to the weakening of the Russian Federation and its position. But if Europe does not like it some day, one can trigger off some Arab-African uprisings – so that the well-fed citizens whished it would soon be over.

This logic (though not the only one) determines the North Atlantic elite’s drive toward the East across the Arab world: Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Now they have arrived in Syria. But on the Syrian spot the Atlanticists faced another global power, comparable to them economically and even militarily, but representing a completely different civilization. This is China, with its drive towards the West. China’s drive is a kind of crusade for resources. Pakistan is already under the influence of China. The Chinese have a long-standing relationship with the Afghan Taliban. Iran is also an ally, though specific. The south of Iraq is basically controlled by Shiite allies of Iran. Geo-strategically and even geo-economically China does not only push ahead to the coast of the Indian Ocean, but from this perspective also to the Atlantic (the Mediterranean coast of Syria). Objectively, the Western crusaders ran into a Chinese wall in Syria.

For the first time, the Anglo-American-Jewish elite, that has developed in the course of the last century and became one of the organizational and historical achievements of the West, is faced with a global, non-Western type of enemy (the Soviet leadership, too, was the implementation of a leftist project of the West, the Jacobin Modernity). Apart from that, the European segment of the Western elite from which it takes its historical experience, is opposed, however, to the no less or perhaps even more ancient Chinese segment. It is also focused on the tangibles, on trade and money. At the same time it is very adventurous, as the Chinese have their own global criminal system.

The objective of the West: See China collapse, cut it off from the resources of raw materials and suffocate it technologically

Question: The Chinese mafia is probably worse than the Italian …

Andrej Fursov: Yes, and not to mention the gold reserves of China as a formidable financial weapon.
Beijing knows quite well that Syria is just another trail mark in the direction of the North-Atlanticists’ main attack – and their objective is to see China collapse, to cut it down to size within the country’s borders, cut it off from the sources of raw materials and suffocate it technologically. Hence China’s tough stance on Syria at the UN.

Question:What about the position of Moscow? Why is it so different from that in Libya?

Andrej Fursov: First, we have a different president today. Second, the story of Gaddafi has taught our leadership well. Third, we have a naval base in Syria. Fourth, our military-industrial complex has serious interest in Syria, and economic interests are sacred to the Russian leadership. Fifth, Syria is much closer to the Russian borders and the post-Soviet area than Libya.

All this determines Moscow’s position whose nuclear and diplomatic potential reinforces China’s position. Neither Russia nor China could stand alone.

Of course, the Anglo-Saxons do not care about our veto in the UN, the UN itself and about international law, which they plan to abolish anyway. But so far, these have only been intentions. As Stalin once said the logic of the circumstances is stronger than the logic of intentions. These circumstances are Russia and China, causing the North-Atlanticists to be furious – just listen to Ms Clinton and look at her facial expressions.

USA today overstraining its forces

Question: Despite the hardline stance of Moscow and Beijing, the West does not retreat. Why not?

Andrej Fursov: First, it is not in the historical tradition of the Anglo-Saxons to release the prey which they have sunk their teeth in like a pit bull terrier. They will exert pressure as far as possible until they have achieved their objective, or until the opponent has broken their jaw.

Second, in the last 25 to 30 years, the Anglo-Saxons, defeating the Soviet elite (it is exactly about the Soviet elite – they surrendered), have simply become arrogant. They got used to Russia giving up everything and they hope to be able to exert pressure on the Russian elite that keeps its money in Western banks.

Third – and this is the main reason which outweighs all the others: the stakes are too high; the fate of the North Atlantic elites themselves is at stake, and not just the hydrocarbon resources or the Middle East. The West has no alternative than pressing ahead.

The bottom line is the following: Today, the US experiences an excessive overstrain of its forces, despite all the material and information potential of this vast machine, operated by experienced supranational geo-constructors and geo-engineers. “Nihil dat fortuna mancipio” – fate does not guarantee anything forever! America’s time is over. To delay or prevent the final decline, it needs a break.

It is no coincidence that the new military doctrine, which was announced by Obama on 5 January 2012, is about the US’ unwillingness to be prepared for two wars at the same time – as has been the case so far – but only for one plus some indirect actions in several regions. Also bear in mind that the Americans regroup up to 60% of its military power in the Pacific Ocean, the eastern Pacific, in preparation for a fight with China.

It is not accidental that Foreign Affairs, a journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), one of the most influential American institutions concerning international relations, recently published several articles that directly say: The US need a break, “to focus on rebuilding the foundations of national prosperity”. America today resembles the Roman Empire of the Trajan time (early 2nd century AD). Then, Rome shifted from the strategic offensive to strategic defense; Rome began to build the Limes (defensive wall) and abandoned some of the conquered territories – especially in the Middle East.

Controlled chaos: So that in case of retreat the competitors may not occupy the territory

Question: This is a direct analogy. The USA promised to leave Afghanistan and they withdrew from Iraq ...

Andrej Fursov: The results of the NATO summit in Chicago on 20 – 21 May 2012 showed: Neither have the US nor NATO actually left the Middle East nor Afghanistan, in the literal sense. It was not for that reason they went there. However, they will have to “get out” in this former sense, as the leadership model will change there. And the only reason is that in case of retreat the competitors may not occupy the territory: the European Union, above all China. Hence the idea behind the new leadership model in the region is controlled chaos. We cannot imagine any better candidates for its creation and maintenance than the Islamists, the “chain dogs of globalization American style”.

And here we see how in the Middle East – particularly in the key country Egypt – the Islamists take over as a result of the so-called “Arab Spring”. More precisely, it is them for whom the others were paving the way. However, the Anglo-Saxons hit two stumbling blocks on their way, two countries where Islamists are either not strong or not active. These countries were Libya and Syria. Libya has already been destroyed by the barbaric aggression of NATO, and Syria is under siege today. Syria’s army is indeed fighting international terrorism, which, as it suits it, is directed by the puppeteers – the Anglo-American leadership.

Continue to read:
[link to www.silviacattori.net (secure)]