Who needs chaos in the Middle East?

Who needs chaos in the Middle East?

U.S. President Barack Obama sanctioned reconnaissance flights over Syria to collect information about positions of the Islamic State and conduct air raids against the terrorist organization. According to American mass media, the permission to enter Syrian aerospace will not be asked. Damascus said that it was ready to cooperate with the U.S. in fighting terrorism but warned that any military actions unapproved by the Syrian government on its territory will be viewed as aggression.

Andrey Baklanov, deputy head of the Association of Russian Diplomats, is confident that the United States was planning a provocation against the regime of Bashar al-Assad because the “situation was changing, including beyond Syria, towards better understanding of the positions of the official authorities of Damascus.” Baklanov pointed out that the UN Security Council had recently passed resolution 2170 corroborating that any actions could only be made with compulsory recognition of Syrian sovereignty, because if such flights start, President Assad could rely on the spirit of the resolution.

“If the flights violating the spirit of the passed resolution and the UN Charter start, I, for instance, would take such an action by the Syrian authorities as opening fire on the jets with understanding,” said Andrey Baklanov. He mentioned WWII as an example, when European countries had tried to make concessions to Germany. On the other hand, according to Baklanov, the conflict on Damansky Island led to firm peaceful relations between the USSR and China.

“I think that Syria and many other places should take more decisive actions and preventive measures against the completely overweening representatives of the countries of the West. Our position in this case should be more decisive assistance in the legal actions of Syria so that forceful scenarios are not followed in the Middle East or any other regions,” supposes the expert.

Alexey Fenenko, the leading scientist of the RAS Institute for International Security Problems, is confident that the Western states play the main role in fueling the conflict in Syria and other regions of the Middle East. In his words, the pressure on Syria started in 2004: “Syria received a demand to withdraw forces from Lebanon, where they were enforcing stability, almost threatened with bombing. Then, in 2005, as soon as the Syrians left, Hezbollah settled in Lebanon and a war with Israel took place in 2006. Then, pressure was put on Syria for supporting militants in Iraq. Since 2011 the conflict has been in a more open phase.

Alexey Fesenko believes that the Americans and their Franco-British tandem profits from instability in the Middle East. Firstly, considering the threats from the Islamists to regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, monarchs will try to keep an American presence at any cost. “It is very beneficial for the Americans as rhetoric. If relations with Iran were normalizing, they would have been asked: “Why do we need an American presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE?” Now the motivation for such a presence exists, it is to fight the Islamic radicals,” assumes Fesenko.

“The second benefit is that it may legalize the disintegration of Iraq. The third benefit is the constant problems for Iran and Turkey, two other countries that annoy the U.S. a lot. If the Americans outrage ISIS with bombings and attacks on Shiites continue, Iran will have to intervene. It is a large conflict near the border with Iran. Turkey has been irritating the Americans with its rising independence of policy in the last 10 years. The Americans have not forgotten that Turkey had indirectly backed Russia in the Georgian war of 2008 by closing the Bosphorus. Then there were negotiations that Turkey was acting too independently. The conflict on the territory of Iraq associated with strengthening Kurdistan is a problem for Turkey, it means that Turkey will be tied up and more obedient,” argues the expert.

Alexey Fesenko points out the benefit to Great Britain from the conflict in Libya: “Now, if instability, chaos, the center of Islamic threat remain, it would weaken the positions of France and Italy, the countries claiming some independence from NATO in the Mediterranean Sea. They are the only ones to engage in the conflict. For the English, it is an additional opportunity to block such projects in the Mediterranean Sea.”

Speaking of threats for Russia and its neighbours, Fesenko says that the main threat is in Central Asia: “If export of radical Islamic ideology and armed groups there starts, some very serious destabilization may occur for Americans to make use of. Now the wave has slightly fallen, when th Americans had started a new attempt to enter the regions since 2001, it may resume. It has an impact on Turkmenistan and so on, maybe on Uzbekistan. How would the Americans build a dialogue with Uzbekistan now, they do not fully trust Karimov, in general?

Russian experts say Middle East countries should learn to fight the WestU.S. President Barack Obama sanctioned reconnaissance flights over Syria to collect information about positions of the Islamic State and conduct air raids against the terrorist organization. According to American mass media, the permission to enter Syrian aerospace will not be asked. Damascus said that it was ready to cooperate with the U.S. in fighting terrorism but warned that any military actions unapproved by the Syrian government on its territory will be viewed as aggression.Andrey Baklanov, deputy head of the Association of Russian Diplomats, is confident that the United States was planning a provocation against the regime of Bashar al-Assad because the “situation was changing, including beyond Syria, towards better understanding of the positions of the official authorities of Damascus.” Baklanov pointed out that the UN Security Council had recently passed resolution 2170 corroborating that any actions could only be made with compulsory recognition of Syrian sovereignty, because if such flights start, President Assad could rely on the spirit of the resolution.“If the flights violating the spirit of the passed resolution and the UN Charter start, I, for instance, would take such an action by the Syrian authorities as opening fire on the jets with understanding,” said Andrey Baklanov. He mentioned WWII as an example, when European countries had tried to make concessions to Germany. On the other hand, according to Baklanov, the conflict on Damansky Island led to firm peaceful relations between the USSR and China.“I think that Syria and many other places should take more decisive actions and preventive measures against the completely overweening representatives of the countries of the West. Our position in this case should be more decisive assistance in the legal actions of Syria so that forceful scenarios are not followed in the Middle East or any other regions,” supposes the expert.Alexey Fenenko, the leading scientist of the RAS Institute for International Security Problems, is confident that the Western states play the main role in fueling the conflict in Syria and other regions of the Middle East. In his words, the pressure on Syria started in 2004: “Syria received a demand to withdraw forces from Lebanon, where they were enforcing stability, almost threatened with bombing. Then, in 2005, as soon as the Syrians left, Hezbollah settled in Lebanon and a war with Israel took place in 2006. Then, pressure was put on Syria for supporting militants in Iraq. Since 2011 the conflict has been in a more open phase.Alexey Fesenko believes that the Americans and their Franco-British tandem profits from instability in the Middle East. Firstly, considering the threats from the Islamists to regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, monarchs will try to keep an American presence at any cost. “It is very beneficial for the Americans as rhetoric. If relations with Iran were normalizing, they would have been asked: “Why do we need an American presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE?” Now the motivation for such a presence exists, it is to fight the Islamic radicals,” assumes Fesenko.“The second benefit is that it may legalize the disintegration of Iraq. The third benefit is the constant problems for Iran and Turkey, two other countries that annoy the U.S. a lot. If the Americans outrage ISIS with bombings and attacks on Shiites continue, Iran will have to intervene. It is a large conflict near the border with Iran. Turkey has been irritating the Americans with its rising independence of policy in the last 10 years. The Americans have not forgotten that Turkey had indirectly backed Russia in the Georgian war of 2008 by closing the Bosphorus. Then there were negotiations that Turkey was acting too independently. The conflict on the territory of Iraq associated with strengthening Kurdistan is a problem for Turkey, it means that Turkey will be tied up and more obedient,” argues the expert.Alexey Fesenko points out the benefit to Great Britain from the conflict in Libya: “Now, if instability, chaos, the center of Islamic threat remain, it would weaken the positions of France and Italy, the countries claiming some independence from NATO in the Mediterranean Sea. They are the only ones to engage in the conflict. For the English, it is an additional opportunity to block such projects in the Mediterranean Sea.”Speaking of threats for Russia and its neighbours, Fesenko says that the main threat is in Central Asia: “If export of radical Islamic ideology and armed groups there starts, some very serious destabilization may occur for Americans to make use of. Now the wave has slightly fallen, when th Americans had started a new attempt to enter the regions since 2001, it may resume. It has an impact on Turkmenistan and so on, maybe on Uzbekistan. How would the Americans build a dialogue with Uzbekistan now, they do not fully trust Karimov, in gener
5780 views
Поделиться:
Print: