Lavrov konfrontiert die Kriegsfront der Ziocons

Die aktuellen Bemerkungen des russischen Außenministers zum Syrienkrieg sind außerordentlich scharf in Ton und Gehalt. Man könnte denken, es habe den von Trump und Putin vor wenigen Stunden persönlich besiegelten Deal zur Südfront nicht gegeben, wäre er nicht ein Hauptthema der Bemerkungen. Ich zitiere die wichtigsten Passagen.

According to [Lavrov] Russia and the US „did not discuss specifically and in detail“ the developments in Syria. „We state the fact of our and Iranian legitimate presence at the invitation of the legitimate government. We also state the fact of the illegitimate presence of the coalition that has been forged by the United States and which carries out military operations, including independent ones, primarily providing support for the opposition armed groups on Syrian soil and in its airspace“

Lavrov bezieht sich auf eine Verlautbarung des russischen DoD:

The ministry showed photo shoots made by Russian unmanned aircraft on November 9 which show kilometers-long convoys of IS armed groups leaving Abu Kamal towards the Wadi es-Sabha passage on the Syrian-Iraqi border to avoid strikes by the Russian aviation and the government army.
The US refused to conduct airstrikes over the leaving IS convoy. „Americans peremptorily rejected to conduct airstrikes over the ISIS terrorists on the pretext of the fact that, according to their information, militants are yielding themselves prisoners to them and now are subject to the provisions of the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.“ (…) The Americans failed to answer the Russian side’s question on why IS militants leaving in combat vehicles heavily equipped are regrouping in the area controlled by the international coalition to conduct new strikes over the Syrian army near Abu Kamal. (…) „The coalition’s aviation tried to create obstacles for the aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces in this area to safely shield militants of the Islamic State, who are leaving Abu Kamal, from the strikes of government forces. To this aim, the coalition’s attack aircraft entered the airspace over the 15-km zone around the city to hamper the Russian aircraft’ mission“.

Weiter mit Lavrov:

Lavrov added that the withdrawal of pro-Iranian forces from Syria was not discussed at the talks with the US. „Neither Iran nor pro-Iranian units were discussed,“ the minister said. „If we talk about pro-Iranian forces, some may be tempted to call the entire Syrian army pro-Iranian. Should it surrender in that case? I believe this is what they call wishful thinking.“

Am Tag zuvor hatte Debkafile geschrieben:

The presence of Syrian forces in these regions is implicitly sanctioned [in this deal]. However, in realistic terms, “Syrian forces” anywhere in the country automatically entail Iranian officers and Hizballah – not to mention Shiite militias and Revolutionary Guards personnel. The simple fact is that, apart from a few scattered units, not much is left of the “Syrian army” after nearly eight years of civil conflict.

Lavrov:

„Seeking non-Syrian units’ withdrawal from the line of engagement in this difficult region of Syria is that what we agreed on,“ Lavrov explained. However, in his view, the biggest threat is Syria today is posed by US-backed militants. „If one looks at who poses the biggest threat, it is the United States’ charges, specifically, various foreign terrorists and militants, who ‘cling’ to those armed opposition groups backed by the US.“ (…) „Only yesterday I heard US Secretary of Defense James Mattis say that the US is not leaving Syria until it can be confirmed that the political process is moving in the right direction,“ the Russian top diplomat continued. „And it is the change of regime that the US considers to be the right direction. It all runs contrary to the Geneva agreements and the US State Department’s assurances that the US only goal in Syria is to fight terrorism,“ Lavrov said.

Nun ist nichts, was Lavrov anklagt, neu – lediglich die Schauplätze sind andere, als in den vergangenen zwei Jahren. Warum die diplomatische Verschärfung gerade jetzt?
Ich denke, die Antwort wurde hier gegeben:

The U.S. political establishment is “ready to do anything to kill even the slightest possibility of a normalization of Russian-American ties,” Frants Klintsevich, deputy head of the defense and security committee in Russia’s upper house of parliament, said Monday on Facebook. “We’re talking about a total step backward.” While Trump and Putin held brief conversations at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, the Kremlin had announced that the two presidents would have only their second meeting since the U.S. leader took office in January. The White House contradicted this, saying that no meeting was scheduled. Putin later told reporters that the failure to meet was due to “certain protocol formalities which our teams, unfortunately, failed to coordinate,” and that officials “will be disciplined for that.” (…) The culprit was the White House protocol office “which did everything to ensure that a meeting didn’t take place,” Russian state TV presenter Dmitry Kiselyov said on his flagship Sunday program. “Trump showed personal perseverance and something managed to be discussed.” U.S. officials “wrecked the talks because they didn’t want them to take place,” Alexei Pushkov, a member of the defense and security committee in Russia’s upper house of parliament, said on Twitter.
“The problem with Trump is that his hands are completely tied,” Sergei Karaganov, a foreign policy expert and former Kremlin adviser, said by phone. “The domestic situation in the U.S. means he can’t come to an agreement on any issue with anyone.”

Das steht nicht bei RT, sondern schrieb gestern ein gewisser Henry Meyer für Bloomberg.
Heute präzisierte Maxim Suchkov für Al Monitor:

[A] well-connected Kommersant reporter, Andrey Kolesnikov from Putin’s press pool, referenced a source in the Russian delegation who argued the main reason the meeting didn’t take place — even though it seemed to have been agreed upon — was the Americans‘ sudden decision to change the location.

Ich habe bereits berichtet, daß beide Wachmänner Obamas, Brennan und Clapper, nach dem informellen Treffen der Präsidenten über Reuters verbreiteten, Trump sei nicht länger Herr seiner Sinne, Putin sei es.

Kurzum, die Macht der Ziocons scheint aktuell zumindest auf dem mittelöstlichen Feld mehr Gewicht zu haben, als unmittelbar nach dem Putsch Cheneys und Rumsfelds an 9/11. Damals präsentierte Ehud Barak der BBC zweieinhalb Stunden 1 nach dem Einschlag des ersten Fliegers ins WTC seine Wunschliste, darunter die Entstaatlichung Iraks, Libyens und Irans.  Syrien nannte er nicht, offenbar aus opportunistischen Gründen, denn Syrien stand gewiß auf einer Liste mit sechs Kriegszielen des Pentagon, die General Wesley Clark zu seinem Entsetzen wenige Tage nach 9/11 präsentiert wurde.
Unter diesen Umständen birgt der saudische Putsch unter amerikanischer Schirmherrschaft das möglicherweise alternativlose realpolitische Potential amerikanischer und russischer Nationalisten, die Macht der Ziocons ohne atomare Vernichtung Israels wenigstens einzuschränken.
Ob das ein weniger leichen- und elendsträchtiges Programm ist, als die Vorhaben der Ziocons, wird die Zeit weisen.


  1. Zeugen wollen wissen, daß Barak da schon eine dreiviertelstunde lang in einer BBC-Lounge auf und ab getigert war. Er selbst gab an, „zufällig“ aus privaten Gründen in London gewesen und der BBC das Interview angeboten zu haben. 
Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Imperium, israel, syrien veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s