THE LEBANESE STYLE OF DEMOCRACY OF NO WINNERS OR LOSERS. By Ghassan Kadi 27 May 2018

Ghassan Kadi discusses the new parliamentary election outcomes in Lebanon from a birds-eye view and with a subtle touch of humour.

http://thesaker.is/the-lebanese-style-of-democracy-of-no-winners-or-losers/

The Lebanese style of democracy of no winners or losers

10471 ViewsMay 27, 2018 13 Comments

by Ghasssan Kadi for the Saker Blog

On the 6th of May 2018, Lebanese voters went to their polling booths to vote for members of Parliament. This was the first Parliamentary election since 2009, nearly a decade ago, even though the regular parliamentary term is only four years. And for the first time in Lebanon’s history, the Lebanese diaspora were able to vote in their representative embassies.

So why did it take almost a decade for the Lebanese Government to call for elections? This is a simple and straight forward question to ask, but to answer it, brings another question. Why was Lebanon left without a President from the 25th of May 2014 till the 31st of October 2016?

For nearly two and a half years, Lebanon did not have a head of state. And for the first time since its inception, the highest position in the Lebanese Government was headed by a Muslim, a Sunni Muslim. “Grand Liban” (or Grand Lebanon) as the French named it after they decided how far its borders should be expanded to move it away from those of the former and smaller Mount Lebanon Mutasasarrifate (aka Le Petit Liban), was meant to be a state that has a Christian Catholic Maronite President as decreed by its constitution. The Presidential power vacuum however “left” Lebanon in the hands of the Prime Minister (Tammam Salam), who also as decreed by the Lebanese Constitution, has to be a Sunni Muslim.

For two and a half years therefore, Lebanon, a state that the French decreed should be one with a Christian Maronite President, was left in the hands of a Muslim Sunni Prime Minister.

Did Lebanon turn Muslim Sunni as a result?

One can take one’s pick to decide who to ask this question, and the answer one receives will probably not be any more or less convincing than the expectation and interpretation of the inquisitor.

That said, there is no doubt that Saudi Arabia tried very hard to push its religious agenda onto Lebanon. As a matter of fact, during the beginning of the second decade of the 21st Century, and specifically as the “War on Syria” took form, Lebanon and Lebanese politicians and power brokers, for better or for worse, played a big role in the Syrian tragedy. Part of this power play was the aggressive, extremely highly funded and fundamentalist Saudi push to control Lebanese politics; not only for the sake of controlling Lebanon, but also for the sake of using Lebanon as a springboard to hit Syria in the soft underbelly that is naturally protected by impenetrable valleys, cliffs and caves.

There is no doubt also that Iran was intensifying its presence in Lebanon and influence on its politics and day-to-day affairs with Hezbollah as its ally.

Ideologies aside, the Hezbollah/Iran coalition had well-earned stripes on its shoulders as it managed to successfully defeat the Israeli occupation of Lebanon leading up to a total Israeli defeat on the 25th of May 2000. The Saudi camp and its cohorts did not have similar stripes to grace their shoulders with. They therefore hoped that by toppling the Syrian Government, a government they see as a combination of being secular, Shiite and pro-Iranian, then despite the oxymoronic definition of their nemesis, with limitless funds and beating the sectarian Sunni-Shiite drums, they were sure to get not only stripes on their shoulders, but also stars and the highest of all insignia.

But official Lebanon had to play the balance game, because in Lebanon, there is an unwritten law that in all conflicts and politics, there will be no winners and no losers.

It was according to this unwritten law that the first post-independence civil strife of 1958 in Lebanon was ended. The strife was instigated by a predominantly Muslim pan-Arab passion to join the newly formed United Arab Republic (UAR), which encompassed Egypt and Syria. The then Lebanese President Chamoun and his supporters were against such integration, even cordial relationships, and stood up for independence. The seven-month strife ended as Chamoun’s term as president finished, and the elected president’s former army chief, Chehab, was leaning towards the principles of the “revolution” but was neither willing nor able to take any action either way.

No winners, no losers.

In theory, this principle works and should work well if parties concerned put their differences aside and work together. But in Lebanon, only the slogan is what eventuates, but the hostilities and all the bickering that comes with it, lives on.

Soon after that strife, Lebanon embarked on its golden age. Among other things, in a short period of time, it became the economic, banking, touristic and transport hub of the Middle East. Lebanon was deservedly named the Switzerland of the East. But that golden age did not last long, because conflict was around the corner. This time it was fueled by the difference of how Lebanese people and politics viewed the Palestinian cause and resistance and all the foreign interference that came with it.

But even that much longer and bloodier strife of 1975-1989, known as the Civil War, that saw more than 100 thousand civilians killed, the economy destroyed, and Lebanon’s regional status capitulating to the point of no return, that war has also ended in a “no winners no losers” mode. And even though the right wing Christian militia and its leaders were put in the basket of “losers”, they were only partial losers and the political parties that represented them remained there, bruised, but not defeated.

All the while, unlike all “other democracies”, all post-independence Lebanese cabinets have also been based on the “no winners and no losers” principle. The opposition had to always be represented in any cabinet; albeit in the form of a minority. Yes, a minority within a majority government.

This odd situation stipulates that, should the minority be significant enough to score one third of the cabinet positions, it can constitutionally block the government that it is part of; and this has happened on many occasions, especially in the last decade or so when the Iranian and Saudi influences in Lebanese politics reached their peak at times when both sides had their representatives in the Lebanese cabinet.

When the Lebanese Maronites and Druze fought and pillaged each other’s villages and towns in the mid 19thCentury, a council of nations (namely France, Russia, Britain, Austria, Prussia and the Ottoman Empire) convened and decided that Mount Lebanon should have autonomy and be split into a Maronite and a Druze “cantons”.

When the French redrew the border line and created “Grand Liban”, it was perhaps because they thought that a more religiously diverse Lebanon would be less vulnerable to sectarian strife. If all parties were virtual minorities in their own right, the root of conflict could not exist as it would in a situation where there were two almost equal and opposing powers.

Furthermore, by stipulating the religion, and sects, of government officials, the French must have thought that a Lebanon with a Maronite Christian President, a Sunni Muslim Prime Minister, a Shiite Muslim Leader of the House, as well as other allocations that were meant to be pro-rata population based, would be a stable Lebanon that gives rival groups a sense of fairness and; provide the country with political continuity.

The French were wrong, and Lebanon lived and maintained its presence by the virtue of the unwritten law of “no winners and no losers”.

But the events of the last decade or so went beyond the French-mandated Grand Liban borders. The “War on Syria” has clearly resulted in winners and losers; both of which have staunch supporters in Lebanon and Lebanese politics.

The irony here is that even though the outcome of the “War on Syria” was reflected in the outcome of the recent 6th of May 2018 Lebanese elections, and even though the Saudi cohorts in Lebanon have lost many seats and were considered to be “losers”, Lebanese President Aoun, who is pro-Syria, has appointed current Prime Minister, pro-Saudi, Hariri to form the new government.

This is democracy Lebanese style.

At its best, democracy can stink, especially Western Democracy that turns the whole freedom of choice into a charade of two parties dictating who they choose as leader.

In essence and theory, Lebanese style democracy is more democratic than Western style democracy because it does not exclude minorities. After all, in the so-called great democracies of the world, a one seat majority will totally exclude the loser from government. What is democratic about this? In practical terms in Lebanon however, inclusivity of all turns every cabinet into a lame duck that is unable to make and implement any decisions. The presence of corruption at all tiers of government make the situation even more untenable.

The current Lebanese Government cabinet that Hariri is the Prime Minister of already has a balance of power that makes it dysfunctional, even in the ideal and hypothetical absence of any corruption. The new-to-be Lebanese cabinet will be headed by an even weaker Hariri. It can only be more of a government that he can neither control nor even give recommendations to. It is a government that is predestined to be dysfunctional.

And for Hariri to form this cabinet in the first place, he will not only have to balance his own power and appease all of the political parties, winners and losers, but he will also have to appease regional and major powers.

There is nothing surprising in this for those who are Lebanese politics savvy. For as long as Lebanon continues to run under the century-old French heritage of Grand Liban, it will never change, it will never be able to make decisions that are of local, regional or international significance.

Any move towards local reform will please some and anger others if they are not getting any direct benefits from it. This is just one aspect as to why Lebanon is still incapable of rebuilding its electricity power grid after it was destroyed during the civil war, bombed by the Israelis several times, and not to mention that it became outdated by the huge population growth of the last few decades. This is also why Lebanon is still unable to capitalize on this offshore gas wealth, all the while falling gradually into crippling rising debt.

Nothing is more symbolic of the dysfunctionality of Lebanese politics more than rubbish. The Lebanese Government cannot even deal with the country’s refuse as mountains of it are piling up everywhere in the land that was once describe as “the land of milk and honey”. And this is because Lebanese politicians and their followers, cannot agree what to do with it. They all seem to favour the recycling and/or incinerating options, but they cannot agree where those plants should be constructed. Everyone wants them built on the turf of others because they don’t want to have stench in their own neighbourhoods, but in the meantime, the whole country can suffer. At least this way, there are no winners and no losers.

The fear of rivaling Lebanese political and religious groups of each other, the fear of becoming losers and others winners and working around this from within the mantra of no winners and no losers, has for decades been sending the whole country hurtling down into a quagmire of loss for all.

CHINA MUST WALK THE TALK AND SUPPORT RUSSIA By Ghassan Kadi 12 April 2018

The current serious threats from Syria’s enemies could be turned around if China stands more strongly with Russia, giving a clear message to the international community. http://thesaker.is/china-must-walk-the-talk-and-support-russia/

China must walk the talk and support Russia

18926 ViewsApril 12, 2018 73 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi for The Saker Blog

When Chinese Defence Minister, General Wei Fenghe visited Moscow on the 4th of April 2018 and made his historic comment that he was in Moscow to give a message to America that China stands by Russia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-04/chinas-new-defence-chief-visits-russia-to-send-a-message-to-us/9616216), he put China in a new and unprecedented global position, because China had never made such direct statements about the USA since the early days of Chairman Mao; and that was a long time ago, when China was not an industrial power and an aspiring global power, and long before the rift between the USSR and Mao’s China began.

A lot has changed since, and neither Russia nor China are today what they used to be a few decades ago, and as they changed, matured and developed, their relationship vis-à-vis each other and the United States seem to have gone the full circle.

Today’s China and Russia are friends and allies; not only by the virtue that they both are desirous to change the unipolar so-called “New World Order” status of the world, but also because they have a huge number of issues that unite their national interests.

According to a Sputnik interview with Ekaterina Blinova on the 5th of April 2018, “Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel argues that the Chinese Petroyuan can’t compete with the Petrodollar as long as China is not a major energy producer” https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201804051063248574-petroyuan-petrodollar-economy/

In reality however, the Petroyuan does not need Chinese oil any more than the Petrodollar needed American oil to be underpinned with. The Petrodollar rode on the back of Saudi oil, and even though America had always been Saudi Arabia’s master and custodian ever since the inception of the Al-Saud legacy, it was not an easy partnership given that the Middle East by-and-large, and Saudi Arabia in particular, are very volatile regions of the world that can at any time implode or explode, leaving old alliances and business agreements and interests in tatters.

As a forethought, we can only expect China and Russia to have a much more stable relationship than that between the USA and Saudi Arabia, and this can be achieved at different levels; militarily, strategically, and economically among other things. Most relevant to this current context is the issue of the potential of the Petroyuan.

With China’s rising economic power that has already surpassed that of the USA on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) basis, China finds in Russia the perfect oil-gas producing partner to give the Petroyuan the proper and stable underpinning it needs to compete with the Petrodollar and replace it as the safe and rightful bid for oil futures.

And if this is not enough, both China and Russia have been accumulating gold, tens of tons of physical gold, the exact amounts of which no one really knows.

It would be foolhardy to imagine that an American/Saudi Petrodollar, unbacked by gold and/or a strong American economy, unbacked by clear and known actual amounts of Saudi reserves, would be able to compete against the rising Chinese-Russian gold-backed Petroyuan in these uncertain and unchartered economic times.

The future of the Petroyuan alone is one very good reason for China therefore to form a solid alliance with Russia.

And now that China has already launched the Petroyuan, then in doing so, it has signaled the economic no-return-point with America, because in the eyes of America, the Petroyuan is now seen as an existential threat that must be destroyed.

Huge as it is potentially, there is much more that unites China with Russia than just the future of the Petroyuan.

Russia is the world’s richest nation in natural resources, and this is not only restricted to fossil fuel and mineral resources, but this also includes fresh water. The potential for agricultural development therefore in Russia is huge. And we have seen how in a few decades, Russia moved on from a net wheat importer to the largest global producer and exporter. On top of all of this, Russia is a highly developed nation with unrivalled military technology.

As a matter of fact, singularly China or Russia alone constitutes a match for America’s prowess and hegemony, one that remained unchallenged ever since the collapse of the USSR.

Ever since the end of WWII, America has embarked on the journey of flexing the muscles of a superpower on much smaller and less advanced nations. To this effect, it shamelessly and bullishly ravaged Korea in the 1950’s. And if this wasn’t enough, America managed to round up the whole United Nations behind its so-called “police action” to subdue the poor and underdeveloped nation of Korea.

But even with all odds stacked up against Korea, America only managed a partial victory, one that was followed by sheer and utter humiliating defeat in Vietnam and lesser humiliations elsewhere later on. In reality however, America has never scored a single post WWII victory in any of the wars it got involved with, and this is not to forget that it has been in a perpetual state of war, against one “enemy” or another, almost continuously ever since WWII has ended.

This brief historic narrative is not meant to tell readers a story they do not already know, but rather to emphasize how Russia and China do, or should, look at this recent American history from a perspective that joins them at the hip.

The “problem” here, if there is any, is that China is a very old nation that has its ancient traditions when it comes to both diplomacy and inter-relationships with other nations. Russia on the other hand, is a younger nation that is geographically more so a part of Europe, and closer to it culturally than China.

China has always been a sole operator, and a nation that is more pragmatic in its outlook than being colonialist and militarily expansive. China seems to naturally and spontaneously follow Sun Tzu’s rules of the art of war, and knows how to win a fight without fighting. Today’s China is more interested in creating overseas markets than colonies. It is therefore in China’s interests to keep Western economies afloat and Western consumers affluent.

But China is becoming increasingly aware that the level playing field that Western free trade agreements espouse is tilted and biased to serve Western interests. If this alone is not enough to send China sceptical about the prospects of its economic future with the West, it can see that the Western economy is on the decline, despite its own efforts to keep it afloat. In other words, in the long term, China realizes that it must develop other markets in developing nations.

The irony here is that the West has grown so dependent on Chinese-made goods, and this ranges from American-designed iPhones to T-shirts. To put it simply, without Chinese imports, the average American consumer will find empty supermarket shelves.

Without claiming that all fresh food on Western supermarket shelves is produced in the West, with the exception of fresh food however and certain special products such as French wine, Scotch Whisky and German-made cars, most manufactured items in America and the whole West are now made in China. For this reason, for President Trump to think that he can win a trade war with China, he has to delve deeply and realize what would happen to America if China decides to ban all exports to America for just one mere solitary week.

As a matter of fact, and this shouldn’t come as a surprise, America actually uses Chinese-made products in its military. This Google link lists a whole number of them:

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=america+used+chinese+made+products+in+its+ilitary&ie=&oe=

What needs to be kept in mind also is that much of America’s economy, its growth or otherwise, is based on its performance as a reseller of Chinese imports. Any growth in this sector is therefore a win for China.

With its pragmatic outlook at the world, China would be now perhaps beginning to grow cynical about its long term prospects with the West, and the American military intimidations in the South China Sea on one hand, and Trump’s trade sanctions on the other hand, would only be intensifying this sentiment.

To move the power base of the world economy from the West to Eurasia is not an easy task and fix that can be done overnight; and both Russia and China are aware of this. This alone is another reason why Russia and China need to develop the Silk Road network and develop the economies of a region that is inhabited by nearly half of the entire world population. After all, put it this way, if in a few decades Eurasia develops and the average consumer reaches economic parity with the average Western consumer, Eurasian economies would not then need Western consumers, would they?

The bottom line here is that China’s global policy of pragmatism ought to take a shift. China may have current and short term interests with the West and America in particular, but its future is with Eurasia.

In the world of big-fish-eats-small-fish, when Japan’s economy was booming, it is arguable whether Japan’s self-imposed geopolitical isolation was a contributing factor to its eventual downfall. China is clearly taking a different path to that of Japan and is actively engaged in strengthening its military. To this effect, if China wants to be the superpower it aspires to be, it can no longer restrict its global influence to making shy UNSC vetoes.

If Trump’s tweets about threatening Russia eventuate into action, Russia will be able to deal with the military threat alone, but China will need to walk the talk of its Defence Minister, General Wei Fenghe at some capacity or another.

When the US-led UN coalition invaded Korea back in the 1950’s, Chairman Mao sent one million Chinese troops into Korea. This did not stop the “police action”, but it disabled it from achieving the resounding success it was seeking. President Xi Jinping must walk in the shoes of his predecessor. China can put an end to the potential Western aggression against Russia and Syria and avert a potential global catastrophe simply by announcing the deployment of its aircraft carrier Liaoning into the Mediterranean. No Chinese message could be louder and clearer.

WESTERN-EURASIAN STANDOFF COMING TO A HEAD IN THE SYRIAN THEATER. By Ghassan Kadi. 11 April 2018

American misdemeanour is reaching new heights, endangering world stability. Here is Ghassan Kadi’s take on some recent developments in the American-Russian relationship and its impact on Syria.
http://thesaker.is/western-eurasian-standoff-coming-to-a-head-in-the-syrian-theatre/

Western-Eurasian standoff coming to a head in the Syrian theatre

23971 ViewsApril 11, 2018 98 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi for the Saker blog

In his article (http://thesaker.is/listening-to-russian-experts-short-report-about-the-mood-on-russian-prime-time-tv/), The Saker relayed the mood of Russian experts regarding the recent Western acts of brazen intimidations and unsubstantiated allegations against Russia.

According to this analysis, some Russians seem to see that war with America, even a full-scale war, is inevitable.

And just a few weeks ago, President Putin made his historic 1st of March speech in which he demonstrated Russia’s readiness to defend herself with state-of-the-art hypersonic weapons, the likes of which America is perhaps decades away from being able to develop.

March 2018 has indeed been a tumultuous month, and in my article (http://thesaker.is/how-far-can-the-americans-be-pushed/) I presented my personal take on what constitutes for America a national and existential threat.

Yet, even with Putin’s powerful speech, Western powers continue to flex their muscles and continue to resort to fabrications that serve their interests. None has been stronger recently than the poisoning of Skripal and the alleged Russian involvement plus the alleged chemical attack on East Ghouta by the Syrian army.

For the benefit of readers who are not aware of certain facts, none of the above allegations have any evidence to support them. Furthermore, neither Russia nor Syria have anything to gain from either action had they been responsible.

As usual, just as in the case of previous alleged chemical attacks in Syria, America huffs and puffs and makes threats of military action.

But the current huffing and puffing is the first of its kind since Putin’s 1st of March speech. Does this make it any different from other threats to attack Syria? It does indeed. To begin with, and unlike what happened back in September 2013 after the first alleged chemical attack and American threats, this time, Russia is issuing stern warnings against any foolish American intervention

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201804081063336939-moscow-intervention-syria-unacceptable/

One thing that the Russian experts mentioned above agree to is that there is no point in reasoning with the West, because the West is intent to lie and deceive. They also agree that there is little left that America can do to change the course of events in Syria.

So what are the Western objectives of the escalations in Syria? It is hard to make any rational conclusion, because the West is acting quite irrationally, but these are the main possible scenarios that are probably on the table of Western policy makers:

1. Test Russia’s resolve and military capability. Some Western lawmakers expressed doubt after Putin’s speech and reiterated that he was bluffing.
2. Prolong the period of chaos in the hope that time brings about a miracle that favours Western interests.
3. The West can well be bluffing and wants to keep Syria and Russia on their toes.
4. The West can be indeed short-sighted and stupid enough to drag itself into a serious direct military confrontation with Russia.

Not knowing what America seeks in its foolish actions, the onus is on Russia to be both prepared and wise, but this is not an easy ask and task.

Russia’s response no doubt is contingent upon her military prowess which is a well-kept secret that none of us can claim to be privy to. But the 1st of March speech given by Putin would not have been made if Russia was not prepared militarily. For some Western sceptics to think that Putin was bluffing is not surprising, because they judge others by their own ethos. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-02/is-vladimir-putin-bluffing-on-nuclear-weapons/9502240 But this is not to say that the Putin speech is to be taken literally as an exact description of Russia’s military capabilities; especially in terms of advanced weapons that give her the upper hand. So the truth is that we don’t know what Russia has over and above what Putin revealed in his historic speech.

So what are Russia’s options really?

For Russia to allow herself to be dragged into a large-scale confrontation with America in the Mediterranean would be very unwise. Not only this can lead to a wider full-on confrontation between the two superpowers, but this will also give America a bigger justification to escalate its presence in Syria and attack on Syrian targets.

Yet, for Russia to sit idle if America were to attack Syrian targets will only reflect a sign of weakness and will also encourage America to further escalate.

Russia is certainly in a damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don’t situation in that regard, bcause she is dealing with a mindless psychopathic war machine with decades long history of creating mayhem and chaos.

Russia’s response must be measured, because even if Russia is able to achieve local victory over America in Syria, this victory risks further escalations elsewhere. It would far wiser for Russia therefore to serve America with a milder, yet powerful and humiliating defeat, instead.

The first rational line of action for Russia should be to intercept American missiles; without targeting their launch pads.

If America finds that Russia’s defence systems are turning their Tomahawks merely into fireworks that light up the skies, they may then pull back humiliated. If they don’t pull back and continue to escalate, Russia can respond accordingly in a simultaneous, graduating manner. Russia could even strategically escalate when appropriate with actions such as hitting virtual targets in the Mediterranean, just a few hundred meters away from US Navy ships, signalling a message that their naval vessels are defenceless sitting ducks. If this is still not enough to show America who has the upper hand, Russia may use her highly controversial electronic jamming weapons in order to disable warships, fighter jets and guided missiles.

Under no circumstances should Russia be the first nation to draw blood with America, but should America opt to attack Russian forces in Syria, Russia will have all the right to self-defend and return fire with fire that targets its origins.

The measured response that Russia ought to adopt must be extremely humiliating for America, and one that cannot be hidden or sugar-coated by its recipient and its huge media army. The ultimate humiliation would be in electronically disabling an American naval ship and towing it into the Russian naval base in Tartous in Syria. In saying this, I do not profess to know if this is possible, but I am only using this example to elaborate what can be seen as ultimate humiliation.

The bottom line here is that Western thuggery and bullishness must be stopped. Russia must use what is within her power to juggle a wise and decisive response to Western foolhardiness. To this effect, Russia is not standing alone this time. During his visits to Russia in early April, the Chinese defence chief has said that his visit aims to signal to America that China stands with Russia. He specifically named America. This is an unprecedented endorsement from America’s main economic rival and rising super power.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-04/chinas-new-defence-chief-visits-russia-to-send-a-message-to-us/9616216

Furthermore, China has recently warned the West against taking action in Syria in response to the alleged chemical weapons pretext before a proper investigation is done.

https://www.rt.com/news/423745-china-syria-military-escalation-douma/

Any whichever way one looks at it, the bottom line is this. The West is losing both its grip and marbles. As a result, it has lost both its integrity and rationality. In the absence of a major conflict, as every last opportunity to conjure up pretexts for attacking Syria fades, the West grows increasingly desperate, knowing time is no longer on its side. And yet, it feels obligated to do something to save face and save the situation. On the other hand, the Eurasian alliance knows that time is on its side. It does not need a military confrontation to regain any grip of influence it has lost. What it needs is more peace time for it to develop itself further and gain more edge. We often speak of the Silk Road project, but it is in fact a network of roads that China intends to build in order to connect itself with Europe and the Middle East, and this will not only serve its business interests, but also its standing as a world power. And, as this vast untraveled region of the world suddenly has major highways running through it, the whole area from as far as Eastern China to Azerbaijan, Southern Russia, possibly Georgia and Armenia, will open up to the rest of the world, and their economies will boom, including their tourism sectors. So as the West is hell-bent on destruction and creating havoc, the Eurasian alliance is working hard on building bridges.

The irony here is that the West does not have a clear and potentially winning plan if it were to take the military option in Syria. This is why Russia, joined by China, must find a way to serve the West with the right and measured blow that will kick the West with a painful blow in the guts instead of giving it a total knockout.

THE WESTERN EURASIAN SEISMIC SHIFT ; The March 2018 Factors. 27 March 2018 By Ghassan Kadi

Ghassan Kadi’s take on the monumental turn of events that March 2018 has ushered in.

https://thesaker.is/the-western-eurasian-seismic-shift-the-march-2018-factors/

The Western-Eurasian seismic shift; the March 2018 Factors

27562 ViewsMarch 27, 2018 92 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi for the Saker blog

March 2018 seems to continue to be full of surprises, and when we speak about the imminent and inevitable collapse of the Empire, and the consequential demise of global Western influence, we often forget who is the biggest loser, or rather victim, of this forthcoming event.

Without a speck of doubt, the biggest loser will be the Western civilian.

The time has come for citizens of the West to wake up and realize that the Western Civilization is under threat, a huge threat. The threat is not from Russia as their politicians have managed to convince them in order to deflect their attention, but from their failed leaders.

When Westerners watch TV news, they hear lies. When they go to their ballot boxes, they hear false promises. When they are told that their sons and daughters are sent to fight a war in a distant country in order to protect the homeland, they are hearing fabricated stories of lies and deception.

Their politicians lie, and their media dance to the tunes of the lies of their politicians.

After their governments lied to them about Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and they know they lied, they continue to believe their lies about Syria and Russia today.

A few decades ago, the perception of those lies by the populace did not make much of a difference, because the West was “flying high” on many fronts. But this is now changing, and changing fast.

At this juncture, we owe the Western Civilization a good review, and this is a task that requires extensive research, something which is far beyond the content and capabilities of this article. Not even a single PhD thesis can cover this topic satisfactorily. And incidentally, almost every time I wrote an article about the West in the past, and America in particular, some feedback comments insinuated that I should only write about Syria and that I don’t know enough about America to be writing about it. Whilst such statements do not really represent my knowledge of the West, the main objective of this article is for the Western reader, particularly American readers, to have a look at what an “outsider” has to say from a distant vintage point.

After all, a bird’s eye view from a distance sees the overall picture, but a close eye can easily get bogged down in the details.

When we talk about the Empire, we must keep in mind that the citizens of the West and Western politics are two different things.

And when Western politicians chant such mantras as democracy and human rights, and use them to bolster their own positions for personal, or at best, party gain, they would indeed be capitalizing on the achievements of Western people, the Western mind; not Western governments.

The achievements of the contemporary Western Civilization have been a subject of claim and ownership by many now minor Western and other non-Western nations. It is not a secret that the gates for the Western mind to fly and soar were opened up during the Renaissance, but the Renaissance is seen by Arab/Muslim scholars, and for good and substantiated reasons, as a byproduct of Muslim Civilization and the Andalusia factor, which in turn can be attributed to earlier Byzantine, Roman, Greek, Phoenician, Egyptian, Sumerian civilizations.

This is all true, and historically documented. The success of the Ford factory did capitalize on the Babylonian invention of the wheel, it didn’t have to pay the inventor any royalties, but such is the path of civilization.

The Western Civilization therefore did not start from scratch and Stone Age or even beyond. It did take on board the achievements of earlier civilizations; not only from the Near East and closer, but even from as distant nations as India and China.

So let us not underestimate the Western Civilization.

The countless number of the achievements of Western Civilization encompasses virtually all aspects of human endeavor and excellence. Even Chinese medical universities now teach Western Medicine alongside ancient traditional Chinese Medicine.

But it was Galileo, Copernicus and Magellan who proved that earth was a round ball; not Western Governments.

It was Da Vinci and Dali, and many artists in between, who inspired their minds and vision.

It was Pythagoras and Kant, and many other philosophers in between who evoked their souls and sense of awakening.

It was the brilliant minds of scientists like Newton and the recently departed Hawkins who set the Western mind on the path of technological achievements; not Hillary Clinton.

And when the people of France rose against the exploits of the French Monarchy, they were motivated by Voltaire, Rousseaux and Moliere, not by the nobility.

And when other monarchies either tumbled or gave “power to the people”, it was in every instant, a fateful event in which Western governments had to grant their citizens the right to vote, first men then women, and were forced to adopt democracy; by the power and will of the people who had become educated and free-thinking.

The monarchies of Western Europe today are a testimony of royal dynasties that managed to survive by accepting the compromise of hanging on to their thrones as titular figures, and giving power to the democratic process; or at least, this is how it is understood to be.

After having parliaments with elected members who appoint governments, Western citizens believed that they have reached the pinnacle of the rights of citizenship.

And why wouldn’t they feel this way when events were rosy all around?

To top it off, Western citizens were given what appeared to be unconditional freedom of speech, political freedom and the premise of defending and upholding human rights. In view of all of this, Western civilians felt there was no need to ask for much more. They had it made, they thought, and humanity had reached a zenith never expected in the past, a status in which they can live peacefully, with superb medical help, good education for their children, the right to speak and worship, and an economy of abundance. Who could ask for more?

For a while, and this “while” varies a bit from one western country to another, Western citizens did not need to question those milestone achievements.

It was those strong achievements that built wealth and prosperity; not the stock market. That wealth was produced when the West had real productivity, but this is all now dwindling away, and very fast.

Westerners have learned to take their past earned privileges for granted. They seem to totally turn a blind eye to the highly competitive and rising Eurasia. The once strong economies the West had has enabled its citizens to earn more for working less than citizens of developing countries. Furthermore, by inflating their currencies and suppressing currencies of developing nations, the West has given its citizens an unfair advantage over citizens of other nations who manufacture their consumables. But this luxury is coming to a head.

The month of March 2018 has served Western global hegemony with two serious blows; the first was Putin’s 1st of March speech, and the second was the launch of the Petroyuan on the 26th of March.

The Putin speech told the West, and America in particular, that it no longer has the military edge over Russia. And even though STRATCOM Commander General Hyten was initially dismissive and reiterated that American submarines have the capacity to “decimate” Russia and China https://sputniknews.com/military/201803091062379869-submarines-can-decimate-russia-china/ , almost overnight, he made a very contradictory, yet more realistic statement, and said that America does not have the means to defend itself against Russia’s new hypersonic weapons http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5525257/US-defend-against-Russias-hypersonic-weapon-commander-says.html

Later on, the introduction of the Petroyuan heralded the beginning of the end of the Petrodollar and American financial hegemony.

Two almost fatal blows that the West has received this month, and citizens of the West seem none the wiser. They are concerned with the Skripal case and the “shameful” behaviour of Russia and all the ensuing sanctions, not seemingly knowing that this month their military and financial superiorities have been taken away from them.

How bizarre.

We are now on the cusp of a major civilizational shift. The Western hegemony is finished. Eurasia is taking over. This is a major and unprecedented civilizational seismic shift, but few in the West seem to be concerned; let alone aware.

How bizarre, how bizarre, how bizarre.

The tragedy here is that citizens of the West, many of them, most of them in fact, continue to believe that the slogans of human rights and freedom that their politicians dish out to them on a daily basis are indeed the law of the land and that which underpins their governments.

Even after they have been subjected to the falsehood of their governments and politicians many a time, and even after they have seen how corrupt and deceitful their governments have been in the past and recent past, many, in fact most Westerners continue to believe that their system of government is perfect, and that they only need to find a way to eradicate corruption.

And even though talk of the so-called “deep state” has been brought to the surface more than ever after the election of President Trump, many Westerners, most of them, continue to believe that proper reform can rectify this anomaly that is in total contradiction with their respective constitution(s).

When dirt finally hits the fan and the lies and deceptions can no longer be hidden, citizens of the West will wake up and realize that not only have they been lied to, not only have they lost their world stature, lifestyle and wealth, but the whole civilization is now under threat.

Citizens of the West will have all the right to feel let down at seeing that their wealth and achievements have been squandered by their politicians and the business elites.

Citizens of the West will have all the right to be angry because their two-party system took away from them the right to actually choose their own leaders.

Citizens of the West will have all the right to feel undermined and cheated at seeing that their sons and daughters went to fight illegal wars that did not have any justification.

Citizens of America in particular have all the right to be devastated at seeing that 50 million of them are on food stamps and millions others homeless.

Citizens of the West need to ask their leaders and media outlets how they can in recent times throw accusations on other nations without providing a shred of evidence. What happened to the Western principle of “innocent until proven guilty”? they should ask.

Citizens of the West must wake up and realize that all that is left of their lofty principles are hollow slogans, but the core is rotten, corrupt, and has totally lost its morality and integrity.

The Western Civilization is on the cusp of total and utter collapse unless citizens of the West wake up to the ill-deeds of their political apparatus.

This is far more serious than France’s Louis the XVIth days just prior to the French Revolution. Back then, the issue at hand was economic inequality. Now, the whole civilization, at every level, is under threat of dwindling into oblivion.

The West now needs a new intellectual revolution; not a military revolution, because the Western mind has reached a level of civility that should allow its citizens to implement political changes within the democratic process; provided that they manage to find a way to allow them to do so.

Western citizens should be asking for the fruits of their achievements to be restored.

Once again, Western Civilization and the Western Empire are two distinct things. It is hoped that the civilization will survive the huge challenges it is facing, but Western governments seem hell-bent on the path of destruction, and it is time for Western citizens to rise and realize that the clock is ticking, and that it is time for Bastille Day Take II.

SYRIA UNDER SIEGE; GUARDING AGAINST WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING By Newsbud 21 March 2018

Ghassan Kadi's introduction from his Facebook page:
Newsbud is a privately owned news agency. It prides itself on its independent views and respect for free and true investigative journalism. It made its mark by distancing itself not only from the mainstream media, but also from emotionally-driven alternative media that adopt causes, defend them unconditionally and refuse to look at the “other side”. 

We unapologetically defend Syria and do not make any claims otherwise. However, it is not always black and white in any conflict; there are always many shades of grey. We will not get into this, because, as mentioned above, we are defenders of Syria and her government, and by virtue of our charter, we refuse to consider whether or not there was ever a legitimate reason for an uprising in Syria, because the quest for reform is one thing, and demanding reform at a time when 83 nations are attacking your own nation  is an act of treason.

The Newsbud report features most of us tagged in this post. This does not necessarily mean that we fully agree with all of the views presented in the report.  We stand by our words in the interviews, and if other views have been presented by others, then they would be their views and not ours. To this effect, we feel that Mufti Hassoun has been unfairly represented, but if we take this small segment of the report aside, we believe that the report has been exceptionally well done and we congratulate Newsbud for its hard work.

https://www.newsbud.com/2018/03/21/newsbud-exclusive-report-syria-under-siege-guarding-against-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/

Here is the link to the Youtube post which has a lot of comments underneath it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOio1baDxd4

SYRIA THE DAY AFTER PUTIN'S SPEECH; WHO'S DOING WHAT IN SYRIA PART III By Ghassan Kadi 16 March 2018

Ghassan Kadi looks at the repercussions for Syria of Putin’s March 1 speech http://thesaker.is/syria-the-day-after-putins-speech-whos-doing-what-in-syria-part-iii/

Syria the day after Putin’s speech; Who’s Doing What in Syria Part III

14938 ViewsMarch 15, 2018 17 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi for the Saker blog

Much has been said about Putin’s 1st of March 2018 speech; a speech that should well and truly be known in the future as the “Putin Manifesto”, and no analysts have been better able to examine its political and military repercussions, respectively, than The Saker http://thesaker.is/newly-revealed-russian-weapons-systems-political-implications/, and Andrei Martynov http://www.unz.com/article/the-implications-of-russias-new-weapons/

Those articles examine the implications of the speech from a global perspective. In this article, I shall try to examine its potential in creating any significant change in Syria.

In his above-mentioned article, The Saker rightfully emphasizes that the Empire is now in a state of denial. In reality, much of what has been written and said in the West clearly indicates that the West is indeed in denial. The beat up about the alleged poisoning of the former Russia spy and his daughter in Britain is a part of the denial.

On the 9th of March, STRATCOM commander general John Hyten said that America’s submarines “have the ability to decimate their countries [Russia & China]”.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201803091062379869-submarines-can-decimate-russia-china/

He did not explain what with. He did not explain how can his missiles evade the Russian S-400 and S-500 defense systems. He did not explain what can America do if the Russians retaliate and how can super-sonic American missiles intercept hyper-sonic Russian missiles that are twice as fast if not more.

It is not at all difficult to do a search and read what different Western politicians and military personnel have had to say in response to Putin’s Manifesto, and it doesn’t take much to realize that none of the responses were rational and realistic. The responses ranged from being dismissive to accusing Russia of warmongering and pushing the world into a new cold war, and some even accused President Putin of pulling a bluff and expressed doubt that Russia was indeed able to develop such technology and edge over the USA. But one will not find a single Western military analysis that looks at facts on the ground and how to deal with the aftermath.

It is not surprising that only a few days after Putin’s speech, a new hypersonic Kinzhal missile was successfully launched from a Mig-31:

https://sputniknews.com/military/201803111062407028-russia-launches-hypersonic-missile/

Different variants of this missile purportedly have a range of up to 2000 km and can carry enough load to sink a major warship; including an aircraft carrier, without having to resort to using nukes. Now, if Western military cynics think that Putin’s speech was a bluff, this test clearly cannot be overlooked. Apart from the SARMAT and far-reaching range-less missiles, the Mig-31-Kinzhal duo make all NATO vessels in the Black Sea, the Baltic, the Mediterranean and the 3000 km zone or so east of Russia’s furthest eastern coastline totally defenseless, and this is probably a new fact.

But Western leaders are still in denial. The top brass in NATO must know what is going on, but unless one is a fly on the wall inside the Pentagon, it would be impossible to know what has been said and reported back to politicians who don’t seem to know the difference between being on top, and being displaced from it.

This article is meant to be about Syria, and not a single word about Syria has yet been said.

We have to be realistic. In as much as the Syrian Army (SAA) and leadership ought to be regarded in highest esteem, and in as much as the sacrifices of the Syrian people, their resolve and determination deserve respect and admiration, the Russian initiative that began on the 28th of September 2015 has changed the “War on Syria” into a showdown between America and Russia, and the war cannot end unless either Russia scores a decisive win against America, or, God forbid, the other way around.

With the advances of the Syrian Army in East Ghouta near Damascus, that particular battle is drawing close to its end. With some presence of NATO-allied forces in Southern Syria (ie in the Daraa region), and even with reported NATO presence there, the big stick in the mud is the presence of American troops on Syrian soil in the North-East of the Euphrates.

History tells us that America never quits an illegal presence in any territory before it inflicts major destruction and high death toll and suffers heavy casualties itself. If history repeats itself, we should expect in Syria a repeat of Korea, Vietnam and Iraq to name a few, or will we?

Perhaps the proxy American-Russian war in Syria will be different.

Perhaps Syria will be “used” to “test” the substance of the Putin speech.

This may sound like a prelude for a protracted confrontation between the two superpowers, but in fact, it could mean quite the opposite.

America landed troops in Syria because it has always had the assumption that it is able to do so, unopposed, under the guise and pretext of spreading democracy. After all, America has been accustomed to the concept that it is the world’s biggest military power, and from the dismantling of the USSR till very recently, the world’s only superpower, so it can do what it pleases.

It is this surviving arrogance that pushed America into Syria. Even if for one moment we set aside other strategic and economic incentives such as pipelines and oil, securing Israel, which are definitely high on America’s priority list, if America did not feel that it could do what it pleased, un-opposed, it wouldn’t have done it.

After the Putin speech, after the Mig-31-Kinzhal taste test, if the generals and the politicians of the Empire as still in doubt that the substance of the Putin Manifesto is for real, and if they are still living a delusion of grandeur and invincibility, then they would be asking for a reality check and more bitter potions to taste; and Syria is the perfect theatre to deliver this Russian message to the Empire; because there is already a proxy war between America and Russia on Syrian soil.

In all of its previous military international ventures, America had the benefit of assumed wealth and might. In time, the wealth factor dwindled, and now, the might factor is an equal demise to the wealth factor. The only missing link in the chain is a real military test that could well and truly end up as very humiliating for America.

In both retrospect and hindsight, America might have been able to put more fire power, including nukes to win the war in Vietnam, and if it did, it would have won; some argue. Nonetheless, America did lose the Vietnam War, and it lost it abysmally.

So what chances does America have in winning any war in Eastern Syria?

There will not be a direct conventional war in Eastern Syria between American and Russian troops.

I have said this and I say it again, when all of the initial members of the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” put all of their efforts together, with bottomless Saudi and Qatari funds, open borders, and a huge unchallenged influx of smuggled arms, munitions and fighters into Syria, and after they amassed a huge army and controlled much of Syria, they failed. A meager presence of American troops and their supporters in Eastern Syria will not go far. It is doomed to fail, even in a conventional or resistance-based warfare. The war that American ground troops are preparing for on Syrian ground is lost before it starts.

That said, I do not believe that an American presence in Syria will have to wait for a resistance-based “insurgency” for it to be pushed out.

The global military and political indicators are pointing at Syria as the right theatre for Russian military technology to present to America that Putin’s 1st of March speech has had a relatively long history in the making. It didn’t just happen on the 1st of March.

As a matter of fact, Arab media, including Hezbollah’s reputable Al-Manar, has reported as far back as early September 2013, at a time when America was poised to attack Syria on the pretext of the first alleged chemical weapon attack by the Syrian Government, that Obama did in fact order an attack on Syria, and that two missiles were launched. According to this report (which is widely believed in the Arab World), Russian warships in the Mediterranean intercepted those missiles, shot one down, and diverted the second one to plummet into the sea. According to this narrative, there is a strong message; we (Russia) are not only able to hit your missiles, we can even hack their electronics and send them amiss.

Even though Western media reported back then that two missiles were shot down, there was a cloud of confusion about their origin and the manner in which they were destroyed. America/NATO did not deny the claim Al-Manar published; it simply ignored it. I translated the report and took to the eyes of the West (http://intibahwakeup.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/historys-shortest-epic-september-2013.html

According to Al-Manar’s version, Russia’s message to America back then, five years ago, was that; we (Russia) have better technology than yours (America). We will keep this incident un-announced in order to avoid public scrutiny and embarrassment for America; with a message, that we (Russians and Americans) should talk.

Al-Manar’s history in reporting any incident of this caliber has been impeccable. It is highly unlikely that this report was an exaggeration of facts on the ground; or in the air for that matter.

Whether or not this incident did indeed take event or otherwise, Russia has given America many more subtle messages about its own (ie Russian) military technological superiority to the American “partners”, but those partners were not listening.

It wasn’t long after that Russia sent another subtle message to America, in a yet not any less reported incident, when it jammed and disabled an American destroyer, USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea in November 2014. http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html According to this report, USS Donald Cook was disabled by Russian electronic jamming devices; a weapon that America/NATO does not have.

Let’s go back to Syria, and we should.

When Syria recently downed an Israeli F-16 using a Russian-made SAM-5 (1960’s technology), a message was given that more advanced surface-to-air missiles were not needed; and this is a clear indication that the Israeli fighters were electronically jammed, and made vulnerable enough to become soft targets even for 1960’s technology.

But the war and political machines of the Empire continue to refuse to listen.

This is not only because they cannot admit that the Empire has lost the techno-war against Russia, but most importantly because if such an admission were to be made, the domestic reaction can spiral out of control; not only against the ruling party in any given NATO state, but also in the face of the whole concept of Western security.

So back to Syria again.

There are no tricks that America or NATO can pull out of a hat in Syria. If anything, there is a disaster looming for their presence on the ground.

Russia will not need to engage with American or NATO troops on the ground in Syria, but, a confrontation between Russia and the Empire on Syrian soil is likely; not directly, but indirectly as the two powers have always managed to do.

But this time, the indirect confrontation can turn to become more covert than ever. If America continues to believe that its position has not been shaken and that Russia is bluffing, it may find itself taking a military gamble in Syria against forces friendly with Russia.

On the other hand, Russia may not wait for America to try to draw first blood, and instead, Russia may opt to serve America with a game-changer rather than giving more subtle messages than the ones mentioned above. In such an event, Russia will possibly deliver a very embarrassing and humiliating military message to America.

As Russia’s impatience with America escalates, and as America becomes increasingly more arrogant and alienated from reality that stipulates its stand in the new global pecking order, and for as long as Russia does not seek war with any other nation, Russia will need to step up pressure on America until its gung-ho modus operandi is put to rest and sent to bed.

Luckily for Russia, and Syria for that matter, the place to test the claims of Putin’s technological superiority are in Syria, and if America has any technology of substance to show, let America present it in Syria.

Back in 1914, The Ottoman Empire had the largest army in the world, but in the beginning of the war, Turkey had 5 planes and 6 pilots. It was clearly falling behind in technology compared to the West and its defeat was inevitable.

Whether the Russian or the American side draws first blood, a series of techno-showdowns with American troops has the propensity to disable the Empire forces and put Russia in a position of winning without fighting; unless the American side insists to fight, and if it does, it will lose.