This is what Lavrov said today in reaction to the disinvitation of Iran: “this is a mistake, but not a disaster”. He also pointed out that Iran had been disinvited for saying exactly the same thing as Russia: that Geneva I could not be “interpreted” as mandating Assad’s departure. And then he added: “so what, they are going to disinvite us next? this is crazy!”.
Guys, I am sorry, but Russia just screwed up, badly. Here is why:
Logical mistake:
First, what are “negotiations”? They are discussions between two or more parties. In this case, there are really two parties here: the pro-Assad party and the anti-Assad party. Well, since when does not party get to dictate the membership of the other party? If the anti-Assad party says that Iran is not invited, why can’t the pro-Assad party demand that France be excluded on the grounds that French Foreign Minister Fabius had declared that Assad did not deserve to live on our planet?
Tactical mistake:
Second, there can be no doubt that the pro-Assad side is winning the war. So why does the losing side get to set terms?! If anything, it should be the other way around. And if the losing side is setting such outrageous terms, then the winning side should simply reject them and walk away. By agreeing to these terms, the pro-Assad side is acting as if it was losing.
Political mistake:
Third, now that the pro-Assad forces have agreed to take this “slap in the face” without any reaction, this encourages the anti-Assad forces to take an uncompromising stance. A negotiation which begins in an uncompromising manner will not end with a compromise. And why should it? All the anti-Assad side will do now is demand, demand and demand.
Moral mistake:
Fourth, Iran simply has the moral right to be at that table. Ethics and morals should count, if not for the Ziocrazies and the Anglos, then for the Resistance. Iran fought to protect Syria, Iranians died in combats to protect the Syrians from the Wahabi reptiles. Iran stood by one almost nobody had the courage to openly oppose the international terrorist constellation which the corporate media calls the “opposition”. How can Russia and Syria just walk away from Iran when Iran played a crucial role in the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance? How can the Syrians and the Russians allow Indonesia or Brazil to attend but not Iran? This is not how you treat friends, if you ask me.
Diplomatic mistake:
Fifth and last, considering that this conference is starting in such a absurd way, it will most likely end in a failure. In fact, I think that it would be better for it to end in a failure because only a failure of this conference can be used to prove that Iran’s presence is “a must” for a deal to be reached. Then the blame game will start. If Syria and Russia has refused to even show up in solidarity with Iran, and if they have made a halfway articulate case for that, the blame would have fallen upon the crazy US demands. Instead, the US gets to sabotage the conference and walk away like nothing happened.
So what now?
Bosnia redux
It appears that neither Russia nor Syria will be walking away. Frankly, my best hope at this point is a comprehensive failure of the conference as I rather get no agreement at all than an agreement which will sell out the advantages which the Syrian military secured at the costs of the blood of its soldiers. Alas, Само слога Србина спасава (Samo sloga Srbina spasava) which can be translated as “only unity will save the Serbs”.
the pressure will now be on some kind of deal, this is Bosnia revisited again, and we all know how this ended the first time around: the Serbs won the war, the Muslims refused to negotiate in good faith, the US intervened. But most importantly, the AngloZionists succeeded in breaking up the Serbs into several groups: first, Milosevic back-stabbed the Bosnian-Serbs and agreed to help the blockade against them; then, inside Bosnia, the so-called “Federal forces” were either withdrawn or agreed to put their weapons under UN control; then the Serbs from the Krajinas in Croatia were told that their issue was a separate one from the one of the Bosnia-Serbs and then having nicely split them up, the US and NATO attacked them all. What all the Serbs had forgotten at the time is the meaning of their main symbol, the “four s”
The strength of the Hezbollah-Syria-Iran-Russia alliance also is in its unity. It is only this unity which defeated the Wahabis at al-Qusayr and which stopped an imminent US attack on Syria. Now that unity is compromised, if not fundamentally, than at least externally.
No, Russia and Syria made a huge mistake in accepting such a last minute affront from the anti-Assad camp and its UN puppet. Using Lavrov’s own words, I think that caving in to such brazen arrogance is also a mistake, and not a disaster, but I will add that avoiding a disaster is now the order of the day. Nothing good can come out of Geneva II.
The Saker
You are almost always pessimistic. Relax, Rome wasn’t collapsed in a day, but at least the Anglo-American Empire is working on it.
As for the latest annoying tactic, is it that important? It’s not like a peace conference is going to do any good, as many of those who want war have little reason to stop. My conspiratorial mind wouldn’t even be surprised if the Syrian side is OK with this, as a failure will appear to be inevitable, so they will go back to dealing with the invaders. You have to be realistic about what any peace conference could achieve: There’s no way the US and France can tell Israel and the Saudis that they are out of luck in a public way. And the US’s image would be damaged by admitting a loss.
Paul
@Paul:You are almost always pessimistic.
Guilty as charged. To be fully accurate, I am pessimistic cum cynical cum disillusioned cum paranoid. By natural inclination, professional training and as a result of life experience :-(
Rome wasn’t collapsed in a day, but at least the Anglo-American Empire is working on it.
True, but why give them a break? They lost in Syria – so why are they acting like they won?!
As for the latest annoying tactic, is it that important?
I think it is, even if I failed to convince you
My conspiratorial mind
A mindset I also share with you :-)
You have to be realistic about what any peace conference could achieve: There’s no way the US and France can tell Israel and the Saudis that they are out of luck in a public way. And the US’s image would be damaged by admitting a loss.
They did that to themselves. I don’t think that Russia should worry too much about a US loss of face.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Hello Saker,
I do agree with you it is a total nonsense by now. No Kurds, no Iran and it will probably lead to a failure.
Very worried about Ukraine to. Lavrov said it was almost out of control!
Cheers
Putin and Lavrov know they are dealing with lying pieces of shit. I don’t think they are going to step on their dicks now.
Dear Saker,
I gather that Putin telephoned Obama today. Though obviously we do not know what was said he will surely have complained about this grotesque episode.
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_21/Putin-Obama-discuss-by-phone-Syria-Iran-US-Russia-relations-Kremlin-5984/
I don’t think it is a question of making a mistake. Rather it looks to me like a case of having to calculate between two bad options.
It is important to remember that this is supposed to be a UN conference. It is Ban Ki-Moon not Russia or Syria that issues the invitations. The negotiation that is supposed to take place is between the two Syrian sides. Russia and Iran if it were invited would not be present as negotiators but as interested parties. They would not properly speaking be part of the Syrian government’s negotiating team.
The question is whether the exclusion of Iran would justify Russia and Syria boycotting the conference causing it to collapse. The short answer is that if that is what they did they would be blamed for the failure of the negotiations. The hardliners in Washington, Jerusalem, Riyadh and Qatar would then say that since the Syrians and the Russians are not prepared to negotiate the peace process has failed. It would be very easy to see how in such a situation there would be renewed calls for military action. Bear in mind that there is a renewed propaganda campaign underway in London as I speak based on a report of supposed Syrian government atrocities that appears to originate in Qatar and which has received the predictable backing of Human Rights Watch.
On balance I think it is better to press on with the conference thereby buying Assad more time to win on the battlefield. I realise that sounds cynical but the exclusion of Iran shows that there is no real interest in Washington in a negotiated solution. That means that sooner or later the conference will fail (as you want it to) just as all other peace plans have failed up to now and for the same reason. The one thing that remains is to spin out the process as long as possible and ensure that when the conference collapses it is because the opposition not the government walks out. It is a challenge but the Russian and Syrian diplomats attending the conference (Syria has exceptionally capable diplomats)are up to it.
I agree with Iran should be there but Kerry just moved the goal post again now saying that Assad has to go. Amerika doesn’t a deal at any cost.
Hello Saker,
Long time no read…
Actually, the four “S”s in the Serbian coat of arms and flag (each on the four sides of the Cross) are there to symbolize Saint Simon and Saint Sava the father and son rulers (later Saint Simon became a monk and Saint Sabbas was the first Serbian Archbishop/Patriarch both of whom created the Serbian state).
On-Topic:
I once wrote this on another topic, and I’ll just repeat it: As far as Putin goes, I’m not certain of him – but as for Lavrov, I’ve got nothing but praise for the guy. You were a pessimist vis-a-vis the handling of the Syrian situation before (heck we were all scared that the Anglos would win this poker hand too) but as things stand now – it’s Assad who’s winning, despite the Zioanglos. So Lavrov (as a big player) must be doing something right…
@K: the four “S”s in the Serbian coat of arms and flag (each on the four sides of the Cross) are there to symbolize Saint Simon and Saint Sava the father and son rulers (later Saint Simon became a monk and Saint Sabbas was the first Serbian Archbishop/Patriarch both of whom created the Serbian state).
Ok. They are also a modification of the Byzantine “King of Kings, Ruling Over Kings”(βασιλεὺς βασιλέων, βασιλεύων βασιλευόντων; Basileus Basileōn, Basileuōn Basileuontōn) :-P
But the meaning this flag had in the 1990s was that only unity could save the Serbian people. I wise and truthful slogan, I think.
it’s Assad who’s winning, despite the Zioanglos. So Lavrov (as a big player) must be doing something right…
I don’t think Assad is winning thanks to Lavrov, Putin or hte Russians. Not to take anything away from them – they are doing their share and they cannot do more – and they deserve praise and gratitude. But Assad is winning first and foremost thanks to the Syrian fighting solider to whom the highest praise really should go, I sincerely think. If the Syrian solider had to fought so well, there is nothing Russia could have done.
My 2cts, cheers!
The Saker
@Alexander: greetings dear friend!
I gather that Putin telephoned Obama today.
I was unaware of that, but I am quite sure that they had what diplomats would call a “frank exchange of views” i.e. that Putin told Obama that the Americans are acting like complete morons…
Rather it looks to me like a case of having to calculate between two bad options.
I completely agree. I just think that it is high time that somebody took a good shot across the US bow and put the Americans in front of the consequences of their actions.
Kind regards, take care,
The Saker
I think Russia’s reaction and decision not to withdraw from negotiations reflects its weak position and weak position of Assad. It *appears* that Assad is winning, but this is only true until US decides to intervene militarily (impose no-fly zone, bomb, etc.). The fact that it did not happen or that likelihood of this is small is irrelevant. The threat persists and if the threat will be acted on, the situation will be reversed fairly quickly. I think this is why US dictates the terms. The fact that it does it in a crazed manner makes it even more effective: it may be just crazy enough to actually intervene.
In fact, the sequence of events where no clear solution is reached at Geneva II and US blames Syria and Russia and then starts bombing campaign using this as a new excuse does not seem implausible.
The only thing that gives me pause is that back in September some sort of heavy threat must have been used by Russia or someone else to stop the US at the brink of bombing campaign (chemical weapons solution was clearly simply an excuse). I assumed that this threat was leveled by Russia and I was impressed that it was effective. Now observing that Russia seems to have a weak hand, I think either the threat is no longer relevant or the threat in September was by someone else (likely Iran) and was since then neutralized or withdrawn.
IMHO, the threat in September –due to which the intended US bombing of Syria didn’t happen — was issued by Putin directly.
He said that (paraphrasing): when the international law is broken so blatently, there is nothing preventing him to give “sophisticated” weapons to Russia’s allys to defend themselves.
Go figure who & what he meant:).
And there is nothing the zionazis can do about that. Hahahaha!
In the meantime, Russia should play being interested in peace w/out taking this charade seriously (same as the other side)–while rearming Assad for the final victory in the Spring when the olimpic games are over with.
First time comment – and perhaps at a more simple level to all that I read here.
USA lost big time on Syria with pursuit of war; some face-saving by/backtracking to the Hegemony may all that it is – a minor event in a bigger battle and they did get through the first meeting without Iran – anyway, they are just few kilometers away in Davos anyway
Putin may have had indication of the mudslinging for the event and thought better of causing more angst – we are in a position now to better see the USA motives and actions – they seem quite transparent and can fall on their own sword.
Perhaps in this tactical retreat, Putin gained something around the Olympics – from the USA side they seem bound and determined to set him up for something to happen there and heap the blame on him
As you have said Syria is winning and appears quite capable of handling a rapidly disintegrating opposition.
And perhaps letting SA or the USA or somebody lurch into this “opportunity” and further prove their unsavoury intent.