Translated into English:
Original Russian version:
Saker Commentary:
I have to say that I am extremely impressed by Sergei Lavrov whom I consider to be one of the best diplomats I have ever listened to (the other one being James Baker whose views I never shared, but who undoubtedly was a top level diplomat). Russia is really fortunate to have such an excellent team as Sergei Lavrov and Vitalii Churkin (Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN) representing its interests on the foreign policy arena, in particular at such a difficult time of multiple crises.
I also really like the Russian approach to the Syrian crisis. Basically, Russia accepts that a transition to a new regime might be needed and that it does not defend the Assad regime as such, but it insists that any such transition must occur exclusively in the context of international law. What does that mean? That means the following:
1) Violence is not an acceptable way of seizing, or retaining, power.
2) Syria’s territorial integrity cannot be compromised.
3) All parties must seek a negotiated solution and renounce violence without preconditions.
4) No external interference in the Syrian crisis.
5) UNSC Resolutions 2042 and 2043 and are mandatory on all the parties, as is the obligation to support Kofi Annan’s peace plan.
6) No Chapter VII UNSC shall pass as long as UNSC Resolutions 2042 and 2043 are not fully implemented.
7) The future political regime of Syria can only be defined by the Syrian people.
8) The rights of all minorities must be fully guaranteed.
Ok, this might sound like the typical “doubleplusgoodwilling” language all diplomats use. But let’s translate these into simple terms:
1) The current US policy of subversion of the Syrian regime is wholly illegitimate.
2) Russia will never allow a repeat of what happened in Libya.
3) No amount of US/NATO pressure will change Russia’s principal stance on this issue.
This is very good news indeed. Russian cannot and therefore will not attempt to use its military power to prevent the US/NATO/Wahabi alliance to attack Syria, but short of that, Russia will use all its soft power to prevent such an outcome. Hillary’s dumb threats about “Russia and China must be made to pay” are totally rejected as not only undiplomatic, but even as basically laughable and ill-mannered.
Something is becoming increasingly obvious: Russia is really getting fed up, badly, with the US and NATO and we can expect a lot of firm “niets” (“no” in Russian) in the future. Niet to the anti-missile shield in Europe. Niet to the US/NATO war on Syria. Niet to any attempts to interfere inside Russian affairs. Niet to any attempts to pressure Russia to comply with US/NATO demands, threats and ultimatums. Niet to any NATO expansion, in particular to Georgia or the Ukraine. Niet to any further conventional arms reductions in Europe. Niet to further sanctions on Iran and, of course, niet to any military aggression on that country either.
The western elites finally got what they apparently so badly wanted: not some nonsensical “restart” or relations with Russia, but a full-spectrum Cold War.
I am left marveling at the mind-boggling stupidity and hubris of the international plutocracy of “1%” which is currently in power in the West. Do these fat cats really, sincerely, think that this time around they will prevail? Do they really want to take on Russia, China, the massive systemic, economic and social crisis which devastates every western country, and, potentially, face the rage of their own “99%” all at the same time?!
For all the lies of the corporate media, the regime in Russia is very popular and the country is booming. Structurally and politically, it has not been as strong as it is now since the reign of Tsar Alexander III (and I would say that it is stronger today than it was then), and it has enough reserves (financial, organizational, military, etc.) to face a prolonged crisis. If the western elites still think that these are the 1980s or 1990s they are sorely mistaken and they will pay the price for this mistake.
The Saker
Russia has even learned to use the same tricks the West does, like defending human rights and democracy:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20120715/174617165.html
Pity that the Russian media doesn’t have the same spread over the entire world as the US does.
Interesting how Lavrov mentions the Serb refugees who were ignored by the powers that be. I believe 200 000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from the Croat province of Krajina in 1995 by the fascist Tudjman regime, the biggest piece of ethnic cleansing of the war but nothing was done about it indeed NATO helped to arm the Croats at the time.
The classic Western doctrine of humanitarian intervention was stated by the liberal academic Timothy Garton Ash as follows
“Military intervention – preferably with explicit UN sanction, failing that with the support of a double majority (of democracies and of the country’s neighbours, and in very exceptional cases even with a smaller coalition – can be justified a) where there is genocide taking place as in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Iraq in 1988 but not Iraq in 2003 or b) where there is a real and present danger of a regime or terrorist group acquiring weapons of mass destruction which they are likely to use against us, their neighbours or their own people. How on earth we establish whether there is such a real and present danger is something we shall all have to wrestle with – especially after this claim was made about Saddam’s Iraq, on the authority of secret intelligence and turned out to be untrue. What qualifies as genocide is also a matter for the most serious debate. But intervention is not justified simply to end a dictatorship”
Criteria a)is wide open to abuse and tears up international law which is there for a reason. Garton Ash himself ruefully admits “There are good reasons why statesmen from the signatories of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 to the authors of the UN Charter in 1945 set such store by respect for state sovereignty and non-intervention. If I think I’m justified in invading your country you may equally well feel you’re justified in invading mine. Or someone else’s. President Putin plainly felt encouraged by America’s unilateral action over Iraq to continue his oppression of Chechnya and China felt it had a freer hand in Tibet. The road back to international anarchy is a short one” Ash fails to recognise that Chechya and Tibet are internal Russian and Chinese issues whereas Iraq was a sovereign state so there is no comparison between them.
Criteria b) is simply a licence for imperialism on the base of pre-emptive strikes to a threat which may well turn out to be entirely bogus as it was in Iraq.
The idea that a majority of democracies licenses intervention without a UNSC is another ideological assault on international law. I’ve heard it argued that the SC veto could be justified if you had a two thirds majority of the General Assembly in which case the intervention would still be technically illegal but it would be legitimate.
My view is that there should have been an intervention in Rwanda but not Bosnia Kosovo or Iraq.
If by the middle of this century the West finds itself confronted by a Russian Chinese alliance plus Muslim satellites with a combined economic and military power equal to its own it may come to regret its lack of respect for international law. Having set a precedent for overriding the veto it may find the precedent used against it.
Sorry that should say overriding the SC veto would be justified.
It is arguable that the consequence of supporting the rebels is that they have no incentive to cooperate with the Annan Peace Plan and so the West and their Saudi Qatari satellites are promoting the violence and have blood on their hands. Lavrov doesn’t quite put it as bluntly as that but I suspect that is how he privately feels.
Garton Ash by the way recently wrote a Guardian article attacking Putins Russia for having no shame over Syria. The libeal Guardian has been banging the drum against Putin for years, worse that the conservative press.