Swedish MPs Hold First War Drill in Decades Amid Security Concerns

In line with Sweden's somewhat hectic war preparations, manifesting itself in a rollback to a draft army and serious military budget hikes, the Swedish parliament has held its first war drills in two decades.

A delegation of about 50 Swedish lawmakers from both left-wing and ring-wing parties united in the drills which rehearsed the course of actions in the event of the threat of war or an outright conflict. The drill was held in an undisclosed location in near Stockholm, where the selected MPs rehearsed their actions to replace parliament if were war declared.

In the event of war, the Advisory Council have have the authority to convene a special War Delegation empowered to make decisions in lieu of parliament.

The drill included party leaders Anna Kinberg Batra of the Conservative Party, Annie Lööf of the Center Party, Jimmie Åkesson of the Sweden Democrats, Jan Björklund of the Liberals and Jonas Sjöstedt of the Left Party. Speaker Urban Ahlin declined to disclose the details of the maneuver for security reasons, yet commented that "it all went really well."

The last time the Swedish lawmakers held such an exercise was in 1997. Allegedly, the drill had been planned since 2014, however, the hostile situation in the world in general and the Baltic region in particular prompted the exercise.

"The worsening of the global environment played its part," Urban Ahlin told the Swedish tabloid newspaper Aftonbladet, adding that the drill would have been postponed "for a few more years" if Sweden found itself in a safer environment.

Earlier this month, Sweden announced plans to bring back conscription after roughly a decade of having a voluntary-based army, and to dust off its approximately 65,000 Cold War-era shelters to be used in the event of a nuclear war. Additionally, Sweden has been bolstering its military budget after two decades of consequently slashing its defense expenditure due to a larger focus on peacekeeping operations abroad.

These measures were justified with the need to respond to global security challenges, including what was called Russia's "assertive behavior" in the Baltic region, as well as the conflict in eastern Ukraine and Crimea's re-unification with Russia, which Swedish politicians insist on referring to as "annexation."

Last time Sweden waged a war on its territory was the Finnish war (1808-1809), which ended in disaster for Stockholm. As a result of the war, Sweden lost the eastern third of its Baltic domains (today's Finland), which were incorporated in the Russian Empire as the Grand Duchy of Finland. After the subsequent offensive campaign against Norway in 1814, Sweden has effectively avoided war for two centuries.

Obama: Russia is 'on the wrong side of history' in Ukraine

The world believes Russia's operations on Ukraine's territory violate international law, U.S. President Barack Obama said.

"The world is largely united in recognizing that the steps Russia has taken are a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, their territorial integrity – that they're a violation of international law," Obama said at the White House on Monday.

The U.S. President stressed that Russia is 'on the wrong side of history' in Ukraine.

Obama called on U.S. Congress to adopt an assistance package to the Ukrainian government as a 'first order of business.'

RUSSIAN AGGRESSION BY CAZR PUTIN Ukraine Updates - Moscow Timeline

17:51

About 20,000 join Moscow march in support of compatriots in Ukraine

 

17:40

Negotiating team set up for talks with Russia - Tyahnybok

 

17:25

Ukrainian warships leave Sevastopol - Crimea administration

 

17:16

West watching Ukrainian Nazis' arrival in silent approval - Medinsky

 

16:40

Crimean authoritieis pledge to broaden Crimean Tatars' rights

 

16:26

Ukraine urges West to consider all options of defending its territorial integrity

 

15:59

Russia has no grounds to send troops - Yatsenyuk

 

15:30

Working group from Crimea negotiating parameters of financial aid to peninsula in Moscow

 

15:24

Unidentified group attempted to block Moscow-Crimea road in Belgorod region - governor

 

15:23

Some 143,000 Ukrainians have sought asylum in Russian in 2 weeks - FMS

 

14:57

Turchynov enforces resolution of National Security and Defense Council on alerting Ukraine's armed forces

 

13:47

Batkivshchyna party hopes situation around Crimea will be settled peacefully

 

13:03

Settlement in Ukraine requires return to Feb 21 agreements - Russian envoy

 

MARCH 1st 2014 - 2000 GMT

UKRAINE ARMED FORCES

ON COMBAT ALERT

 

Ukraine armed forces on full combat alert    

 

Ukraine put its armed forces on full combat alert and warned Russia that any military intervention in the country would lead to war.

 

After a more than three-hour meeting with security and defence chiefs, Acting President Oleksander Turchinov said there was no justification for what he called Russian aggression against his country.

 

Standing beside Turchinov, Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said he had urged Russia to return its troops to base in the Crimea region during a phone call with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and called for talks.

 

"Military intervention would be the beginning of war and the end of any relations between Ukraine and Russia," Yatseniuk told reporters.



UPDATE AT 22.22 GMT

 

Report: Two Russian warships off the Ukrainian coast

 

Two Russian anti-submarine warships have appeared off the Ukrainian coast near the Crimea port of Sevastopol, violating an agreement on the naval base there, Russian news agency Interfax reports quoting Ukrainian military source.



UPDATES:-  Moscow Times

22:15

Sevastopol City Council refuses to recognize Kyiv leadership

 

21:55

West has no right for armed intervention in Ukraine - Russian upper house head

 

21:43

Local council declares itself sole lawful authority in Donetsk, Ukraine

 

21:20

Yanukovych slams Kyiv leaders' attempts to "force their ways on Crimea"

 

21:06

Russian legislator: 143,000 cross border from Ukraine since outbreak of violence

 

20:59

KREMLIN EXPRESSES HOPE TENSIONS OVER UKRAINE WILL STOP ESCALATING

 

20:57

PUTIN TO DECIDE WHETHER TO SEND TROOPS TO UKRAINE, RECALL AMBASSADOR FROM U.S. DEPENDING ON DEVELOPMENTS - SPOKESMAN

 

20:53

Putin himself to decide how many troops to deploy in Ukraine - lawmaker

 

20:34

Putin may not immediately exercise authority to use troops in Crimea - rep

 

20:24

Putin spokesman: "no decision" yet on parliament appeal to recall ambassador from U.S.

 

20:17

Russian upper house to ask for ambassador to be recalled from U.S.

 

20:10

PUTIN HAS NOT YET REACTED TO UPPER HOUSE APPEAL TO RECALL AMBASSADOR FROM U.S. - SPOKESMAN

 

20:08

MOSCOW URGES INTL PRESSURE ON KYIV TO NORMALIZE SITUATION IN UKRAINE

 

20:05

Russian upper house authorizes Putin to use troops in Ukraine

 

19:49

DECIDING HOW MANY TROOPS TO SEND TO CRIMEA PREROGATIVE OF PUTIN AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF - UPPER HOUSE MEMBER

 

19:46

RUSSIAN DECISION TO USE ARMED FORCES IN CRIMEA MAY TAKE TIME TO BE PUT INTO PRACTICE - SENIOR DIPLOMAT

 

19:44

RUSSIAN UPPER HOUSE TO APPEAL TO PUTIN TO RECALL AMBASSADOR FROM U.S.

 

19:41

RESOLUTION ALLOWING USE OF RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES IN UKRAINE IN EFFECT FROM MOMENT IT WAS PASSED - UPPER HOUSE CHIEF

 

19:40

RUSSIAN UPPER HOUSE GIVES GO-AHEAD TO USE OF RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES IN UKRAINE

 

19:38

LAWMAKER SAYS 143,000 HAVE CROSSED UKRAINE-RUSSIA BORDER SINCE UKRAINE CONFLICT STARTED

 

19:35

Russian legislator slams Obama for "direct threat" to Russia

 

19:15

Yanukovych asks Russian parliament to help Crimea - lawmaker

 

19:05

RUSSIAN LAWMAKER SAYS OBAMA HAS ISSUED DIRECT THREAT TO RUSSIA, URGES RECALLING RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR FROM U.S.

 

19:02

Ukraine's acting president says new Crimean PM's appointment illegal

 

18:32

Russian Duma to "definitely" send observers to Crimea referendum - lawmaker

 

18:15

German foreign minister phones Moscow about Ukraine

 

18:13

Putin seeks parliamentary go-ahead for use of Russian armed forces in Crimea

 

17:56

PUTIN PUTS PROPOSAL BEFORE UPPER HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT FOR USE OF RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES IN UKRAINE UNTIL SITUATION NORMALIZES - KREMLIN

 

17:38

Protesters put Russian flag on Donetsk region admin HQ

 

17:20

Russia slams Western countries' attempts to "flirts" with Islamist rebels in Syria



Russian military regains its clout

Refitting Soviet-era warships, fielding new aircraft and tanks and seeking new overseas bases, the Russian military — which now has troops on alert amidst a crisis in Ukraine — is more potent than the force that briefly fought Georgia six years ago.

 

Moscow is seriously investing in building its clout. Since 2008, it has raised military spending by almost a third and drastically reformed both the armed forces and defense industry to tackle post-Cold War decay.

 

But Russian forces remain much weaker than at their Soviet peak and face huge problems ranging from corruption to a long-term shortage of recruits, not to mention the risk of insurgency if they set foot in Ukraine.

 

Moscow denies any direct link between the surprise military drills announced Wednesday and Ukraine, where largely pro-Western demonstrators ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, last weekend.

 

Nevertheless, the decision to put 150,000 troops on high alert along with jet fighters on Russia’s Western borders — where Ukraine lies — raised memories of Putin’s invasion of Georgia. Moscow’s expressions of concern for the safety of Russian citizens in Ukraine have also used similar language to statements that preceded the Georgian campaign.

 

In that five-day war, Russian troops evicted their Georgian counterparts from the disputed regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But the outdated forces suffered losses at the hands of the sometimes more technically advanced, Western-equipped Georgians, prompting soul-searching and criticism in Moscow.

 

According to some accounts, three of the four Russian aircraft lost were downed by their own side.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London estimates defense spending rose 31 percent between 2008 and 2013 to $68.2 billion. Russia is now firmly established as the world’s third-largest military spender, behind the U.S. and China, and the chaos under former President Boris Yeltsin, who stood down in 1999 to make way for Putin, is a thing of the past.

 

“There is a sense in the broader U.S. political discussion that Russia is still the basket case military of the Yeltsin era, but that is wrong,” said Elbridge Colby, a former Pentagon official and now fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “(It) is not the Red Army of the 1970s, but it has made considerable strides.”

 

While Russian officials say Moscow will not intervene in Ukraine, many Western analysts are skeptical about their assertions that the exercises are not linked to the crisis in the former Soviet republic. Russia’s saber-rattling, they say, is another sign of its military confidence.

 

“There is certainly an element of intimidation to it,” said Dmitry Gorenburg, Russia specialist at the U.S. government-funded Center for Naval Analyses. “They have put a great deal of effort into military reforms since Georgia, and some of it has worked. They probably do have a greater ability to intervene in Ukraine than they did then — it’s not that big a step up.”

 

While any actual invasion could initially succeed, he said Moscow might struggle in the face of a resultant insurgency. A more limited operation in majority Russian-speaking Crimea — already home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet — could prove more achievable but is also seen as unlikely for now.

 

Russia says it is ready to work with the West on resolving the crisis but the interests of all Ukrainians must be taken into account. It accuses the new leaders in Kiev of violating a Western-backed peace deal and ignoring the interests of Russian-speakers.

 

The war games, scheduled to last from Friday until next week, are not the first of their kind. In September, the Zapad-13 exercise in Belarus saw 10,000 Russian troops deployed along the border with the Baltic states, former Soviet republics that now belong to the European Union. Another surprise exercise last July in Russia’s east involved 160,000 troops and was seen as a reminder that Moscow also remains nervous about its border with China.

 

Both exercises involved a level of activity that Russian forces would have been incapable of even five years ago, analysts say.

 

Russia is also asserting itself on the world stage. While its ability to send the army much beyond former Soviet borders seems limited, its warships have increased operations in the Arctic, Pacific, Baltic and Atlantic while returning to a near-permanent presence in the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean for the first time in years. Russian long-range bombers are again periodically probing NATO airspace.

 

On Wednesday, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow is planning to expand its presence outside its borders with new military bases in a number of countries.

How viable these plans might be is unclear.

 

Since Georgia, Russia has abolished its cumbersome structure of undermanned divisions designed to fight on massive European fronts, replacing them with much more flexible smaller brigades and reducing the size of its officer corps by a third.

 

Its armaments industry was reorganized into a small number of largely state-owned firms, while Moscow promised that by 2020, 70 percent of its military equipment will be modernized. It has also partnered French manufacturers in building helicopter carriers, other European firms on ground vehicles and Israeli specialists on unmanned drones.

 

According to IISS, Russia now operates one aircraft carrier, five cruisers, 18 destroyers, nine frigates and 82 coastal warships as well as 64 submarines — 11 carrying ballistic missiles. Its air force is believed to have about 1,400 combat-capable aircraft.

 

IISS estimates Russia has 845,000 military personnel, with a largely theoretical reserve of 2 million with recent military service.

 

How much further the military will grow is also unclear. Corruption remains a serious problem. Demographics are also not going Russia’s way.

 

Still, “Moscow’s armed forces have already accomplished the organizational transition from mass mobilization army to modern combat force,” the German Institute for International and Security Affairs said in a January report. “Greater military muscle flexing must be expected.”

The Chinese Threat In Africa

As China becomes more involved in Africa economically, there is growing fear that China is using methods that will eventually lead to intense anti-Chinese attitudes. For example, the Chinese bring their own workers and employ few locals for construction projects China is paying for. This gives the Chinese greater control over projects, usually related to construction (buildings, roads, and the like) or mining. The Chinese tend to ignore local advice, which leads to construction practices that work back in China but not in various parts of Africa. The Chinese workers are kept in separate camps and rarely mix with locals, giving rise to suspicions that they are Chinese convict labor. There’s no evidence of that, and Chinese managers everywhere tend to be very intent on tightly controlling work they are responsible for.

 

These Chinese construction projects please the local African officials because the Chinese get the job done quickly with minimal problems from locals. Neither the dictators nor the Chinese are concerned with long-term problems. While China has been generous with business deals in Africa, and sent over half a million Chinese to work, invest, or settle in China, African tyrants are favored as partners. 

That's because these thugs are shunned by Western nations and businesses. Because of this, China is increasingly seen as a supporter of evil governments and that has generated a widespread African hostility towards all things Chinese. This has led to anti-Chinese riots in some countries and a general animosity towards the Chinese at the grass roots level. Thus, when these countries go through their next rebellion the Chinese are likely to be a popular target and a major loser if the rebels win.

 

China has been at this for nearly a decade. This really kicked into high gear when China declared 2006 was officially "The Year of Africa." China went all out to make a favorable impression on African governments and increase Chinese economic and diplomatic activity in Africa that year. To that end, about a billion dollars-worth of debts, of African nations to the Chinese government, were forgiven. The year before, Chinese commercial and government organizations invested over $13 billion in Africa. This was less than one percent of China's GDP but by African standards, it was huge. 

 

However, there was some blowback. The Chinese were mainly after raw materials, especially oil. A lot of that $13 billion was bribes for local officials. As usual, the average African was getting screwed by these deals. For example, a lot of the investment was for infrastructure (roads, bridges, structures), and a lot of those deals stipulated the use of Chinese labor for most of the work. There was never any intention of employing many Africans. The Chinese pay such low wages that they could afford to fly in Chinese for many jobs. China is also flooding African markets with inexpensive goods. Both of these tactics are hurting local businesses and causing unrest among African business owners and workers. As a result, it's become common for opposition parties in Africa to accuse China of "neo-colonial exploitation." The accusation fits, and the Chinese will pay for it down the road, as will peacekeepers brought in to help clean up the mess.

Warplanes, troops in northeast Nigeria; mobile phones cut

Cellphone service was cut off Thursday in areas of northeast Nigeria as jet fighters streaked through the sky and more soldiers were deployed to fight Islamic extremists waging a brutal insurgency.

Witnesses saw low-flying Nigerian jet fighters over Yola, the capital of Adamawa state, which President Goodluck Jonathan placed under emergency rule on Tuesday along with Borno and Yobe states. But soldiers have met “no resistance” yet from extremists who have taken over villages and small towns in this region approaching the Sahara Desert, a military spokesman said.

An Associated Press journalist in Maiduguri, the capital of Borno state, has found cellphone services unavailable since early Thursday morning on all of the country’s major mobile phone carriers. Mobile phone numbers belonging to government officials and military officials there and in neighboring Yobe state could not be reached.

Mobile phones have become the only real communication device in Nigeria for both voice calls and the Internet, as the state-run telephone company collapsed years ago. By cutting off service at towers, the military could stop extremists from receiving warnings or intelligence ahead of their operations. Authorities said they had no information about the service cutoff or refused to comment.

Nigeria’s military and security forces have tracked fighters by their cellphone signals in the past as well, prompting extremists from the radical Islamic network known as Boko Haram to attack mobile phone towers in the region.

Under the president’s directive, soldiers have ultimate control over security matters in the three states, though his order allows civilian governments to remain in place. Over the past few days, witnesses and AP journalists have seen convoys of soldiers in trucks and buses moving through the region, as well as trucks carrying armored personnel carriers.

Nigeria’s military has promised a “massive deployment of men and resources” but has declined to specify the numbers involved.

Brig. Gen. Chris Olukolade, a military spokesman based in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, said more soldiers were en route to the region Thursday. Any assaults by ground forces also could be backed up by attack helicopters and jet fighter bombings, Gen. Olukolade said, though soldiers have yet to have a serious firefight with insurgents.

“The progress has been met with no resistance,” Gen. Olukolade told The Associated Press.

This new military campaign comes on top of a previous massive deployment of soldiers and police to the region. That deployment failed to stop violence by Islamic extremists, who have killed more than 1,600 people since 2010, according to an AP count.

Nigeria’s military has said Islamic fighters now use anti-aircraft guns mounted on trucks to fight the nation’s soldiers, raising the possibility that the country’s already overstretched security forces are becoming outgunned.

With some soldiers sent to assist in the French-led anti-jihadist operation in Mali and others serving elsewhere in Nigeria dealing with other security challenges, the 76,000-man force is creaking under the pressure, said John Campbell, a former U.S. ambassador to Nigeria.

“While the Islamist insurgents do not offer a viable political alternative and remain divided among themselves, the threat they pose to Nigeria’s political and economic future are significant, as Jonathan’s state of emergency recognizes,” Mr. Campbell wrote in an analysis published Wednesday by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Soldiers now will try to control an arid region of some 60,000 square miles, with powers to arrest anyone and take over any building.

Those powers also have led to worries about the military abusing and potentially killing civilians, which has happened repeatedly in the past and during the country’s current struggle with the Islamic insurgents.

Asked about what soldiers would do to prevent the death of civilians, Gen. Olukolade said the troops had been “fully briefed” on the rules of engagement, without offering any other details.

In Adamawa state on Thursday, the military announced a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew across the entire state. Life otherwise was calm, though heavily armed soldiers had taken over for police officers on the streets of the state capital, searching vehicles and questioning drivers.

But mobile phones remained without service for some in the region as Thursday night fell. Gen. Olukolade said that extremists might have sabotaged the lines. When asked whether the military or government could have ordered the lines to be turned off, the general said he “wasn’t aware of that.”

Reuben Mouka, a spokesman for the Nigerian Communications Commission, which oversees mobile phone carriers in Africa’s most populous nation, said he did not know about the services being cut off.

Funmilayo Omogbenigun, a spokeswoman for Nigeria’s dominant carrier, South Africa’s MTN Group Ltd., would only say, “No comment,” when asked if the government told her company to turn off service in the area.

Emeka Oparah, a spokesman for Bharti Airtel Ltd.’s operation in Nigeria, said he had no immediate information about the service outtage.

Murphy's Law - The Occupation Bonua

Stationing American forces overseas has not always been as expensive for the United States that it appeared to be. This was largely because most of those forces were stationed in countries that became very wealthy as the Cold War went on. Thus as the economies in West Germany and Japan recovered after World War II, they reached a point where the United States demanded, and got, payments from those countries to cover part of the expense of keeping American troops there. Since then, Japan and Germany have paid over a hundred billion dollars in such payments, and since 1991, even South Korea has made similar payments. South Korea’s payments are now over half a billion dollars a year. 

In the case of South Korea, all the money they contributed went to pay South Koreans working on American bases, and for supplies bought locally. As the U.S. keeps reducing troops strength there the South Koreans protest because the presence of American troops helps reduce the possibility of  North Korean aggression. It’s a form of peacekeeping that American troops overseas don’t get enough credit for. Meanwhile the contributions from host countries have declined as American forces are withdrawn.

 

With so many U.S. troops withdrawn from overseas bases in the last two decades, the savings have not been as large as some expected, because the local country contributions disappeared as the American troops left. It still costs the United States over $10 billion a year to maintain overseas bases. This does not include the cost of paying American troops in these bases, but rather the expense of maintaining the bases and paying the thousands of local civilians. Some 70 percent base expenses are incurred in Germany, Japan and South Korea. 

While the cost of maintaining troops overseas is high, it’s not as high as stated. The American troops would be paid and maintained wherever they were (as would the base employees), and duty in Europe was always seen as a recruiting tool. The tours there were three years, and you could bring you family. 

 

Perhaps the biggest loss to American taxpayers was that American troops overseas spent most of their pay overseas. This cost lots of American jobs, and a vibrant example of that can be seen when American units were sent to Afghanistan or Iraq for a year, and the businesses around their U.S. bases suffered economically for as long as the troops were away. Fortunately, the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq could not do much shopping locally, and spent most of their pay when they get home. 

 

But for most American troops overseas, the main additional cost is travel. The troops are moved economically, usually on chartered aircraft but its still expensive to move them back and forth. 

There’s also the additional expense of shipping ammunition and new equipment. Although in places like Europe and East Asia, a lot of equipment can be purchased locally. As several hundred thousand American troops left since the end of the Cold War the host countries, especially Germany, complained about the lost (local civilian) jobs. This apparently led the U.S. to not demand fair compensation for the improvements to the bases returned to German ownership. U.S. officials were accustomed to complaints like this in the United States, but had to be reminded that Germans don’t vote in the U.S. and to think of American taxpayers who do. The U.S. lost over a billion dollars just in undervalued property given back without fair compensation. In addition, U.S. Department of Defense officials did not demand inflation and other cost increases in running remaining bases. The U.S. apparently felt it was best not to haggle and just get the troops back to the U.S. as quickly and painlessly as possible. 

Syrian conflict becoming increasingly sectarian – UN

The Syrian civil war is becoming increasingly sectarian, as Sunni-majority rebel forces fight government troops supported by country’s religious and ethnic minorities, a new UN human rights report has revealed.

­The report – which is based on interviews with Syrians who fled the country and covers the period between September 28 and December 16 – said that foreign fighters with links to extremist Sunni groups are infiltrating Syria to fight against the regime of President Bashar Assad.

The foreign fighters are reportedly operating independently but coordinate with the Free Syrian Army, an armed opposition group supported by Western nations.

“The commission is extremely worried by the presence of foreign fighters… who are not fighting for human rights and democracy,” said Sergio Pinheiro, the head of the independent UN commission that produced the report. “By their own admission, they are very proud of their breaches of humanitarian law.”

More than 20,000 people have been killed on both sides of the Syrian conflict since the fighting began, according to UN estimates.

Most of the casualties in the nearly two-year war were civilians, and both sides are responsible for human rights abuses such as torture and executions, Pinheiro said.

The rebels have hidden in Syrian cities among the civilian population, resulting in deadly government artillery and air strikes, the report said.  

The conflict has also continuously drawn in other minority groups – especially Christians, Armenians, Druze and others – who mostly support President Assad.

The main divisions in Syria are between the Sunni and Alawite communities; most of Syria’s senior government and military leaders belong to the latter.

As the fighting between government and rebel groups approaches the end of its second year, the conflict has become overtly sectarian in nature, the report said. The commission has received credible reports of anti-Assad groups attacking Alawites and other minority communities.

“We think this is a war where no military victory is possible,” Pinheiro said. “It is a great illusion that providing arms to one side or the other will help end it.”

As the conflict drags on, the belligerents have become “ever more violent and unpredictable,” leading to conduct that is increasingly in breach of international law, the report concluded.

Parts for Patriot missile batteries arrive in Turkey

Parts for the Patriot surface-to-air missile batteries Istanbul requested from NATO have started to arrive in Turkey. They were accompanied by 39 German technicians, who will maintain the system

­“Some parts have started coming as of this morning,” the Bloomberg quotes the Turkish Ambassador to the US Namik Tan.

However, he could not confirm which pieces have been received or when the batteries would become operational.

Diplomat Namik Tan also restated Turkey’s official position that the Patriot batteries would only be used for self-defence and with NATO oversight.

"These will be used in a situation where Turkey is attacked," the diplomat was quoted by the US News & World Report.

Tan did not mention if the batteries would fire across the Syrian border.

The diplomat added that the Turkey is currently consulting with NATO allies about where the missile installations should be located.

German advanced military personnel have also arrived in Turkey to help set up the batteries. Colonel Manfred Stange reported Tuesday that 39 staff members were heading to the south-eastern city of Kahramanmaras, about 120 kilometers (75 miles) from the Syrian border.

The full Patriot missile complex is to be installed at the beginning of 2013. The batteries will be brought to Turkey from Germany by sea.

Germany’s Bundestag gave its approval to the deployment on December 14, but it remains unknown when all 400 soldiers, involved in maintaining the Patriot system will arrive. The mission is time-limited to January 2014.

The US military will also be involved, on Friday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta signed an order to deploy two Patriot air-defense missile batteries to Turkey along with 400 troops.

"We will start to move personnel and equipment soon. We're anticipating the US systems and personnel being in place by mid-January, if all goes as planned," a  Defense Department spokesperson explained to News and World Report.

At the beginning of December, NATO foreign ministers agreed to the deployment of six Patriot missile batteries from Germany, Netherlands and the US on the Turkish-Syrian border.

This was in response to a request for assistance from Ankara, which fears more violence could spread across the border from its war-torn neighbour, including possible use of chemical weapons.

Turkey to Iran: Stop criticizing Patriot, put pressure on the Syrian regime

The deployment of Patriot missiles has heightened tensions between Turkey and Iran, which has been supportive of the Syrian regime since the beginning of the civil unrest.

The Islamic republic lashed out at Ankara arguing the move would only further aggravate the Syrian conflict.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu replied to Tehran Tuesday that “instead of criticizing the (Patriot) system’, it should “send a clear message” to Syria’s regime.

“Iran should say ‘stop’ to the Syrian regime that has been continuously oppressing its own people and provoking Turkey through border violations,” AFP cited the official.

Over the weekend Iran’s President Ahmadinejad cancelled his visit to Turkey’s Anatolian province in protest at the NATO reinforcement of the Turkish-Syrian border.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who was in Moscow on Tuesday discuss the Syrian conflict, reiterated his country’s support for Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Amir-Abdollahian said he did not believe Assad and his government were about to fall.

The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the Syrian issue can be resolved by political means, he said.

Iran sees the solution in a transitional government that must be formed with the inclusion of Bashar al-Assad as the legitimate President of Syria.

Developing a non-nuclear alternative for winning wars

There is increased international demand for conventional weapons that can be used to meet strategic objectives in localised conflict.

Nuclear weapons remain Russia’s chief means of deterrence ‒ the final argument in a possible large-scale military conflict. The international situation, which is characterised by an increasing number of localised wars, is however creating a demand for non-nuclear weaponns that can be used to achieve strategic objectives from time to time.

Towards the end of November, when commander of Russia’s strategic missile forces, Col. Gen. Sergei Karakayev, was commenting on the results of military training exercises in 2012, he confirmed that Russia was developing advanced missile systems, including a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

“This year, as part of the State Weapons Programme for 2011–2020, we have been working on creating advanced missile systems and, in particular, a heavy-class missile,” the commander said.

The military operational requirement for the development of a new heavy ICBM was approved in 2011. The lead developer for the new missile was the Makeyev State Rocket Center (Miass, Chelyabinsk Region). The military-industrial corporation NPO Mashinostroyenia (Reutov, Moscow Region) is also involved in the development project. The missile will be manufactured by Krasnoyarsk Engineering Works.

Still, no matter what exceptional potential the new missile or nuclear warhead might have, it is impossible to fight with nuclear missiles unless the objective is to destroy all life on the planet. It is, however, still necessary to fight and to fight effectively, with minimum losses and maximum results.

The Iranian “nuclear crisis” (and the possible use of non-nuclear weapons to resolve the issue by force), as well as the latest Israel-Palestine confrontation serve as graphic confirmation of the fact that strategic objectives can also be achieved with non-strategic weapons.

In the final decade of the last century alone, the world experienced 34 major and minor wars, including an international war in the Persian Gulf, two campaigns in Chechnya and a large-scale war in Yugoslavia.

There were also unseen terrorists, whom the fight against has become a super-objective for the entire planet. In other words, there is no way to get by without weapons. Recent armed conflict has been characterised by brief combat operations that take place within a limited area and without a clearly defined front line, and this trend is likely to continue in the future.

t must be said that, in both America and Russia, there is a heightened emphasis on improving conventional weapons. Thus, the U.S. decided a few years ago to focus on plans to create penetrating ammunition capable of dealing a guaranteed blow against highly defended underground enemy targets.

In anticipation of possible combat operations in Iran, the U.S. Air Force armed itself with the so-called Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This penetrator turned out to be a 15-ton monster, designed to destroy the underground structures where Americans think Iranian nuclear weapons might be housed.

Incidentally, its “parent,” the GBU-28 bomb, developed at the end of the 1980s, very nearly blew Gaddafi himself, in his bunker residence in Bab al-Azizia, to kingdom come in August 2011. According to NATO intelligence, the leader was supposed to be there, having been lured there by his treacherous deputy head of intelligence, Khalifa Muhammad Ali. Thirty minutes before the attack, however, Gaddafi left the bunker with his sons and his closest associates.

Russia, for its part, decided to strengthen its position in the area of so-called “vacuum” bombing. Resonance testing of what is still the most powerful vacuum bomb in the world was carried out in fall 2007.

The U.S. used vacuum munitions as far back as the 1960s in Vietnam. Russia fired shells from its TOS-1 flamethrower rocket-firing vehicle at mujahedeen positions in Afghanistan; the shells contained a thermobaric mixture that operated on the same principle as the U.S munitions. Russia later used the same shells in a conflict against Chechen separatists.

The aerial thermobaric bomb features a container (or containers) of an explosive mixture based, for example, on volatile hydrocarbons. When it hits the target, or when the ammunition explodes above the surface, the mixture is released. When the mixture combines with oxygen in the atmosphere, it forms a very powerful explosive cloud that detonates within 100-140 milliseconds of being released.

In such an explosion, excess pressure, which can reach 6.1 pounds per square foot, is created by the shock wave as it advances at a supersonic speed of 1.8 miles per second. Conversely, a deep vacuum is formed in the wake of this wave, capable of sucking in air and solid particles like a vacuum cleaner.

The ability of the fuel-air mix to damage or destroy an obstacle is very low. However, for a person, it is probably difficult to imagine a more deadly weapon. When it explodes, anyone who does not die in the flames is subjected to the effect of a very powerful shock wave and vacuum.

This kind of weapon is becoming the main mode of fighting enemy troops. It will, perhaps, be prioritised by those who are drawing up future military plans.

US Navy pulls two aircraft carriers from Syria shores

Two aircraft carriers stationed off the Syrian coast were sent back to the US this week in a move that the Obama administration thought would ease tensions, but angered Turkish officials who hoped for significant US military presence in the region. 

The USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier and the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group and its 2,500 marines were recalled after being stationed on the Syrian coast, allegedly in preparation of potential military invasion. 

The USS Eisenhower, which has the capacity to hold thousands of men, joined the other warship during the first week of December, ready to launch an American-led military intervention “within days” if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical weapons against the opposition, Time reported. But as the violence escalated in the past few days, the warships took off and headed back to the US.

The US usually has two aircraft carriers stationed in the Persian Gulf at all times, but will only have one deployed this month –  the USS John C. Stennis, which is stationed nowhere near Syria. By recalling the USS Eisenhower and the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, the US simply outraged its key ally in the region – Turkey. 

An unnamed senior Turkish officer told Israel's DEBKAfile that America’s removal of the aircraft carriers is “hard to understand and unacceptable to Ankara.” Turkey became one of the main opponents of the Assad regime on the international stage and fears that the Syrian missiles with chemical weapons might be used against it. Syria never recognized that it has a chemical stockpile. Nevertheless Syrian officials repeatedly said that their country would never use such weapons "even if they had them." 

None of Syria’s neighbors, which include Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel, have officially criticized the Obama administration for its recall of its naval forces, but unnamed officials told DEBKAfile that Turkish officials are very upset about the move. 

According to the Israeli news outlet, Washington hoped to “to appease the Turks” by sending to the region US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to sign a deployment order for the Patriot Air and Missile Defense System, which would be stationed at the Syrian border. While Panetta visited Turkey on Friday, the defense secretary allegedly visited an air base where US strike aircraft are stationed alongside Turkish warplanes. 

But the US attempt to ease tensions and calm Turkey had little effect: Turkish officials remain outraged at the US abandonment at a time when violence with its neighbor has escalated and relations with Iran and Syria are at its worst. 

Meanwhile  the deployment of the Patriot missile interceptors has escalated tensions between Turkey and Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad canceled a trip to Turkey for an annual ceremony this week, claiming the missile interceptors might lead to a “world war.”

Syrian refugee camp under air attack, eight dead – activist reports

Screenshot QudsNetwork's video claims to show Al-Yarmouk neighborhood of Damascus, Syria, after an alleged air bombardment by Syria's government forces (December 16, 2012 / Image from youtube.com)

Syrian warplanes have attacked a Palestinian refugee camp close to Syria’s capital city, Damascus, killing eight, activists report. The camp not only hosts Palestinians, but also Syrians displaced by the country’s ongoing conflict.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that at least eight people died when at least one rocket struck a mosque that houses refugees who had fled from the fighting in Damascus.

“Warplanes staged an air strike on an area near Al-Bassel hospital… in al-Yarmuk camp, hurting several people,” said the Observatory. They added that "the toll may rise, because several of the injured are in a critical condition."

A video allegedly filmed by a witness shows several dead bodies sprawled in what appears to be a mosque yard in al-Yarmouk. The surrounding streets were covered with shattered glass and blood stains. The video was uploaded to youtube by QudsNetwork, a Palestinian news outlet, but cannot be independently verified.

Al-Watan daily reports the area erupted in violence Sunday as government troops clashed with opposition forces. The edition says Palestinian self-defense forces support pro-Assad fighters. Other sources insist Palestinians are divided over the conflict and can be found fighting on both sides.

Al-Yarmouk is the largest Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and is located in a strategic region to the south of Damascus, where government forces have been attempting to push back rebel fighters for the past couple of weeks. In August, there were reports that a mortat attack killed at least 20 people in a shopping area there.

In the wake of the reports, Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas appealed on Sunday for an “immediate” halt to firing on Palestinian refugee camps in Syria.

"We call on the warring sides in Syria to spare the Palestinian people and their camps in Syria," he said as quoted by the official Palestinian news agency WAFA.

Over 500,000 Palestinians live in Syria which has been going through a harsh civil conflict since March 2011. Over 32,000 people have died in clashes between opposition and government troops, with a further 420,000 becoming refugees in what is widely viewed as an uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad. Syrian state media, however, maintain that Damascus continues to “cleanse” what they have branded as “terrorists" from the region.

In other developments, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared Sunday that the struggle within Syria is not Assad’s government cracking down on its own people, but that the opposition, which is funded from abroad, is committed to a military confrontation and rejects any dialogue.

“The battle is not at all between the regime and its people. There is a division. A segment of the population supports the regime and another supports the opposition which has taken up arms and is being aided by regional forces and there is an armed confrontation,” Nasrallah said as cited by Lebanon’s Naharnet.

“The battle is far from over in Syria because the armed opposition is rejecting any dialogue with the regime, which will bring further violence and bloodshed,” he added.

Hezbollah has been accused by the Syrian opposition of sending fighters to Syria to help Assad, but the group denies these allegations.

Israel gives Hamas 36-hours ultimatum before starting

Israel has warned Hamas it will step up its offensive in the Gaza Strip in 36 hours if they do not cease rocket fire. Israel's Finance Minister told IDF radio the time left before Israel escalates its attacks can be measured in “hours, not days.”

­"We are at a junction," said Minister Yuval Steinitz. "Either we go toward a calm or toward a meaningful widening of the operation… including a possible move to achieve complete military decision."

Israel has demanded that Hamas cease firing rockets into Israel for a period of “several years”

and that they stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. The conditions are part of a six-part proposal put forward by the Israeli government at negotiations with Hamas in Cairo.

In addition, the proposal asked that Israel be allowed to hunt down terrorists in the event of an attack or if it obtains information on an imminent attack.

Hamas’ official Moussa Abu Marzuk said Hamas would not accept the creation of an Israeli "security belt" in eastern Gaza.

For their part, the Palestinians have demanded the immediate lifting of the Israeli blockade on Gaza and the cessation of IDF targeted killings.

Fears of an Israeli ground offensive in Gaza have heightened following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement on Sunday that the IDF was “prepared for a significant expansion of the operation.” 

Additionally, the Israeli cabinet has doubled the troop reserve quota for the Gaza offensive and called up a total of 16,000 reservists.

The IDF provoked international ire and accusations of a massacre following the accidental bombing of a civilian household during air strikes on Sunday night. Eleven civilians, four of them children, perished in the military blunder. Israel says it is investigating the incident and that the misfire was due to a technical hitch in their targeting equipment.

Meanwhile the conflict shows no signs of letting up, with both sides using bellicose rhetoric. The death toll at present stands at over 80 Palestinians, while three Israelis were killed in rocket fire on Thursday, a day after the IDF assassinated the head of the Hamas military wing, Ahmed Jabari.

As Russia See Syria

Assad: Not a civil war, terrorism my enemy, no regrets for now (EXCLUSIVE)

In an exclusive interview with RT, President Bashar Assad said that the conflict in Syria is not a civil war, but proxy terrorism by Syrians and foreign fighters. He also accused the Turkish PM of eyeing Syria with imperial ambitions.

Assad told RT that the West creates scapegoats as enemies – from communism, to Islam, to Saddam Hussein. He accused Western countries of aiming to turn him into their next enemy.

While mainstream media outlets generally report on the crisis as a battle between Assad and Syrian opposition groups, the president claims that his country has been infiltrated by numerous terrorist proxy groups fighting on behalf of other powers.

In the event of a foreign invasion of Syria, Assad warned, the fallout would be too dire for the world to bear.

­

‘My enemy is terrorism and instability in Syria’

­RT: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, thank very much for talking to us today.

Bashar Assad: You are most welcome in Damascus.

RT: There are many people who were convinced a year ago that you would not make it this far. Here again you are sitting in a newly renovated presidential palace and recording this interview. Who exactly is your enemy at this point?

BA: My enemy is terrorism and instability in Syria. This is our enemy in Syria. It is not about the people, it is not about persons. The whole issue is not about me staying or leaving. It is about the country being safe or not. So, this is the enemy we have been fighting as Syria.

RT: I have been here for the last two days and I had the chance to talk to a couple of people in Damascus. Some of them say that whether you stay or go at this point does not really matter anymore. What do you say about this?

BA: I think for the president to stay or leave is a popular issue. It is related to the opinion of some people and the only way can be done through the ballot boxes. So, it is not about what we hear. It is about what we can get through that box and that box will tell any president to stay or leave very simply.

RT: I think what they meant was that at this point you are not the target anymore; Syria is the target.

BA: I was not the target; I was not the problem anyway. The West creates enemies; in the past it was the communism then it became Islam, and then it became Saddam Hussein for a different reason. Now, they want to create a new enemy represented by Bashar. That's why they say that the problem is the president so he has to leave. That is why we have to focus of the real problem, not to waste our time listening to what they say.

­

‘The fight now is not the president’s fight – it is Syrians’ fight to defend their country’

­RT: Do you personally still believe that you are the only man who can hold Syria together and the only man who can put an end to what the world calls a ‘civil war’?

BA: We have to look at it from two aspects. The first aspect is the constitution and I have my authority under the constitution. According to this authority and the constitution, I have to be able to solve the problem. But if we mean it that you do not have any other Syrian who can be a president, no, any Syrian could be a president. We have many Syrians who are eligible to be in that position. You cannot always link the whole country only to one person.

RT: But you are fighting for your country. Do you believe that you are the man who can put an end to the conflict and restore peace?

BA: I have to be the man who can do that and I hope so, but it is not about the power of the President; it is about the whole society. We have to be precise about this. The president cannot do anything without the institutions and without the support of the people. So, the fight now is not a President’s fight; it is Syrians’ fight. Every Syrian is involved in defending his country now.

RT: It is and a lot of civilians are dying as well in the fighting. So, if you were to win this war, how would you reconcile with your people after everything that has happened?

BA: Let’s be precise once again. The problem is not between me and the people; I do not have a problem with the people because the United States is against me and the West is against me and many other Arab countries, including Turkey which is not Arab of course, are against me. If the Syrian people are against me, how can I be here?!

‘Syria faces not a civil war, but terrorism by proxies’

­RT: They are not against you?

BA: If the whole world, or let us say a big part of the world, including your people, are against you, are you a superman?! You are just a human being. So, this is not logical. It is not about reconciling with the people and it is not about reconciliation between the Syrians and the Syrians; we do not have a civil war. It is about terrorism and the support coming from abroad to terrorists to destabilize Syria. This is our war.

RT: Do you still not believe it is a civil war because I know there are a lot who think that there are terrorist acts which everyone believes take place in Syria, and there are also a lot of sectarian-based conflicts. For example we all heard about the mother who has two sons; one son is fighting for the government forces and the other son is fighting for the rebel forces, how this is not a civil war?

BA: You have divisions, but division does not mean civil war. It is completely different. Civil wars should be based on ethnic problems or sectarian problems. Sometimes you may have ethnic or sectarian tensions but this do not make them problem. So, if you have division in the same family or in a bigger tribe or whatever or in the same city, it does not mean a civil war. This is completely different and that is normal. We should expect that.

RT: When I asked about reconciling with your people, this is what I meant: I heard you say on many different occasions that the only thing you care about is what the Syrian people think of you and what Syrian people feel towards you and whether you should be a president or not. Are you not afraid that there has been so much damage done for whatever reason that at the end of the day Syrians won’t care about the truth; they will just blame you for the carnage that they have suffered?

BA: This is a hypothetical question because what the people think is the right thing, and regarding what they think, we have to ask them. But I don’t have this information right now. So, I am not afraid about what some people think; I am afraid about my country. We have to be focused on that.

RT: For years there have been so many stories about almighty Syrian army, important and strong Syrian secret services, but then we see that, you know, the government forces are not able to crush the enemy like people expected it would, and we see terrorist attacks take place in the middle of Damascus almost every day. Were those myths about the Syrian army and about the strong Syrian secret services?

BA: Usually, in normal circumstances when you have the army and the secret services and the intelligence, we focus on the external enemy even if we have an internal enemy, like terrorism because the society is helping us at least not to provide terrorist’s incubator. Now in this case, it is a new kind of war; terrorism through proxies, either Syrians living in Syria or foreign fighters coming from abroad. So, it is a new style of war, this is first and you have to adapt to this style and it takes time, it is not easy. And to say this is as easy as the normal or, let us say, the traditional or regular war, no, it is much more difficult. Second, the support that has been offered to those terrorists in every aspect, including armaments, money and political aspect is unprecedented. So, you have to expect that it is going to be a tough war and a difficult war. You do not expect a small country like Syria to defeat all those countries that have been fighting us through proxies just in days or weeks.

RT: Yes, but when you look at it, I mean on one hand, you have one leader with an army, and he orders this army go straight, go left, go right and the army obeys. On the other hand, you have fractions of terrorists who are not unified and have no one unified strategy to fight you. So, how does that really happen when it comes to fighting each other?

BA: This is not the problem. The problem is that those terrorists are fighting from within the cities, and in the cities you have civilians. When you fight this kind of terrorists, you have to be aware that you should do the minimum damage to the infrastructure and minimum damage to the civilians because you have civilians and you have to fight, you cannot leave terrorists just killing and destroying. So, this is the difficulty in this kind of war.

­

Without foreign rebel fighters and smuggled weapons, ‘we could finish everything in weeks’

­RT: You know that the infrastructure and economy are suffering; it is almost as if Syria is going to be fall into decay very soon and the time is against you. In your opinion, how much time do you need to crush the enemy?

BA: You cannot answer this question because no one claimed that he had the answer about when to end the war unless when we have the answer to when they are going to stop smuggling foreign fighters from different parts of the world especially the Middle East and the Islamic world, and when they are going to stop sending armaments to those terrorists. If they stop, this is when I can answer you; I can tell that in weeks we can finish everything. This is not a big problem. But as long as you have continuous supply in terrorists, armaments, logistics and everything else, it is going to be a long-term war.

RT: Also, when you think about it, you have 4,000 km of loosely controlled borders, so you have your enemy that can at any time cross over into Jordan or Turkey to be rearmed, get medical care and come back to fight you!

BA: No country in the world can seal the border. Sometime they use this word which is not correct, even the United Stated cannot seal its border with Mexico for example. The same can be applied to Russia which is a big country. So, no country can seal the border. You can only have a better situation on the border when you have good relations with your neighbor and this is something we do not have at least with Turkey now. Turkey supports more than any other country the smuggling of terrorists and armaments.

­

‘The Syrian Army has no orders to shell Turkish land’

­RT: Can I say to you something? I have been in Turkey recently and people there are actually very worried that a war will happen between Syria and Turkey. Do you think a war with Turkey is a realistic scenario?

BA: Rationally, no I do not think so – for two reasons. The war needs public support and the majority of the Turkish people do not need this war. So, I do not think any rational official would think of going against the will of the public in his country and the same for the Syrian people. So, the conflict or difference is not between the Turkish people and the Syrian people; it is about the government and officials, it is between our officials and their officials because of their politics. So, I do not see any war between Syria and Turkey on the horizon.

RT: When was the last time you spoke to Erdogan and how did the talk end?

BA: May 2011, after he won the election.

RT: So, you just congratulated him, and it was the last time

BA: Yes and it was the last time.

RT:  Who is shelling Turkey? Is it the government forces or the rebels?

BA: In order to find the answer, you need a joint committee between the two armies in order to know who shells who because on the borders you have a lot of terrorists who have mortars; so, they can do the same. You have to go and investigate the bomb in that place itself and that did not happen. We asked the Turkish government to have this committee but they refused; so, you cannot have the answer. But when you have these terrorists on your borders, you do not exclude them from doing so because the Syrian army does not have any order to shell the Turkish land because we do not find any interest in this, and we do not have any enmity with the Turkish people. We consider them as brothers, so why do it; unless that happened by mistake, then it needs investigation.

RT:  Do you accept that it may be mistakenly from the government forces?

BA: That could happen. This is a possibility and in every war you have mistakes. You know in Afghanistan, they always talk about friendly fire if you kill your soldier; this means that it could happen in every war, but we cannot say yes.

 ­

‘Erdogan thinks he is a Caliph’

­RT:  Why has Turkey, which you call a friendly nation, become a foothold for the opposition?

BA: Not Turkey, but only Erdogan’s government in order to be precise. Turkish people need good relations with the Syrian people. Erdogan thinks that if Muslim Brotherhood takes over in the region and especially in Syria, he can guarantee his political future, this is one reason. The other reason, he personally thinks that he is the new sultan of the Ottoman and he can control the region as it was during the Ottoman Empire under a new umbrella. In his heart he thinks he is a caliph. These are the main two reasons for him to shift his policy from zero problems to zero friends.

RT:  But it is not just the West that opposes you at this point; there are so many enemies in the Arab world and that is to say like two years ago when someone heard you name in the Arab world they would straighten their ties, and now in the first occasion they betrayed you, why do you have so many enemies in the Arab world?

BA: They are not enemies. The majority of Arab governments support Syria in their heart but they do not dare to say that explicitly.

RT: Why not?

BA: Under pressure by the West, and sometimes under pressure of the petrodollars in the Arab world.

RT:  Who supports you from the Arab world?

BA: Many countries support Syria by their hearts but they do not dare to say that explicitly. First of all, Iraq which played a very active role in supporting Syria during the crisis because it is a neighboring country and they understand and recognize that if you have a war inside Syria you will have war in the neighboring countries including Iraq. I think there are other countries which have good position like Algeria, and Oman mainly and there are other countries I would not count all of them now but I would say they have positive position without taking actions.

RT: Saudi Arabia and Qatar, why are they so adamant about you resigning and how would an unstable Middle East fit their agenda?

BA: Let’s be frank, I cannot answer on their behalf. They have to answer this question but I could say that the problem between Syria and many countries whether in the Arab world or in the region or in the West, is that we kept saying no when we think that we have to say no, that is the problem. And some countries believe that they can control Syria through orders, through money or petrodollars and this is impossible in Syria, this is the problem. May be they want to play a role. We do not have a problem, they can play a role whether they deserve this or not, they can play a role but not to play a role at the expense of our interests.

RT: Is it about controlling Syria or about exporting their vision of Islam to Syria?

BA: You cannot put it as a government policy sometimes. Sometimes you have institutions in certain country, sometime you have persons who try to promote this but they do not announce it as an official policy. So, they did not ask us to promote their, let’s say, extremist attitude of their institutions but that happened in reality whether through indirect support of their government or through the foundation from institutions and personnel. So, this is part of the problem, but when I want to talk as a government, I have to talk about the announced policy. The announced policy is like any other policy; it is about the interest, it is about playing a role, but we cannot ignore what you mentioned.

RT:  Iran which is a very close ally also is exposed to economic sanctions, also facing a threat of military invasion. If you were faced with an option to cut ties with Iran in exchange for peace in your country, would you go for it?

BA: We do not have contradicting options in this regard because we had good relations with Iran since 1979 till today, and it is getting better every day, but at the same time we are moving towards peace. We had peace process and we had peace negotiations. Iran was not a factor against peace. So, this is misinformation they try to promote in the West that if we need peace, we do not have to have good relation with Iran. There is no relation; it is two completely different subjects. Iran supported Syria, supported our cause, the cause of the occupied land and we have to support them in their cause. This is very simple. Iran is a very important country in the region. If we are looking for stability, we need good relations with Iran. You cannot talk about stability while you have bad relations with Iran, Turkey and your neighbors and so on. This is it.

­

‘Al-Qaeda’s final aim is an Islamic emirate in Syria’

­RT:  Do you have any information that the Western intelligence is financing rebel fighters here in Syria?

BA: No, so far what we know is that they are offering the know-how support for the terrorists through Turkey and sometimes through Lebanon mainly. But there is other intelligence, not the Western, but the regional intelligence which is very active and more active than the Western one under the supervision of the Western intelligence.

RT: What is the role of Al-Qaeda in Syria at this point? Are they controlling any of the rebel coalition forces?

BA: No, I do not think they are looking to control; they are looking to create their own kingdoms or emirates in their language, but they mainly try now to scare the people through explosions, assassinations, suicide bombers and things like this to push the people towards desperation and to accept them as reality. So, they go step by step but their final aim is to have this, let’s say, Islamic Emirate in Syria where they can promote their own ideology in the rest of the world.

RT: From those who are fighting you and those who are against you, who would you talk to?

BA: We talk to anyone who has genuine will to help Syria, but we do not waste our time with anyone who wants to use our crisis for his own personal interests.

RT:  There has been many times…not you but the government forces have been accused for many times of war crimes against your own civilians, do you accept that the government forces have committed war crimes against their own civilians?

BA: We are fighting terrorism. We are implementing our constitution by protecting the Syrian people. Let’s go back to what happened in Russia more than a decade ago when you faced terrorism in Chechnya and other places; they attacked people in theaters and schools and so on, and the army in Russia protected the people, would you call it war crimes?! No, you would not. Two days ago, Amnesty International recognized the crimes that were committed few days ago by the armed groups when they captured soldiers and executed them. Also Human Rights Watch recognized this. Human Rights Watch recognized more than once the crimes of those terrorist groups and few days ago it described these crimes as war crimes, this is the first point. The second point, if you have an army that committed a crime against its own people, this is devoid of logic because the Syrian Army is made up of Syrian people. If you want to commit a crime against your people, then the army will divide, will disintegrate. So, you cannot have a strong army while you are killing your people. Third, the army cannot withstand for twenty months in these difficult circumstances without having the embrace of the public in Syria. So, how could you have this embracement while you are killing your people?! This is a contradiction. So, this is the answer.

­

‘I must live in Syria and die in Syria’

­RT: When was the last time you spoke to a Western leader?

BA: It was before the crisis.

RT:  Was there any time at which they try to give you conditions that if you left the post of presidency then there will be peace in Syria or no?

BA: No, they did not propose it directly, no, but whether they propose that directly or indirectly, it is a matter of sovereignty; only the Syrian people will talk about this. Whoever talks about this in the media or in a statement directly or indirectly has no meaning and has no weight in Syria.

RT: Do you even have a choice because from what it seems from the outside that would not have anywhere to go. Where would you go if you want to leave?

BA: To Syria. I would go from Syria to Syria. This is the only place where we can live. I am not a puppet. I was not made by the West to go to the West or to any other country. I am Syrian, I was made in Syria, I have to live in Syria and die in Syria.

­

‘I believe in democracy and dialogue – but we must be realistic’

­RT: Do you think that at this point there is any chance for diplomacy or talks or only the army can get it done?

BA: I always believe in diplomacy and I always believe in dialogue even with those who do not understand or believe in it. We have to keep trying. I think that we will always achieve a partial success. We have to look for this partial success before we achieve the complete success. But we have to be realistic. You do not think that only dialogue can make you achieve something because those people who committed these acts they are of two kinds: one of them does not believe in dialogue, especially the extremists, and you have the outlaws who have been convicted by the court years ago before the crisis and their natural enemy is the government because they are going to be detained if we have a normal situation in Syria. The other part of them is the people who have been supplied by the outside, and they can only be committed to the governments which paid them the money and supplied them with the armament; they do not have a choice because they do not own their own decision. So, you have to be realistic. And you have the third part of the people whether militants or politicians who can accept the dialogue. That’s why we have been in this dialogue for months now even with militants and many of them gave up their armaments and they went back to their normal life.

‘The price of a foreign invasion will be more than the world can afford’

­RT:  Do you think a foreign invasion is imminent?

BA: I think the price of this invasion if it happened is going to be more than the whole world can afford because if you have a problem in Syria, and we are the last stronghold of secularism and stability in the region and coexistence, let’s say, it will have a domino effect that will affect the world from the Atlantic to the Pacific and you know the implication on the rest of the world. I do not think the West is going in that direction, but if they do so, nobody can tell what is next.

RT:  Mr. President, do you blame yourself for anything?

BA: Normally you have to find mistakes you do with every decision, otherwise you are not human.

RT: What is your biggest mistake?

BA: I do not remember now to be frank. But I always, even before taking the decision, consider that part of it will be wrong but you cannot tell about your mistakes now. Sometimes, especially during crisis, you do not see what is right and what is wrong until you overcome the situation that you are in. I would not be objective to talk about mistakes now because we still in the middle of the crisis.

RT:  So, you do not have regrets yet?

BA: Not now. When everything is clear, you can talk about your mistakes, and definitely you have mistakes and that is normal.

RT:  If today was March 15, 2011, that is when the protest started to escalate and grow, what would you do differently?

BA: I would do what I did on March 15.

RT: Exactly the same?

BA: Exactly the same: ask different parties to have dialogue and stand against terrorists because that is how it started. It did not start as marches; the umbrella or cover was the marches, but within those marches you had militants who started shooting civilians and the army at the same time. May be on the tactical level, you could have done something different but as a president you are not tactical, you always take the decision on a strategic level which is something different.

RT: President al-Assad, how do you see yourself in ten-years’ time?

BA: I see myself through my country; I cannot see myself but my country in ten-years’ time. This is where I can see myself.

RT: Do you see yourself in Syria?

BA: Definitely, I have to be in Syria. It is not about the position. I do not see myself whether a president or not. This is not my interest. I can see myself in this country as safe country, stable country and more prosperous country.

RT:  President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, thank you for talking to RT.

BA: Thank you for coming to Syria, again.