“The most common US political reaction to Russia over the past three decades – both by Republicans and Democrats – is determined by the hope either on the complete defeat of Moscow, or on turning it into a friend and a democratic state. But Russia is not a democracy and it does not make democratization. And, despite the long-term recession it remains one of the leading powers in the world. The next president must admit that it is impossible to defeat or to curb Moscow in the new world order, which is becoming increasingly globalized and multipolar. It is necessary to seek common ground, forming a comprehensive balance of cooperation and competition with it.”
“It is important to recognize that America’s problems with Russia are not just because of Putin. They are political in nature. And neither Putin’s departure, nor changing of Russian regime will solve these problems. Putin strictly adheres to centuries-old traditions of the Russian strategic thinking and his foreign policy has overwhelming support among the elite, and the positive response in society. There is always a geopolitical rivalry in a certain dimension between countries with global strategic interests, no matter what policy they are carried out at home.”
“Because of the collapse of the cease-fire brokered by the United States and Russia, and the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Aleppo, the Syrian crisis urgently requires close attention. Whether we like it or not, but the US has no better option than to continue efforts to work with Russia, which is connected to the events in the region, starting the dramatic military intervention on September 2015. Moscow has means and strength to maintain a long military presence in Syria, which is supported by regional powers such as Iran, and possibly Turkey. Power options, for which now some politicians are advocating, such as the establishment of no-fly zone or the destruction of the Syrian Air Force, carry too much risk direct military confrontation with Russia in the Middle East and elsewhere.”
But discussions with Moscow on Syria are more likely to succeed if there is a willingness to expand relations with Russia, especially in Europe. Moscow in its statements and proposals essentially links the situation in Syria with the Ukrainian crisis and the more general question of European security, but Washington has so far refused to recognize this connection. Instead of this the Obama administration is following in the footsteps of predecessors, and more actively try to separate one problem from the others. But only by recognizing that the relationship between the various regional challenges posed by Russia, are very real, the next president will be able to benefit to US interests.”
2. The French writer, journalist, publicist and columnist of “Le Figaro” newspaper Eric Zemmour has put forward the thesis that modern civilizational war is guided by both geography and history.
“Different epochs are colliding and touching one another. Some are returning in the days of the Caliphate and the Empire; others (Russia, China and Turkey) are limited to the system of nation-states; and representatives of the West believe that time of national sovereignty is over.”
“What to do? Francois Hollande asks himself this question out loud and Angela Merkel and Barack Obama ask it in a more restrained form. Lenin’s famous question now is asked about Putin. The Russian leader creates a big problem for what is called with a fake pomposity “international community”, because he does not play by its rules. Russia does not pretend that it is a completely sovereign country, obeing the Imperium of American “superpower.” Putin does not believe, unlike the Europeans, that in the XXI century we should be guided only by a set of laws and trade. When he is waging a war, he is not ashamed and does not feel obliged to embellish his military intervention by tinsel humanitarianism with harangues about human rights.”
“Putin sets the problem of time in front of the West. He does not live in the same era as they are. He has the time shift.”
“Islamic militants, who joined the Caliphate and the “Al-Qaeda” (terrorist organizations are banned in the Russian Federation – Ed.) or to another organizations which require obedience and fighting in Syria and in Iraq or in any other place in the world, live in the VII century. They legitimize their actions by suras from the Quran, just as we legitimize our actions by Declaration of Human Rights or the Charter of the United Nations. Everyone has their own fundamental principles; everyone has their own right, each with its own civilization.”
“The unprecedented cruelty of globalization is not only in that it establishes a connection between different nations, who previously co-existed very little too close: it forces peoples and cultures to converge with each other on the earth, which has become too small. The thing is not only in geography but also in history.”
“Each camp believes in the superiority of its law and its civilization. Each camp wants to impose on others its way of life. That is what gives the irreconcilable nature of our civilizational conflicts, despite our refusal to recognize them as such.”
3. Martin Fitz on the pages of German weekly «Focus» has told about the mysterious death of the most dangerous terrorist since his arrest by special services in Germany.
“The more information about the circumstances of the detention and suicide of Jaber Al-Bakr who hanged himself in pre-trial detention in Leipzig we get, the more causes for surprise appear. For example, authorities say about preventing major terrorist attack of Parisian and Brussels level, but at the same time, the German justice system at all levels – from the regional to the General Prosecutor’s Office in Karlsruhe – behaves as if dealing with common criminals.”
“Not just the suspect is dead, the most important witness of the investigation, which could answer the questions which attack has been planned, whether he had accomplices, did he come to Germany specifically for the sake of a terrorist attack or became a supporter of radical ideas here. He could shed the light on whether next attacks are planned or not.”
“It is not clear why the German Prosecutor General’s Office did not take the case of Al-Bakr without hesitation. If it has made so from the beginning, everything would have gone from a template: Special Forces, like GSG9, the arrest of al-Bakr in his apartment, his delivery to a special prison for such criminals by a helicopter, and then experts in the fight against terrorism would start the interrogation as soon as possible.”
“A man with radical ideas, who was ready to kill people, has been simply interrogated by the psychologist, who had never has the terrorists’ case before. And why they did not watch more carefully for the so important to the investigation person? Also, it is not clear for what reason they began to interrogate the suspect only a day later.”
4. In connection with the adoption of the UNESCO resolutions about the absence of any connection between the Jewish people and the Temple Mount in the French magazine “La Regle du Jeu” David Haziz has spoken describing this decision as a “lite” version of Islamic totalitarianism.
“According to the organization – the guarantor of international heritage, absolutely nothing connects Jews with the Western Wall… Everything is normal, you might say, it’s just the Jews, nothing substantial, nothing wrong… Except that, if there is no this connection, then everything collapses. If the Jews were not there two thousand years ago, ladies and gentlemen, Jesus could not be there to pray and to drive out the merchants. And even ready to assume that you would hardly have been where you are now reading these lines.”
“What are we dealing with? With the root of totalitarianism. In the novel “1984” O’Brien explains to Smith that the past does not exist, that everything is just the way the party it wants. In the book “2084” Boualem Sansal describes a similar erasing past religious totalitarianism. As we all know, this is an Islamist whim, and by entering into this dark game, UNESCO supports it, albeit quietly, without violence and destruction as in Syria, Iraq or Timbuktu. In any case, this is the victory of those who want to become masters of the past. Indeed, as Orwell said, “He who controls the past, – controls the future.”
“Perhaps you want to tell me that today’s Jews – not what they were 2000 years ago. That is the latest finding of anti-Semites: we do not hate the Jews, which also no longer exists. The fiction about the Khazars, which all naive fools in the network have cried about, became an argument in the hands of such a shameful rhetoric. People who understand so little about all this (which is fine, because we have very little that is known about it) begin to talk as if they have written on this topic a doctoral dissertation, and claim that this is the origin of the Jews, at least Ashkenazis. But this is contrary to all available for us sources, literary, linguistic, genetic and onomastic. Is just the opposite, all Jews wherever they may be, there is a clearly defined genetic core, which Slav, Berber, German and other roots has already stuck to… And none has ever hidden it, whatever is said about this by simple Shlomo Sand, the idol of our new Negationists.”
“The list of countries which proposed this barbaric resolution would be enough to discredit it, and with it the organization. I shall limit myself to what I will say that there are Qatar and Sudan – countries which committed the genocide. For the first time France has covered itself with a shame and voted for it. This time it chose to abstain, which is not better. I do not believe we have the right to abstain in the face of totalitarianism. Others have understood it. Only six countries – the US, UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Lithuania and Estonia have shown that the spirit of resistance is still alive in the face of the criminal support of Russia and China.”
Photo: Uwe Norkus / Panther Media / EAST NEWS