IS LAVROV REALLY COMMITTED TO SUPPORT SYRIA & IRAN?

IS LAVROV REALLY COMMITTED TO SUPPORT SYRIA & IRAN?

By Hugo Adan

Sept 26, 2013

A recent report from RT said that ““The resolution which will be submitted to the UN Security Council is in line with the Geneva framework on the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria,”. This statement does not make explicit that was said by Lavrov 2 days before: that “CHEMICAL WEAPONS HELD BY ALL SIDES IN SYRIA SHOULD BE DESTROYED.  The West press is saying that only one side, the regimen chemical weapons will be destroyed. This creates a win situation for NATO. http://rt.com/news/lavrov-un-resolution-syria-409/

IF so, Lavrov is getting zero in war-diplomacy. In war, one side is right and the other is wrong, it is a zero-sum game. Syria is right. It doesn’t matter if the ruler is a dictator or not, it was invaded by foreign mercen aries and the State has the right to defend  their sovereignty.  The western forces were wrong. The US and NATO allies (including Israel) financed trained and equipped the mercenaries sent by the Saudis, Qatar, Emirates and Turks, to destroy the country and deposed Bashar Assad .

Russia was defending the right cause, and should have not give up any concession to the West, knowing that the international community is against NATO allies and that the west is in severe economic and political crisis (not only credibility  crisis on their  rules,  but also their States are in real bankruptcy and at the brink of collapse).  Is this a lion without teeth as the Britts war-mongers said?

The disarming of Syria without disarming Israel gives NATO the chance to advance over Iran. In war-time (we are in its prelims) any concession given to the other side is a defeat to your side. Unless is a gambit tactic, that means that you intentionally give up a piece in order to get a better position to facilitate a coming check-mate. It doesn’t seem to be the case nowadays, time will tell.   

To me this is just the “go ahead with your plans if you do not affect my interests”.  If this is the case, that is a Russian betrayal to the whole international community that was expecting a multi-polar world system loaded with peace. Russia should know that the West do not want peace and that they  will of course proceeds with their neocons plan and Russia and China)will be the next.   

Stalin played a gambit tactic with Hitler. Russia sacrificed 5 million soldiers in the resistance to the Hitler’ army  that invaded Russia with the bless of Western allies. Time was need it for Stalin  to prepare the retaliation.  In winter  the army and air-force was ready and it came a  devastating blow on Hitler forces. The invaders  were wipe out and not prisoners allowed. Then the red army went inside Germany  and all Hitler’s  fortifications  were smashed without mercy. They deserved it. West allies didn’t do much to defeat  Germans. The US bomb on Japan was just a warning to prevent more advances of Russians.   

Are Russians playing a gambit today? Is that the reason why Lavrov gave up to NATO?.  What I mean by  Lavrov is  “giving  up” to NATO?:

1- Lavrov knows that the conquest of the oil in the Arabian gulf and the Caspian see was planned before the end of the previous century by the neocons. He knows  that they came to power in the year 2000 via electoral fraud in Florida.

2- Lavrov knows that with the inside job  of September 11, 2001, the US and NATO started the implementation of the neocons plan.

3- Lavrov knows that in  the NATO`s 25th Summit in Chicago “In Preparation of Global Full Spectrum Dominance”, in a doct published on:Sun, May 20th, 2012  http://nsnbc.me/2012/05/20/natos-25th-summit-in-chicago-in-preparation-of-global-full-spectrum-dominance-interventionism-possible-preparations-for-a-regional-war-directed-against-russia-and-china-and-developments-in-global/  the neocons plan  was ratified, that the control of Syria & Iran are the next, after Iraq and Libya.

4. Lavrov know that the uses of chemical weapons inside Syria started in July this year and that it was done by mercenaries jishadist  prepared by the west.

5. Lavrov said the day 24 and 25 of September that  his proposal for the UNSC  was  “CHEMICAL WEAPONS HELD BY ALL SIDES IN SYRIA SHOULD BE DESTROYED – LAVROV Published time: September 24, 2013 22:57. Edited time: September 25. See http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-lavrov-kerry-298/ .

6. Today Sept 26, RT is saying that “A Syria resolution drafted by Russia and the US is in line with the earlier agreement in Geneva and does not suggest immediate action under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, Russia’s FM Lavrov said.” http://rt.com/news/lavrov-un-resolution-syria-409/  Meaning: there won’t be NATO military action on Syria, not R2P (not “right to protect” as alleged by NATO war mongers), that is the official meaning. The fact is that the attack on Syria will be postponed until NATO invent a new pretext.

7. However, this statement  is accepting  the dismantle of Syrian weapon but (1) not  the dismantle of all sides from chemical weapons as proposed  above (5).  This means that the west will continue arming the jhadist with chemical weapons and using it to blame the Assad regime for its uses, as it happens today. (2) It also means that the key aggressor en the region,  ISRAEL,  will not be disarmed of their  chemical weapons.   

In other words, the attack on Syria has been postponed, more arms will come to support the opposition against Assad regime and the Syrian population will continue living with the angst and blackmail of being bombarded  when the NATO allies invent a new pretext to do so.

=============