"In Syrien wird dem Imperium sein Stalingrad bereitet!"

Zur nötigen Solidarität mit Putins Russland und Assads Syrien. Ein  offener Brief an türkische und sonstige Kommunisten

Wider die Gleichsetzung Putins mit NATO-Politikern

Danke für die ausführliche Befassung mit meinem Einwand gegen Eure Gleichsetzung Putins mit Politikern der westlich imperialistischen Weltordnung.

Mit dem Inhalt der Replik bin ich allerdings in weiten Teilen nicht einverstanden.

Genau wie Ihr glaube ich aber durchaus an eine Zukunft des Sozialismus. Genau wie Ihr bin ich im Sinne des „Kommunistischen Manifest“ davon überzeugt, dass das Werk der Befreiung vom Imperialismus nur erfolgreich durch das Werk der Arbeiterklasse erreicht werden kann. Genau wie Ihr sehne ich mich nach einer kommunistischen Partei, die den Klassengegensatz als die zentrale Größe begreift und die in der Lage ist, diesen Gegensatz auch auf globaler Ebene adäquat zu reflektieren. Leider sehe ich solche Partei in meinem Umfeld nirgends, auch nicht bei den Griechen.

Gegensatz der Klassen - Täter- und  Opfernationen

International betrachtet zeigt sich der antagonistische Gegensatz der Klassen zwischen ausbeutenden Nationen und solchen die zum Opfer des Imperialismus geworden sind.

Auch Lenin hat gesehen, dass es diese gravierenden, antagonistischen Unterschiede zwischen Nationen gibt. Man lese dringend sein Werk „Imperialismus als höchstes Stadium des Kapitalismus“ erneut. 

Es ist doch das unverbrüchliche Recht einer jeden Nation ihre natürlichen Ressourcen in ihrem Interesse zu sichern und zu verwalten. Genau das tut die Russische Föderation unter Putins Führung und mit Hilfe seines äußerst fähigen und engagierten Mitarbeiterstabs derzeit, so der großartige Diplomat Lawrow, so der begabte Vereidigungsminister Sergei Kuschugetowitsch Schoigu
 und unzählige hochkompetente, kluge, weitsichtige Mitarbeiter und Mitarbeiterinnen. Im Bunde mit dem kommunistisch geführten China (80 Millionen Mitglieder hat die KPCH derzeit!) bietet Russland spätestens seit 2011 dem Imperium immer entschiedener die Stirn. Selbstverständlich geht es dabei sowohl China als auch Russland zunächst vor allem um die Wahrung nationaler Belange, um die Verteidigung und den Schutz ihres Landes. Beide große Nationen bewegen sich zu hundert Prozent auf der Basis des Völkerrechts und das ist keine Kleinigkeit. Ohne nationale Souveränität, ohne demokratisch verfasste und legitimierte Nationalstaatlichkeit können die Belange der arbeitenden Menschen nicht verteidigt werden und schon gar nicht erweitert. Darum aber geht es derzeit und um die Vermeidung eines alles verheerenden Krieges.

China -  Iran - Russland wenden sich diplomatisch an die 70. UN Generalversammlung

Sowohl die Russische Föderation, als auch China, als auch der Iran und andere Nationen haben vor der jüngsten UN-Generalversammlung in New York vorbildlich deutlich gemacht, dass der gegenwärtige Kurs der Weltpolitik verhängnisvoll ist und dem dringend Einhalt zu gebieten ist. Russlands Syrienpolitik, sein militärisches Eingreifen dort, findet weltweit große Zustimmung und auch wir, ob Demokraten, Friedensarbeiter, Kommunisten, Umweltschützer oder einfache Bürger , alle sollten wir dem russischen Volk und seiner Führung danken, dass es seine Ressourcen auch in unserem Sinne gegen den obwaltenden Terror einsetzt.

An Hand der aktuellen sehr erfolgreichen russischen Politik zeigt sich dass das russische, multiethnisch zusammengesetzte große Volk seine historischen Erfahrungen nicht umsonst gemacht hat. Es richtet sich nach enormen Demütigungen längst selbstbewusst wieder auf.

In Syrien wird dem Imperium gerade sein Stalingrad bereitet

Genossen Kommunisten, Freunde wacht auf und gesellt euch solidarisch zu jenen, mit Hilfe derer Eure und unsere Sache wirklich vorangebracht werden kann. In der Weltpolitik und in der Politik generell ist es erforderlich, die wie auch immer gewählten Repräsentanten bei ihrem Wort zu nehmen und sie darauf zu verpflichten. Wie das geht, das führt uns die russische Diplomate aufs Feinste, aufs Großartigste vor. Das Imperium wird auf diese Weise entlarvt und steht nackt da mit seinem hochgradig verlogenenen „Krieg gegen den Terror“. Jeder aber der sich, wenn auch nur verbal in diesem „Krieg“ engagieren will, ist einzubeziehen. Und so verhandeln denn die Russen weiter mit dem Imperium und seinen Vassallen, sei es Saudi-Arabien oder Israel oder die Türkei. Die Alternative zu Verhandlungen ist der Krieg. Diesen gilt es zu meiden! Fortschritte gehen aber  manchmal langsam, manchmal aber auch sehr schnell. Wir leben in Zeiten gravierender Umbrüche.

Wankelmütige und schuftige Partner können zur Umkehr veranlasst werden

Natürlich sind  fast alle dieser Länder, dieser 'Bündnispartner' genau wie die Türkei eines Erdogan schuftig, wankelhaft, richten ihr Fähnchen dorthin wo sie am meisten Vorteile sehen. Das ist doch ganz klar. Aber unsere Aufgabe ist es, den Kampf auf nationaler Ebene zu organisieren und die richtigen Partner in der Welt auf unserer Seite zu wissen, denn das stärkt, weil man so spürt, dass der Kampf geeint geführt am Ende doch zu gewinnen ist. Der wichtige Kampf aber ist der Kampf um die richtigen Argumente, Partner und Parolen. Haben wir diese, so werden wir siegen,  ganz ohne Frage. Also vorwärts und nicht vergessen: Venceremos  und zwar an der Seite Putins, Xi Jinpengs  Rouhanis, Assads, Correas, Maduros, Morales, ganz Lateinamerikas und  nicht zu vergessen mit dem von von Jacob Zuma geführten Südafrika und am Ende mit  dem gesamten afrikanischen Kontinent. Seien wir Internationalisten und versuchen wir das Unmögliche.

Historische Vernunft und eigene Urteilskraft einsetzen

Liebe  Genossen, Kollegen, Freunde, überdenkt bitte in unser aller Interesse Eure falsche, dogmatische Haltung zu Russland und auch gegenüber China. Strecken wir vielmehr  die Hände aus zu den russischen, chinesischen, iranischen Partnern im Kampf um eine multipolare Weltordnung. Auch die Kommunisten sind einzubeziehen!!! Fragt sie nach ihrer Haltung! Fragt  aber die Richtigen, denn das einstige Markenzeichen 'Kommunist' ist leider längst keines mehr. Keiner und nichts ist in der heutigen Welt gefeit gegen Fälschung.  Arbeiten wir zusammen mit allen vom Imperium Stigmatisierten und bilden wir uns ein eigenes Urteil.
 Setzen wir dagegen unsere geballte historische Vernunft, unser Wissen und unseren gesunden Menschenverstand. In diesem Zeichen werden wir siegen.

Irene Eckert am 30 11. 2015

What it means to invite Iran to key Syria talks

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 30.10.2015 | 12:03

The invitation extended to Iran to attend the multi-party talks on Syria in the weekend signifies a profound shift in the stance of the United States and Saudi Arabia. For the US, this shift comes naturally as a logical sequence to the recently concluded nuclear agreement, but for Saudi Arabia it is a bitter pill to swallow that Iran is being recognized as a stakeholder in the future of a major Arab country, something that it has been loathe to concede. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani The Saudis all along had feared that the nuclear deal would end Iran’s international isolation and unshackle it, enabling it to expand its activities and boost its influence in the region. Therefore, the fact that Riyadh has given way to US (and, possibly, Russian) entreaties to bring Iran into the talks shows Saudi weakness to some extent. On the other hand, it could also be that in the Saudi calculation, there could be useful fallouts for the resolution of the crisis in Yemen in which it is deeply entangled. On the other hand, it is sound realism on the part of the US that Iran is invited to the negotiating table, given its presence on the ground in Syria and its great camaraderie with the Syrian leadership, aside its sheer capacity to make or mar any eventual settlement. The US, undoubtedly, has been eager to engage with Iran over the Middle Eastern issues, and working together on Syria would create mutual confidence to extend the cooperation to other issues as well in future, such as Yemen. Iran is keeping its cards close to its chest on the Syrian question and surprises do lie ahead. To be sure, Iran works closely with Russia in the current phase of the Syrian conflict but at the same time it cannot be oblivious to the opportunity that lies ahead to project itself as a responsible member of the international community and as a factor of regional security and stability in a conflict that impacts the vital interests of the West. Again, with the commencement of US-Iranian constructive engagement on regional issues, a fascinating US-Russia duel is likely ensuing to win the heart and mind of the Iranians. Make no mistake, Washington will not miss the opportunity to capitalize on the difficult history of the Russian-Iranian relationship, notwithstanding their current bonhomie and closeness. Russia has its pockets of influence within the Iranian regime, but then, the western-oriented Iranian elites have surged under the current political dispensation headed by President Hassan Rouhani. Indeed, the dialectics involving the forces within the Iranian power structure that favor closer alignment with West and those who view such a prospect with distaste is also to be taken into account. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has expressly forbidden any further negotiations between Iran and the US and some wriggle room has to be found (which is well within Iranian ingenuity, of course). One other factor is that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps [IRGC] is leading the Iranian contingent in the Syrian war. It has suffered huge losses and made great sacrifice and it will no doubt expect to have a weighty say in the outcome of the war. The point is, an IRGC ‘victory’ in Syria will enhance its stature and it could cast shadows on Iran’s internal politics. A halo has appeared in the public perceptions around General Qasem Suleimani, commander of the Quds Force, the elite IRGC formation, as his recent biography highlights. However, it is not necessarily the case that the IRGC is an inveterate enemy of the US. In Iraq, apparently, the US and Iran are working together and possibly even coordinating in some ways. Iran has been a staunch ally of President Bashar Al-Assad. Having said that, Iran also has a strategic view of the Syrian crisis and has its own interests. The big question is how far Iran will be agreeable to a transition in Syria without Assad at some point. The standard Iranian refrain is that it is for the Syrian people to decide their future government. There is strategic ambiguity in the Iranian stance on this score, which could be intentional. But on more than one occasion recently, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian, who is a key point person, has come closest to affirming the centrality of Assad in any Syrian settlement. Last month, while on a visit to Beirut, he said, “Political solution is the only way to put an end to the Syrian crisis and Bashar Assad is part of that solution.” Again, he spoke in a similar vein the next day while on a visit to Damascus, and this time he was most emphatic:”Any successful plan to find a solution to the Syrian crisis must take into consideration the central role of the Syrian people in deciding their future and fate, and the role of the government and of Assad are essential and pivotal in the potential solution.” A fortnight later while on a visit to Moscow for consultations relating to Syria, he said, “Iran and Russia are the serious and main partners in a peaceful settlement of the crisis in Syria, and emphasize that Bashar al-Assad, the legitimate president of this country, should be part of the negotiations about Syria’s political future.” In the regional context, Iran’s inclusion in the Syrian peace process becomes yet another political and diplomatic setback for Israel (on top of its dismal failure to kill the Iran nuclear deal). Israel is now the only major country in the Middle East that stands outside the tent looking in – although it has big stakes in the Syrian settlement. The time has come for Israel to seriously introspect how it is missing the plot all over again. Indeed, it comes as a double blow for Israel that earlier today Russia also conducted is first air attacks on targets in southern Syria near the Golan Heights. Notably, this is an unambiguous signal to Israel to stay off the Syrian skies. Israel has been insinuating so far – without Moscow contesting – that it has an understanding with Russia in regard of its operations in Syria’s southern skies. That apparently is not the case, as today’s Russian air attacks near Golan Heights signal. Russia now effectively operates a ‘no-fly zone’ over Syria, which strips Israel of access points to not only targets in Syria but also in Lebanon. Meanwhile, according to reports, Russia is dispatching to the Eastern Mediterranean a massive guided missile carrier, Moskva, equipped with an estimated sixty-four S-300 missile defence systems. All in all, the alignments in the regional politics have dramatically changed with the latest reversal in the US position signifying its willingness to sit with Iran to discuss Syria. BY M.K. BHADRAKUMAR, Asia Times Source: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/10/30/what-it-means-to-invite-iran-to-key-syria-talks.html

US had to accept: Forthcoming Talks on Syria Will Involve Iran

Politics Extension of US-led War on Syria

Finian CUNNINGHAM | 30.10.2015 | 00:00

Russia’s military intervention in Syria is proving a decisive turning point in stabilising the government of Bashar al-Assad, while racking up serious defeats against the sundry extremist mercenary groups. That is the assessment of US top military officer General Joseph F Dunford. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week: «The balance of forces right now are in Assad's advantage». As the Los Angeles Times noted, Dunford’s assessment «appeared to contradict upbeat assessments by the White House last month that indicated Assad’s government had suffered a series of military losses and was losing control». Meanwhile, in a hasty diplomatic foray, US Secretary of State John Kerry managed to get Washington’s regional allies to attend talks in Paris and Vienna to discuss a political solution to the four-year-old Syrian conflict. Among the attendees were Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates. At Russia’s insistence over Saudi objections, Iran was invited to the high-level discussions – the first time that Tehran has been admitted to the table. An Associated Press report carried by the Huffington Post gave Kerry’s shuttle diplomacy a positive spin, saying: «…all previous international mediation efforts have done nothing to stop the fighting, and Kerry is trying to unite all sides with influence in the Arab country around a common vision of a peaceful, secular and pluralistic Syria governed with the consent of its people». But that’s AP being economical with the truth. As Moscow has previously noted, the internationally brokered Geneva Communiqué in the summer of 2012 had already established the principle of «a peaceful, secular and pluralistic Syria governed with the consent of its people». Why the fighting has not stopped over the ensuing three years from the Geneva accord is because Washington and its regional allies did not desist from their covert war for regime change in Syria to oust President Assad.  One wonders therefore what is to be gained by rehashing old diplomatic ground when Washington and its allies are still insisting on regime change – in contravention of the stated principle of «Syria governed with the consent of its people»? Admittedly, Washington and London have dialled back on their erstwhile insistence that Assad «must go». They are holding out the possibility now of a transition period to a new government in Damascus during which Assad might still retain power. France, on the other hand, appears to be still implacably demanding that the Syrian leader has to stand down. On that score, Paris shares the same hardline position of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arab states.  Iran, a staunch ally of Assad, has sided with Russia in its view that the issue of governance in Syria is the sovereign prerogative of the Syrian people. The Russian position and that of Iran is wholly consistent with the Geneva Communiqué.  That is why renewed talk of «elections» in Syria by the various parties attending the Vienna summit must be handled with caution. If Washington and its allies were sincere about a political resolution to the conflict then why don’t they reaffirm their commitment to the Geneva Communiqué?  What objective is being served by re-working that accord with some new condition of elections to be held? After all, Syria held presidential elections in June 2014, which were won resoundingly by Assad. So why should war-torn Syria be compelled to conduct an unprecedented new round of elections? It sounds like an external demand for a re-run, during which foreign powers can perhaps pull of a «colour-style» revolution to achieve the result that they want: regime change.  Assad during his meeting in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week clearly said that his administration is willing to engage with all political opponents. However, quite reasonably, the Syrian president said that the order of priority was for his country to defeat the threat of foreign-backed subversion. The astounding demand by Washington’s allies in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arab absolute monarchies for «free elections» to be held in Syria is perhaps the most salient giveaway that the renewed diplomatic thrust belies their real and only agenda. Namely, regime change in Syria. It would appear that what the Washington axis is striving for is to achieve by political means what it failed to do by covert military means. By engaging Russia and Iran in diplomacy, the question is: are the foreign enemies of Syria attempting to set up a political framework in order to undermine the legitimacy of the Syrian government? Russia’s bold military intervention in Syria has turned the tables on the US-led foreign conspiracy to overthrow the Damascus government. The latest assessment by US top general Joseph F Dunford is testimony to that. And that would explain why Washington and its allies are inclined now – in spite of their belligerence – to engage with Russia and Iran over Syria.  In short, the Western axis is not be trusted. It has devastated Syria with a war that has claimed 250,000 lives and turned half the population into refugees. The axis has absolutely no moral right to impose political conditions on a future Syria. Indeed, in a sane world these same powers should be threatened with criminal prosecution for the murderous destruction they have wrought through their varying support for extremist mercenaries in Syria.  Syria, Russia and Iran have the upper hand, legally, morally, politically and militarily. Why should they accede to any demands from Washington and its allies who refuse to abide by what is already agreed upon in the Geneva Communiqué from three years ago? These powers are merely demonstrating, cynically, the maxim of Prussian military theoretician Karl Von Clausewitz. War is a simply an extension of policy by other means, wrote Clausewitz. The same applies in reverse for Washington and its acolytes: politics is just another form of war against Syria. http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/10/30/politics-extension-us-led-war-on-syria.html