Forderungen nach Abrüstung sowie die Warnung vor der Gefahr eines Atomkrieges – das hat die diesjährigen Ostermärsche in vielen Orten Deutschlands geprägt. „Wir wollen mehr Frieden und weniger Krieg in der Welt!“ Das haben mehrere tausend Menschen klar gemacht – ebenso erneut: Kooperation statt Konfrontation mit Russland!
Mehr als 2000 Menschen kamen zum diesjährigen Ostermarsch in Berlin am 15. April. Die Organisatoren von der Friedenskoordination Berlin (Friko) hatten sich mehr gewünscht, zeigten sich aber dennoch erfreut über die Zahl der Teilnehmenden. Vor einem Jahr waren nur halb so viele zum Ostermarsch gekommen. „Für die Umstände und das schlechte Wetter sind wir eigentlich sehr zufrieden“, sagte Laura von Wimmersperg von der Friko gegenüber Sputnik. Laut der Berliner Polizei, die die Zahl der Friedensmarschierenden auf über 1000 schätzte, gab es auch keine Vorfälle und Provokationen.
In etwa 50 Städten der Bunderepublik hatte die Friedensbewegung zu Aktionen aufgerufen. So seien in Stuttgart bis zu 2000 Menschen auf die Straße, meldete die Nachrichtenagentur dpa. Das Motto hier: "Verantwortung für den Frieden, nicht für den Krieg!" In München beteiligten sich dpa zu Folge rund 1000 Demonstranten am Ostermarsch.
Teilnehmende aller Altersgruppen und Herkünfte: Mehr Frieden statt Krieg!
Die Menschen seien „mit dem Herzen dabei gewesen“, freute sich Friedensaktivistin von Wimmersperg über die Teilnehmenden aller Altersgruppen und Herkunft in der Hauptstadt. Zu sehen waren Gewerkschafter, Friedensbewegte, türkische Gruppen, junge und alte Kommunisten, Mitglieder der Linkspartei, auch Einige aus der umstrittenen Mahnwachen-Bewegung sowie viele ohne Transparente und Fahnen.
„Die aktuelle politische Lage macht es notwendig“, erklärte Max aus Berlin, warum er trotz schlechten Wetters mit anderen in einer Gruppe von SDAJ und DKP beim Ostermarsch dabei war. „Immer mehr Kriege werden auf der Welt geführt, mit der Beteiligung der NATO und Deutschlands.“ Diese Kriege führten dazu, dass Menschen fliehen müssten und ihre Lebensgrundlage verlieren. Für den jungen Mann war genauso klar, dass die Rüstungsgelder auch im eigenen Land Schaden verursachen. Das sei „Geld, das bei uns fehlt.“ „Diese Kriegseinsätze sind nicht in unserem Interesse. Das muss auch bei schlechtem Wetter auf die Straße getragen werden.“
Er habe noch selbst erlebt, was Krieg bedeutet, begründete Eduard Mader, warum er beim Ostermarsch dabei war. Der 1935 Geborene war mit einer Fahne des Freidenkerverbandes unter den Teilnehmenden. Sein Verband habe sich von Anfang an konsequent gegen Krieg und für Frieden eingesetzt. Dafür sei auch der damalige Vorsitzende der Freidenker in den 1930er Jahren, Max Sievers, von den deutschen Faschisten verfolgt und im Zuchthaus Brandenburg am 17. Januar 1944 hingerichtet worden, erinnerte Mader. Er habe als Kind in Ulm den Zweiten Weltkrieg und auch Granatenangriffe auf das Haus seiner Eltern erlebt – „aus dem Grunde bin ich heute hier mit dabei“, beschrieb er sein Motiv.
Bereits in den 80er Jahren war Ortrud aus Hannover in der Friedensbewegung der Bundesrepublik aktiv. Sie war in Berlin zu Besuch und nannte als Grund, beim Ostermarsch mitzumachen: „Ich finde, dass wir wieder nach 30 Jahren kundtun müssen, dass wir mehr Frieden und weniger Krieg in der Welt wollen.“ Für sie sei die aktuelle weltpolitische Lage beunruhigend, da US-Präsident Donald Trump unberechenbar sei und die Aufrüstung zunehme ebenso wie die Konfrontation. „Ich finde auch, dass wir uns mehr bemühen müssten, mit Russland auszukommen, statt die Konfrontation zu verschärfen“, betonte sie im Gespräch mit Sputnik.
„Abrüsten!“ – das war die zentrale Forderung des Berliner Ostermarsches. Dr. Alexander Rosen von der deutschen Sektion der internationalen Organisation „Ärzte zur Verhütung des Atomkrieges – Ärzte in sozialer Verantwortung“ (IPPNW) bekräftigte das auf der Auftaktkundgebung ebenso wie bei der Abschlusskundgebung in Berlin-Schöneberg Anne Rieger vom Bundesausschuss Friedensratschlag und Dr. Jürgen Grässlin, Sprecher der Kampagne „Aktion Aufschrei – Stoppt den Waffenhandel“ und der Deutschen Friedensgesellschaft – Vereinigte Kriegsdienstgegner (DFG-VK).
Der engagierte Kinderarzt Rosen warnte vor allem vor den Folgen der Atomwaffen und der fortgesetzten nuklearen Aufrüstung. Mit Blick auf den aktuellen Konflikt der USA mit Nordkorea hob er hervor: „Wir wissen: Krieg an sich ist schlimm genug. Aber ein Krieg zwischen Ländern, die Atomwaffen besitzen, ist etwas, was wir uns gar nicht vorstellen können und wollen! Wir haben alle die Bilder von Hiroshima und Nagasaki im Kopf.“
„Wir fordern: Die Waffen nieder! Alle Waffen, nicht nur die chemischen, müssen sofort vernichtet werden!“ Das rief die Aktivistin Rieger vom Bundesausschuss Friedensratschlag auf der Abschlusskundgebung aus. „Deutschland, wie die ganze Welt ist verpflichtet, abzurüsten.“ Es habe mit seiner „monströsen Vergangenheit“ eine besondere Verantwortung, mit positivem Beispiel voranzugehen. „Zweimal bereits haben deutsche Großkonzerne mit deutschen Regierungen Eroberungskriege geführt“, erinnerte Rieger. „Immer war das Ziel höhere Profite für Konzerne. Damit muss endlich Schluss sein.“
Kritik an Bundesregierung wegen Rüstungsexport und Beteiligung an Kriegseinsätzen
Doch damit ist noch lange nicht Schluss, wie der Rüstungsexport-Gegner Grässlin in seiner Rede deutlich machte. Er verwies darauf, dass derzeit mehr als 3200 Bundeswehrsoldaten im Auslandseinsatz sind, in Afghanistan, im Senegal und in Mali, im Nahen Osten und im Irak. „Das sind keine Friedensmissionen“, sondern sei Kriegsunterstützung, stellte der Kriegsgegner klar. Er erinnerte an die deutschen Rüstungsexporte, die unter dem SPD-Wirtschaftsminister Sigmar Gabriel noch zugenommen hätten.
Die Folge: „Deutschland mischt direkt mit auf den Schlachtfeldern der Welt!“ Der Export von Waffen und Rüstungsgütern sei die „tödlichste Form der deutschen Militär-, Außen und Wirtschaftspolitik“. Grässlin forderte auf, den Rüstungskonzernen klarzumachen, dass ihre Profite „Blutgeld“ seien und kündigte weitere Proteste an.
Friedensaktivistin Rieger forderte auch auf, die wachsende Konfrontationspolitik gegenüber Russland zu beenden. Der Truppenaufmarsch an der russischen Grenze und die damit verbundenen Manöver verschärften nur die Krisensituation, warnte sie. Auch die Sanktionen würden den Menschen „hier wie dort“ schaden. „Frieden in Europa kann es nur gemeinsam mit Russland geben“, erklärte sie unter Beifall.
Es sei „heute nötiger denn je“, beim Ostermarsch dabei zu sein, nannte der 87jährige Horst Schäfer gegenüber Sputnik den Grund für seine Teilnahme. Er war von 1975 bis 1987 Korrespondent der DDR-Nachrichtenagentur ADN in Washington. Die aktuelle Situation habe sich auf eine „kreuzgefährliche Art“ zugespitzt, „durch die Politik der Bundesregierung, durch die Politik der USA und der NATO“. „Wenn wir uns nicht wehren, werden die mit uns machen, was sie wollen“, warnte der Journalist, der den Kalten Krieg live miterlebt hat. Der heutige Kriegskurs sei offener und brutaler geworden, verglich er die Situationen.
„Damals gab es noch ein strategisches Gleichgewicht. Damals gab es noch das Rote Telefon, wo man sich ausgetauscht hat. Damals hat man noch Sorge gehabt, das, wenn man selbst etwas macht, der andere zurückschlägt.“ Das habe aber auch Kriege und Aggressionen nicht verhindert, so der erfahrene Journalist. Die Gefahr heute wäre nicht größer, „wenn wir mehr werden würden“, verwies er auf die Chancen des Widerstandes durch die Friedensbewegung. Tilo Gräser https://de.sputniknews.com/gesellschaft/20170415315356925-berliner-ostermarsch-gegen-konfrontation-mit-russland/
In einer Polit-Talkshow des privaten österreichischen Fernsehkanals "Servus TV" erklärte gestern Abend der frühere NATO-General Harald Kujat, dass der Angriff der USA auf die syrische Luftwaffenbasis "exakt" nach der "Planung von Obama nach dem Giftgasangriff in Ghuta am 21. August 2013". Dieser Angriff habe bis zum 2. September 2013 erfolgen sollen, sei dann aber wegen "Zweifeln" an der Urheberschaft der syrischen Armee nicht durchgeführt worden. (Video dazu: Talk im Hangar 7, ab Minute 32:20).
Es verdichtet sich also der Verdacht, dass die Entscheidung Trumps für die Umsetzung dieses Angriffsplans zwar möglicherweise spontan gefallen ist, die Planung selbst - die dem Präsidenten ja vom Pentagon vorgeschlagen worden sein dürfte - aber schon von langer Hand vorbereitet worden war. Hinzuzufügen wäre: Die Motivation für den Angriff und die Ineffektivität seiner Ausführung letzte Woche lassen allerdings erhebliche Zweifel im Raum, siehe Thierry Meyssan: Was stattfindet und was kommuniziert wird, ist zu unterscheiden
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Donald Trump: ‘Things will work out fine between the U.S.A. and Russia’
Donald Trump still thinks peace with Russia is possible.
Donald Trump has sent out his first Tweet about Russia since prior to the US attack on Syria. The Tweet comes a day after Rex Tillerson had a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that was widely perceived as a Russian triumph. It also comes after a day that Russia vetoed a US co-sponsored UN Security Council resolution on Syria Trump appears to be clutching at straws in an expression of optimism.
It is going to take a great deal of damage control for the US to repair relations with Russia which Donald Trump has made inexplicably worse after promising throughout his campaign and early Presidency to do the opposite.
Russia is not a country to base international relations on grudges and will always be willing to speak with America, assuming America has something reasonable to say.
That not withstanding, any further attacks on Syria will certainly made things even more strained between the two countries.
If Trump defines peace with Russia as forcing Russia to do what America defines as peaceful, he will be in for a big shock. Boris Yeltsin is no longer the Russian President. For decades now, Russia has been once again pursuing an independent foreign policy as well as independent trade and domestic policies.
Genuine peace with Russia means respecting Russia and allowing Russia to function on its own terms. Anything less is not peace, it is domination. The US is not in a position to dominate Russia because Russia is no longer in a submissive position and hasn’t been since at least the early 2000s.
Russia has repeatedly warned it will shoot down US aircraft and missiles in Syria if its troops are threatened. The US has always heeded these warnings.
There has been some discussion, especial on social media, as to whether or not Russia might shoot down US aircraft or missiles attacking Syria, and of the circumstances in which that might happen
There have even been some suggestions that there are no circumstances where the Russians would ever shoot down US aircraft or missiles in Syria, and that the whole Russian military position in Syria is limited to fighting Jihadi terrorists and with respect to the US is essentially a bluff.
This is certainly wrong and is contradicted by the Russians’ own statements and by the actions they have taken. Since this is a vitally important point, I have decided to discuss it in some detail.
Firstly, it is necessary to go back to the summer of 2015, when the Russians decided to intervene militarily in Syria.
At that point the military situation in Syria was in deep crisis. With Saudi and Turkish support Al-Qaeda had brought together a coalition of Jihadi groups under the umbrella title of the ‘Army of Conquest’, which stormed the province of Idlib, capturing the provincial capital and threatening Aleppo, which by the late summer was completely surrounded and was about to fall. Simultaneously ISIS, which had declared its Caliphate the previous year, captured Palmyra and brought all the eastern territories of Syria previously captured by the Jihadis under its control.
The greatest threat to the Syrian state came however from a plan – widely and openly discussed in the Western media and agreed by the US and Turkey – for the US to declare a no-fly zone over Syria whilst the Turkish army established ‘safe havens’ supposedly to protect civilians in Syria, but in reality intended as a cover for an armed invasion of the country. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, in Western parlance ‘no-fly zone’ means today unrestricted bombing campaign, and that is undoubtedly what in the summer of 2015 was being planned. Subsequent events shows that it together with the Turkish invasion was planned to start sometime in September 2015.
The Russians were informed of these plans and were told that unless they arranged a ‘political transition’ (ie. the removal from power of President Assad) the Syrian government would soon collapse as a result of the Jihadi offensives, the incursions by the Turkish army and the US bombing campaign, and that ISIS would be in control of Damascus by October. This was confirmed by Alexander Yakovenko, Russia’s ambassador to Britain, in an article published in the British media written in February 2016
Last summer we were told by our Western partners that in October Damascus would fall to IS (ie. the Islamic State – AM).
What they were planning to do next we don’t know. Probably, they would have ended up painting the extremists white and accepting them as a Sunni state straddling Iraq and Syria.
Yakovenko’s claim received unexpected but conclusive corroboration when Wikileaks published secret recordings of comments US Secretary of State John Kerry made to a group of Syrian opposition leaders at the UN General Assembly last year. During those comments – which have received startlingly little attention – Kerry frankly admitted that the US had not been fighting ISIS in Syria before the Russians intervened there because it was using ISIS to scare President Assad into stepping down. Here is what Kerry said
And we know that this was growing, we were watching, we saw that DAESH [the IS] was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. (We) thought, however we could probably manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him. I lost the argument for use of force in Syria.
The entirety of Kerry’s highly revealing comments can be heard here.
As Kerry admitted, the ploy failed because rather than allow the US to put its plans into effect and risk the fall of Damascus to ISIS Russia unexpectedly chose to intervene militarily in Syria. The Russian action was intended to forestall and defeat the US plan, which it succeeding in doing. In October 2015 the Financial Times admitted that the Russian deployment had scuppered US plans to declare a ‘no-fly zone’ in Syria.
Implicit in all of this is of course the implicit threat of military action by the Russians in the event that the US were to attempt to carry out its plan despite the Russian military presence in Syria. The point is that though the Russians took on no legal obligation to defend Syria from US attack when they deployed there, there was no doubt even then that they would defend themselves in Syria if threatened or attacked, which is what imposing a ‘no fly zone’ would have required. The US was not willing to take on the enormous risks of doing it, and this made the whole ‘no fly zone’ plan effectively impossible.
This became even clearer in November 2015 after the Turkish air force shot down a Russian SU-24 fighter bomber in Syria. The Russians responded by deploying the S-400 surface to air missile system to Syria. The purpose of that deployment was to defend Russia’s military forces from air attack – whether by Turkey or anyone else – with no conceivable reason to deploy such a system to Syria for any other purpose.
The US military fully understood this, which is why in September 2016, when talk of the US declaring a ‘no-fly zone’ in Syria re-started in the West in connection with the attack on the humanitarian convoy earlier that month and the fighting in Aleppo, General Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Congressional testimony, said this would require the US to take control of Syrian air space, which would risk war with Russia
Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia
General Dunford’s full comments can be heard here.
The talk of the US imposing a ‘no fly zone’ and thereby intervening in the fighting in Aleppo, together with the US air raid on Syrian troops in Deir Ezzor in September 2016, provoked the Russians in October to deploy the S-300VM Antey-2500 surface to air missile system to Syria to supplement the S-400 system already deployed there. The S-300VM Antey 2500 system is specifically designed to shoot down cruise missiles as well as aircraft.
The Russians also publicly declared that they would defend their troops in Syria if they were attacked, and warned the US of the capability of their air defence system in Syria. This is what General Igor Konashenkov, the spokesman of the Russian Defence Ministry, said
Most officers of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation of the Warring Parties currently work ‘on the ground,’ delivering humanitarian aid and conducting negotiations with heads of settlements and armed groups in most Syrian provinces.
That is why any missile or air strikes on the territory under control of the Syrian government, will create an obvious threat for Russian military.
And finally, I draw attention of ‘hotheads’ that after a strike on Syrian troops in Deir ez-Sor by planes of the coalition on September 17, we have taken all necessary measures to rule out any such ‘mistakes’ against Russian military and military facilities in Syria (NB: this clearly refers to the deployment of the S-300VM Antey-2500 systems to Syria – AM).
The crews on duty will hardly have the time to calculate the missile’s flight path or try to find out their nationality. As for the laymen’s illusions about the existence of ‘invisible planes’ they may confront a disappointing reality.
These missile deployments and warnings from the Russians caused the US a week later to back down and declare publicly that they had no plans to intervene militarily in Syria. Subsequently, a few weeks later, James Clapper, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, confirmed in Congressional testimony the capability of the Russian air defence system and Russia’s readiness to use it if its personnel were threatened
I wouldn’t put it past them to shoot down an American aircraft if they felt that was threatening to their forces on the ground. The system they have there is very advanced, very capable and I don’t think they’d do it – deploy it – if they didn’t have some intention to use it
Simultaneously articles began to appear in the media obviously sourced from the US military that spoke of the US military’s apprehensions about the capability of the Russian air defence system and of the irresponsibility of calls by certain politicians and journalists to challenge it.
Thus an article appeared in The Washington Post which said the following
While there is some disagreement among military experts as to the capability of the Russian systems, particularly the newly deployed S-300, “the reality is, we’re very concerned anytime those are emplaced,” a U.S. Defense official said. Neither its touted ability to counter U.S. stealth technology, or to target low-flying aircraft, has ever been tested by the United States. “It’s not like we’ve had any shoot at an F-35,” the official said of the next-generation U.S. fighter jet. “We’re not sure if any of our aircraft can defeat the S-300
Whilst an article appeared in the Guardian sourced from retired US military officials saying the following about Hillary Clinton’s talk of declaring a ‘no fly zone’
Retired senior US military pilots are increasingly alarmed that Hillary Clinton’s proposal for “no-fly zones” in Syria could lead to a military confrontation with Russia that could escalate to levels that were previously unthinkable in the post-cold war world.
The proposal of no-fly zones has been fiercely debated in Washington for the past five years, but has never attracted significant enthusiasm from the military because of the risk to pilots from Syrian air defenses and the presence of Russian warplanes.
Many in US national security circles consider the risk of an aerial confrontation with the Russians to be severe….
…..the most distinguishing feature of a Syria no-fly zone in 2017 would be the aerial presence of another great-power air force with an objective which is diametrically opposed to Washington’s.
Russia and the US currently share the skies above Syria and maintain a military-to-military communication channel to avoid confrontation.
But since they operate over different parts of the country and with different objectives – the US in the east against the Islamic State, Russia to the west against Assad’s opposition – a US-imposed no-fly zone would put their objectives into conflict. No one knows how either side would respond if Russian aircraft violated a US air cordon, nor how to de-escalate a clash before it spiralled into extended combat.
In recent days, in connection with the US missile strike on Syria’s Sharyat air base, the Russians have again reiterated their warnings about the capabilities of their air defence system in Syria and of their willingness to use it defend their troops there.
Thus five days ago, on 8th April 2017 – the day after the US missile strike – Lieutenant General Viktor Gumenny, Russian Air Defence and Missile Defence Troops commander and Aerospace Forces deputy commander, went on the radio station Ekho Mosvky to say the following
We have set up a group of forces in Syria over the past two years in line with the decision of the supreme commander-in-chief and the defence minister. Our bases in Khmeimim are protected today. Navy facilities in Tartus are protected. In such a way, we ensured our Aerospace Forces’ activities in terms of aircraft use
The Russians have made their position completely clear, and they have been doing so since the start of their intervention in Syria in September 2015. Whilst they have taken on no legal obligations to defend Syria from external attack, they have repeatedly said they will defend themselves if they are themselves attacked or threatened in Syria, and they have also said they have the capability to do it.
The US for its part has repeatedly said it understands and accepts this.
Given that the US – as General Dunford has admitted – cannot intervene militarily to overthrow the Syrian government by for example declaring a ‘no fly zone’ over the whole of Syria without risking military confrontation with Russia, in any half-ways rational world that in effect rules the entirety of that option out.
This is why the US was so careful to inform Russia in advance of the missile strike on Sharyat air base, why the US has gone to such lengths since the missile strike to say that it is not planning a wider intervention in Syria to overthrow President Assad’s government, and why the US has been obliged to scale back its air operations in Syria since the Russians switched off the deconfliction hotline between their military in Syria and that of the US.
I have laboured these points because there seems to be some doubt about the extent of Russian willingness to shoot down US aircraft and missiles in Syria. This is strange because the Russians have issued repeated warnings that they are prepared to do it, and that they will do it if they decide their personnel in Syria are being threatened, whilst the US for its part has gone out of its way to say that it has heeded these warnings and has adjusted its strategy in Syria in response to them.
Everything I have just said is a matter of fact and of public record. It has been confirmed in public statements by members of both the Russian and US militaries. It has also been confirmed by their actions. To refuse to recognise it is an exercise in denial.
None of this is to say that the situation has not become much more dangerous since the missile strike.
The point is that both the Jihadis in Syria and the regime change hardliners in Washington and elsewhere have now been emboldened, and an inexperienced US President obsessed with demonstrating his ‘toughness’ has shown that he can be easily pressured and manipulated by them. The seeds for further escalation are now there, and unfortunately one can no longer be confident it will not happen.
However it is a fundamental error to think that if a truly major escalation – one going far beyond an isolated and ineffectual missile strike on a single Syrian air base – is threatened, the Russians will simply sit back and let it happen. On the contrary they have clearly signalled that they won’t, and the US military has repeatedly made clear that it recognises the fact. The Russian decision to switch off the deconfliction hotline is intended as a reminder to the US of this reality, and the scaling down by the US military of US air operations in Syria is intended at least in part as an acknowledgement of this signal.
General McMaster’s public comments show that he fully understands the situation, and that in his role as the President’s National Security Adviser he is explaining it to the President, and the President’s public comments show that for the moment he is listening to General McMaster’s and the US military’s advice.
The big unanswered question is whether the President – if he is goaded again – will continue to listen to the advice of General McMaster and of his other military chiefs, and what they – McMaster, Mattis and Dunford – will do if one day he does not.http://theduran.com/russia-will-defend-syria-heres/
