discipline posted:

along with 18 premature babies in hospital who died with the electricity was cut.

Lol are we really back to taking babies out of incubators already

ooooh oooh have we done the one about evil government oppressors being handed piles of viagra so they can run around raping everyone, that one's still my favorite from the last 4 or so "revolutions" propaganda

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hussein Amir- Abdollahian on Friday described resumption of Arab League mission in Syria as fruitful.

Abdollahian stated that Tehran would appreciate any measure that can help restore peace and tranquility to Syria and prevent more damage to the Syrian nation.

Amir-Abdollahian cited the first round of AL observers' report on Syria as “realistic and balanced,” adding Tehran would welcome any plan which supports the reforms initiated by Syrian President Bashar Assad.

He said Syria's problems should be settled through “domestic means.”

Expressing regret over recalling of some ambassadors to Syria and closure of their embassies in the Arab state, the Iranian deputy foreign minister underlined that such measures would deteriorate the situation.

'We believe that such hasty measures would not settle the problems, but would on the contrary worsen the situation,' he said.

http://www.voltairenet.org/Lavrov-gets-hero-s-welcome-in

Tens of thousands of Syrians amassed along the roads of Damascus on Tuesday morning, 7 February, to welcome Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, in the wake of that country’s veto, in tandem with China, at the Security Council.

The Russian Minister was accompanied by the Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Mikhail Fradkov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Bogdanov, Deputy Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Vladimir Zimakov, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Department of Russia’s Foreign Ministry Sergey Vershinin, and Russia’s Ambassador to Damascus Azamat Kulmukhametov.

For the Syrian people, Mr. Lavrov’s visit holds out the hope of coming out of a nightmare that has lasted now for ten months. Most of all, it is the specter of a direct intervention by NATO troops in their country that is receding.

Nonetheless, on the Mazzeh highway where the crowd had clustered in the morning, an uninterrupted succession of ambulances streamed in from the outskirts of Damascus during the whole day.

Indeed, the regular army has intensified its offensive against the armed groups that plague the country. Armed clashes are currently taking place in Homs and Douma, an outlying area of Damascus, which are the main hubs of the interference in Syria. Now that she is confident of Russia’s and China’s support and that the presence of gangs has been certified, in particular by the Arab League observer mission report, Syria can now protect its people.

While civilians have long called for the intervention of the army, the Syrian state was unable to take action because of the ban imposed by the Arab League to send troops to cities. The Syrian government was trapped in the following situation: either it allowed its population to be terrorized by the armed gangs or it intervened militarily, and in this case risk being condemned as a regime to be stopped at all costs.

Now that respect for international law is guaranteed by Russia and China, the Syrian state can finally "assume its responsibility" as Mr. Lavrov stressed at the beginning of his meeting with President al-Assad.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/assad-reforming-party-and-state

It is war on Syria.

That has become the main feature of what is happening in the country. This does not in the least mean that there isn’t a major domestic problem, or that the regime isn’t in need of radical changes, economic and administrative, as well as political.

Such changes in turn require fundamental amendments to the constitution. Nobody still thinks that this can be ignored.

But there is something hysterical about the escalation to which Syria’s foreign adversaries have resorted, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov observed. And that forces the international dimension onto center-stage.

This has a big impact on the course of the ongoing protests in Syria. Many activists have begun to openly voice their rejection of the militarization wave that has swept over the opposition in many parts of the country. They also largely reject many leaders of opposition groups active abroad, who seem to have lost any last semblance of independence. Their agenda has fallen hostage to the decisions of countries that sponsor them and provide them with political, financial, media, and even material support.

At home, people who have visited President Bashar Assad affirm that he is aware of many realities. Some say he has learned much about his country in the past year, from the intensive meetings he continues to hold with groups of young people, local leaders, and members of the public. These meetings have familiarized him with many issues and made him appreciate that the crisis is more serious than state officials publicly concede.

Assad has indicated clearly that the Baath Party needs a serious shakeup and sweeping changes extending from its mentality and modus operandi to its leadership bodies. He has also indicated that the state and all its institutions require a thorough overhaul that will take time to achieve and that it is no longer possible to tolerate its current debilitated condition or the laxity which has turned corruption into the norm in everything that touches people’s lives.

In the area of political freedoms, Assad is more conscious of the need to allow all sections of the public means by which to express their thoughts, take their own initiatives, and bring the behavior of the state and its officials under proper scrutiny.

But while tacitly acknowledging the need to make fundamental changes in the area of political and media freedoms, the Syrian president does not conceal his fears. He is wary of attempts to turn the media in Syria into a replica of major outlets elsewhere that are bankrolled by politically-motivated sponsors.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/sandbox/veteran-us-diplomat-questions-syria-storyline

I have serious problems with all the talk about military intervention in Syria. Everyone, especially the media, seems to be relying solely on anti-regime activists for their information. How do we know 260 people were killed by the regime in Homs yesterday? That number seems based solely on claims by anti-regime figures and I seriously doubt its accuracy.

I served over three years in Damascus at the US Embassy and I know how difficult it is to sort fact from rumor in that closed political society. We were constantly trying to verify rumors that we had heard about assassinations, regime arrests, etc., and that included the Agency, which was just as much in the dark as everyone else. Today, we have a skeleton embassy which I am sure is under constant surveillance and with very few personnel to go out and report on what is happening. When I was in Damascus over two years ago, I was less than impressed with the Embassy's sources and with its understanding of the dynamics of what was going on Syria. And the same is true when I talk to officials at the State Department.

The media, and to an extent the Administration, have personalized the conflict in Syria as being about Bashar Assad and his family. They have consistently underestimated the sectarian nature of the conflict there. It is not just Bashar Assad and his family that are hanging onto power at all costs, it is the entire Alawi system of control of the country, including the military, the security services and the Baath Party. I believe that Alawites firmly think that if they lose power, the Sunnis will slaughter them, That was one reason Hafez and his brother Rifaat were so ruthless in Hama thirty years ago. And everyone in the West conveniently forgets the campaign of assassinations and suicide bombings carried out in the three or four years before Hama by the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the country. I personally witnessed the aftermath of such bombings in which several hundred people were killed. While the State Department, the CIA and other organs of government may have short historical memories, the people in Syria do not.

http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/western-sponsored-massacre-in-homs-a-direct-response-to-russian-and-chinese-veto/

Today’s massacre committed by western-backed insurgents in Syria’s second city, Aleppo, sent a clear message to Russia and China – that it is prepared to violate all international procedures to force the destabilisation of Syria and the end of the government Presided by Bashar al-Assad.

The death toll of the attacks is currently at 28 with 236 wounded. Accounts from eyewitnesses who said they felt the explosion up to 20 kilometers away, indicate that the explosives used were highly advanced.

The attacks that began at 9am took place five minutes apart outside buildings of extreme sensitivity – one military security building and the other a law enforcement agency – both located in residential areas including near a park where people have breakfast in the morning. Footage showed limbs strewn across the streets and the dead included children, adult civilians and members of the security forces.

Initial reports by western and GCC backed media seeking to pin responsibility for the massacre on the Syrian government were blown out of the water by admissions from senior insurgents in the so-called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) including FSA commander Riad al-Assad, colonel Malik al-Kurdi and colonel Arif Hamood.

There can be no doubt that this attack was directed by the west. That they took place in areas of such high security, indicates that they depended on extremely advanced intelligence – something which the insurgents must rely on western forces for. The sheer strength of the explosions also suggests that the explosives used were provided by powerful forces. Yesterday, Syrian media reported that the authorities had seized a cache of Israeli weapons, explosive devices and military uniforms in a Peugot 404 in the al-Khalidya neighbourhood of Homs.

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/syrias-uprising-in-context/

I’m on the side of the Syrian government. The Assads backed away from the Ba’athist commitment to socialism further than I would have liked, but I recognize that the possibilities for achieving socialism in a small Third World country have become vanishingly small since the demise of the Soviet Union (and were not without formidable challenges before then.) All the same, the Ba’athists continue to obstinately hold on to elements of the party’s socialist program; hence, the US State Department’s complaint about “ideological reasons” getting in the way of privatization.

Moreover, Ba’athist Syria remains an organized force against Zionism and for Palestinian national liberation, and it’s not clear that a successor government would follow the same path. Importantly, what would likely follow Assad’s ouster is hardly to be embraced: A country thrown into chaos by competing militias and warlords, where torture and the systematic extermination of the old regime’s supporters run rampant, as has characterized post-Gaddafi Libya, or the installation of a US puppet regime to facilitate the exploitation of Syria’s land, labor and resources by Western captains of industry and titans of finance. A third choice of more space for other political parties and the parliament being given new powers is academic. The hard-core of the rebellion won’t be satisfied with anything less than the complete extirpation of the Ba’athists and what they stand for: some measure of socialism and the secular state. Neither will the United States, Britain, and France settle for the continuation in Damascus of a state committed to independent, self-directed economic development and alliance with Iran.

The choice, then, is between, on the one hand, the triumph of yet another eruption of imperialism under the guise of humanitarian intervention, and on the other, the preservation of the Ba’athist state, and Syria’s self-determination. If the Ba’athists are overthrown, a blow will be struck for imperialism. Their survival will preserve the life of an organized force against Zionism, imperialism and for some measure of self-directed development toward socialism.

Edited by blinkandwheeze (Feb. 11, 2012 09:45:38)

A. Monitoring and observation of the cessation of all violence by all sides in cities and residential areas

25. On being assigned to their zones and starting work, the observers witnessed acts of violence perpetrated by Government forces and an exchange of gunfire with armed elements in Homs and Hama. As a result of the Mission’s insistence on a complete end to violence and the withdrawal of Army vehicles and equipment, this problem has receded. The most recent reports of the Mission point to a considerable calming of the situation and restraint on the part of those forces.

26. In Homs and Dera‘a, the Mission observed armed groups committing acts of violence against Government forces, resulting in death and injury among their ranks. In certain situations, Government forces responded to attacks against their personnel with force. The observers noted that some of the armed groups were using flares and armour-piercing projectiles.

27. In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed.

28. The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded.

29. The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns.

B. Verifying that Syrian security services and so-called shabiha gangs do not obstruct peaceful demonstrations

30. According to their latest reports and their briefings to the Head of the Mission on 17 January 2012 in preparation for this report, group team leaders witnessed peaceful demonstrations by both Government supporters and the opposition in several places. None of those demonstrations were disrupted, except for some minor clashes with the Mission and between loyalists and opposition. These have not resulted in fatalities since the last presentation before the Arab Ministerial Committee on the Situation in Syria at its meeting of 8 January 2012.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf

The road to Damascus goes through Beirut. Washington’s roadmap against Syria always involved Lebanon as a multi-faceted springboard. In fact, Washington and its allies wanted the deployment of UNIFIL troops, mostly comprised of NATO soldiers, being sent to Lebanon to be stationed on the Lebanese-Syrian border in 2006. Feeling threatened, Damascus warned that it would close the borders with Lebanon and the idea was scrapped. Syria was the main target of the 2006 Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Regime change in Damascus was the key objective. Tel Aviv’s 2006 defeat in Lebanon by Hezbollah and its allies spared Syria from an attack and probably prevented a broader regional war involving Iran and NATO.

It is after the 2006 events in Lebanon that Washington took the initiative to negotiate with Damascus in the diplomatic arena. These attempts lasted up until 2011 and were aimed at de-linking Syria from Iran and the Resistance Bloc or "Axis of Resistance." During this diplomatic engagement, which attempted to distance Damascus from Tehran, Tom Lantos, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives visited Damascus and warned the Syrian regime to join ranks with Saudi Arabia and the United States against Iran. Lantos threatened President Al-Assad while intimating that a few years down the road that there would be a new geo-political reality: "Sunni Muslims and not Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in control in the region, and it is to the advantage of Damascus to know which side to be on."

2007 was slated for an Israeli rematch against Lebanon that never happened. Very telling is the fact that talks of war were also aimed at Syria too. Washington and Tel Aviv also realized that after 2006 they could no longer launch separate wars against Syria and in Iran. Damascus and Tehran would not fight in isolation from one another. A war against Syria would equate to a war with Iran and vice-versa.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/02/al-qaeda-backs-us-regime-change-in.html

February 12, 2012 - It is now a matter of established public record that the "Libyan rebels" the US, through the UN and NATO, funded, armed, trained, recognized politically, and even provided special forces and air support for, were in fact led by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), listed by the US State Department (page 1) as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization." Two West Point reports confirm that LIFG was formally joined with Al Qaeda with many of its top leaders constituting the core of Al Qaeda's upper echelons. These reports also confirm that LIFG fighters were operational in both Afghanistan and Iraq, killing US and British troops and that the vast majority of their fighters were recruited from the Libyan cities of Benghazi and Darnah. In 2011, it would be these two cities that served as the epicenter of NATO-backed resistance against Qaddafi.

More recently it was exposed by French independent reporter Thierry Meyssan of VoltaireNet.org that LIFG commander Abdul Hakim Belhaj has left the NATO bombed city of Tripoli and is now directing the "Free Syrian Army" from the border of Turkey (a NATO member since 1952).

In the wake of growing international anger toward Wall Street, London, and its NATO forces, led by Russia and China's vetoing of their UN Security Council resolution designed to tip off another foreign military intervention, this time in Syria, the corporate media is now reporting that Al Qaeda has called on its supporters to "join the uprising against Assad's "pernicious, cancerous regime."" We are expected to believe that Al Qaeda - allegedly depraved, beheading, civilian bombing, trade tower-toppling modern-day Huns - had pinned their hopes on the UNSC to resolve the Syrian conflict through the mechanisms of "international rule of law" and are only just now mobilizing their forces to act after the "disappointing" Russian and Chinese veto. It is a narrative as bizarre as it is contradictory.

babyhueypnewton posted:
blinkandwheez really great work. I'm having trouble getting my head around the arab spring being created by the US government but that NY times article is blatant as are the wikileaks cables. furthermore, the narrative makes sense based on what the arab spring has become, which is a military dictatorship in Egypt, imperialist wars in Libya, Syria, and building up to Iran and a great war to fix this crisis.

Could you expand on the overarching goals of the arab spring for US foreign poicy, how well they went according to plan, and what the role of Al-Qaeda is for US foreign policy (what's the deal with 9/11 :costanza

Thanks you're kinda blowing my mind here, tell me wat to think some more plz

i think the idea that the entire arab spring is a u.s. engineered phenomenon is an exaggeration (but, maybe, a useful one) - remember that discontent was not expressed only in the nations reviled by the u.s., but there were quickly and violently suppressed or otherwise discouraged outbursts in regional allies, bahrain, oman, saudi arabia, etc.

further i think it's also really important to understand the role the discontent of landless egyptian peasants played in the revoltion, which mahmoud habashi & samir amin assert in this fantastic & elucidating roundtable were the fundamental revolutionary base of the egyptian regime change

egypt is really important in understanding the broader ideological terrain i think, because the roots of the current conflicts date back to a degree since nasser - saudi arabia & the zionist regime both collaborated with british colonial forces against egypt, and despite whatever anti-zionist posturing there has been from the saudi camp their stances on foreign policy and collaboration with the u.s. empire express a total congruity, a covert alliance

we need to remember the muslim brotherhood were banned not only by mubarak but nasser too. while their roots may be in a populist and socially concerned islam, they have (as samir amin insists in the link above) maintained a base of support largely in the urban upper middle class of egypt - which you can see plainly in their embrace of naked capitalism

then there's al-qaeda. whether there is a single unified organization operating under this name i think is debatable, but we can use the term to denote the many bands of militant salafists operating throughout the middle east. if the muslim brotherhood are the pleasant, peaceful face of reactionary islam, the currents of violent salafism are the darker reality - they function as death squads, a militia supporting the global counterrevolution and eating away progressive forces with their nato and gulf state supplied resources

the ideologies of these organizations are painted as "fundamentalist" but i think this is wrong. what characterizes this bloc (the authoritarian islamist gulf cooperation council, the muslim brotherhood, the global jihad movement) is rather what babyfinland condemns upthread - an anachronistic appropriation of the contemporary nation state as a vehicle for their reactionary islam, rather than the world-system transcending networks of plurality that we can identify in schools of sunni islam (but i'm just paraphrasing things babyfinland has expressed, i'm not nearly as knowledgable on this subject as i'd like to be)

but basically what this all comes down to is the fact that we're currently experiencing a very fundamental change in our modern world-system. augmented by the spectre of financial collapse, the united states and to an extent nato are a hegemon in decline. immanuel wallerstein identified that an empire with unparalleled global hegemony will ultimately value openness in the world system - which we can see clearly with the allegiances it has held with forces that ostensibly it opposes, namely mujahadeen movements in the middle east, or long time trading partners like the reactionary gulf states, and the relationships it fostered with taliban supporting pakistan, or the implicit backing of iraq during its conflict with iran. i think what we're seeing is the aftermath of such an unlikely political bloc - now that the western position as global comprador is no longer completely secure, its concerns may no longer be the number one concern of this unlikely political allegiance, their intentions may ultimately become secondary to their only friends, lest they lose them.

pepe escobar recently drew attention to the fact that the iraq invasion occurred after saddam abandoned the u.s. dollar as the currency of payment for iraq's oil. maybe in an older world where u.s. global hegemony was secured, this might be tolerated - when this is no longer the case, any transgression from previous cooperation is too big a threat to let slide.

what our world-system is becoming is one that is basically multipolar. rather than dominant few nation states we are used to, political allegiances like brics, celac & the gcc present a new socioeconomic landscape. when a few western states announce an embargo, this is no longer an act of any real consequence - the nations which rely heavily on iranian oil like china, india or russia will continue trading without hesitancy. the u.s. still peddles its accusations that the nations it opposes are 'isolated' ... the exact opposite is slowly starting to be true.

but i haven't talked about one of the most important factors at work here - what we can call the 'axis of resistance'. here, i think we really need this essay i posted in my negarestani thread. the networks operating against imperialism in iran, syria, iraq and lebanon are engaged in anti-imperialist struggle that is uniquely powerful and extremely adaptable. i can't think of any other recent events that have so clearly and completely sabotaged imperialist plans as the complete failure of the israeli invasion of lebanon, or the democratic transformation of contemporary iraq into a majority shia state.

i haven't read them (yet) but amin, arrighi, gunder frank & wallerstein authored two books together that seem like they deal with a lot of what i'm talking about here. also, i don't have nearly as good a grasp of middle eastern politics here as some posters here (looking at u babyfinland & discipline) so i wouldn't place as much value in my words as i would theirs, haha.

Edited by blinkandwheeze (Feb. 13, 2012 09:48:55)

blinkandwheeze posted:
yeah iirc there have been huge levels discontent among egyptian peasants lately because the current government haven't been able to keep up grain subsidies to nearly the same level they were under mubarak. i do think there's a genuine potential for a proletarian or at least labour oriented government in egypt, the base of support seems to exists at least, but it won't be easy

wow, it was bad under mubarak even.

babyfinland posted:
wow, it was bad under mubarak even.

damn http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/farmers-struggle-reap-harvest-revolution

Among the issues affecting Haggag and millions of other small farmers were a shortage of state-subsidized fertilizers, which were often resold on the black market at high prices.

“While factories sell 50kg of fertilizer to the state at LE30 ($4.97), we end up paying at least LE150 ($24.85) for the same amount,” said Haggag. “That is because the system is endemically corrupt.”

He accused employees of state-backed local cooperatives of embezzlement. “The factories do not produce enough, and local employees do not sell all of the fertilizer they receive,” Haggag said.

“Instead, they sell part of it to black market merchants, who play with the prices at will. Corruption is not only at the higher level of government: it is at every level.”

Another chronic problem described by Haggag was the lack of clean water, including state failure to fulfil its responsibility to do annual maintenance work on irrigation channels.

“We have to pay for the cleaning and maintenance ourselves, even though this should be covered by our 60LE ($9.94) annual irrigation tax,” said Haggag.

“Worse still, the water allocated for irrigation in Daqahliya is often sewage water from Cairo and Alexandria,” he added. “Even the country’s golf courses get cleaner water than we do.”

According to Haggag, seeds were also deficient while farmers have not been provided with the necessary amount of reliable seeds to plant for a good harvest.

“Farmers can’t get enough seeds for our crops from state-subsidized seed factories,” he said. “Again, we are forced to resort to the over-priced black market to stay afloat. Otherwise, we can’t produce enough to survive.”

babyfinland posted:
parliamentary organizaition had always existed in Spain, particularly in the more mercantile kingdoms of Aragon and Navarre. It's true though that opposition to the crown took the form of parliamentaryism, such as with de las casas or piedrola the soldier-prophet. i don't see this as expressions of anti-imperialism though

i'm not talking about anti-imperialism as much as a new mode arising from Spanish imperialism. in the case of de las Casas, it wasnt just parliamentary organization, but a philosophical stance against the crown as ideation

On Alarabiya news channel (KSA), in this report, Ammar Alwawi, a member of FSA, said that “every soldier and officer in the Syrian army is a legitimate target for FSA”, and that “FSA will hit Damascus, all of Damascus”, before the channel presenter corrected him: “You mean military and security centers, not civilian targets, don’t you?”. He concluded: “We are declaring an armed movement all over the country.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB15Ak03.html

How poignant that the first anniversary of a true Arab pro-democracy movement in the Persian Gulf - then ruthlessly crushed - falls on February 14, when Valentine's Day is celebrated in the West. Talk about a doomed love affair.

And how does Washington honor this tragic love story? By resuming arms sales to the repressive Sunni al-Khalifa dynasty in power in Bahrain.

So just to recap; United States President Barack Obama told Syria's President Bashar al-Assad to "step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately" while King Hamad al-Khalifa gets new toys to crack down on his subversively pro-democratic subjects.

Is this a case of cognitive dissonance? Of course not; after all Syria is supported by Russia and China at the United Nations Security Council while Bahrain hosts the US's Fifth Fleet - the defender of the "free world" against those evil Iranians who want to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.

http://www.voltairenet.org/Endgame-in-the-Middle-East

On 7 February, a large Russian delegation, including the highest ranking foreign intelligence officials, arrived in Damascus where it was greeted by cheering crowds, aware that Russia’s return to the international scene marked the end of their nightmare. The capital, but also Aleppo, the second largest city, were decked out in white, blue, red, and people marched behind banners written in Cyrillic. At the presidential palace, the Russian delegation joined those of other states, including Turkey, Iran and Lebanon. A series of agreements were reached to re-establish peace. Syria has returned 49 military instructors captured by the Syrian army. Turkey intervened to obtain the release of the abducted Iranian engineers and pilgrims, including those held by the French (incidentally, Lieutenant Tlass who sequestered them on behalf of the DGSE was liquidated). Turkey has ceased all support for the "Free Syrian Army", closed down its facilities (except the one on the NATO base at Incirlik), and turned over its commander, Colonel Riad el-Assad. Russia, which is the guarantor of the agreements, has been allowed to reactivate the former Soviet listening base on Mount Qassioum.

The next day, the US State Department informed the Syrian opposition in exile that it could no longer count on its military aid. Realizing that they have betrayed their country to no avail, the Syrian National Council members went in search of new sponsors. One of them even went so far as to write to Benjamin Netanyahu asking him to invade Syria.

After a period of two days required for the implementation of the agreements, not only the national armies of Syria, but also Lebanon, stormed the bases of the Wahhabi Legion. In northern Lebanon, a massive arsenal was seized in the town of Tripoli and four officers were taken prisoner in Akkar, in a school abandoned by UNRWA and transformed into a military HQ. In Syria, General Assef Shawkat in person commanded the operations. At least 1,500 fighters were captured, including a French colonel of the DGSE technical communication services, and more than a thousand people were killed. At this stage it is not possible to determine how many among the victims are foreign mercenaries, how many are Syrians cooperating with foreign forces, and how many are civilians trapped in the beleaguered city.

Lebanon and Syria have restored their sovereignty over their entire territory.

Intellectuals are debating whether Vladimir Putin might have made a mistake in protecting Syria at the risk of a diplomatic crisis with the United States. The question is wrongly put. Having reconstituted its forces for years and asserted itself today on the international stage, Moscow has put an end to two decades of a unipolar world order, permitting Washington to expand its hegemony to achieve global domination. The choice was not between siding with tiny Syria or with the mighty United States, but between allowing the first world power to destroy yet another government or upsetting the balance of power to create a more just international order in which Russia has a say.