The key differences that he implied about Israeli and Ukrainian warmongering lead to vastly different conclusions about what should be done to prevent a major regional war in their parts of the world.
Lavrov commented yesterday that Turkey was planning to withdraw its troops from Syria. Could this and the recent establishment by Russian forces of fortifications in Golan signal a more aggressive approach by Russia towards Israel?
That hasn't had any effect on deterring Israel though. Rather, we can surmise that it might be meant to deter Iran going by what was reported in September 2019 by RT:
"The Russian military supported the Syrian military operation in the Golan Heights to "ensure there were no shelling attacks on Israeli territory" anymore, thus allowing the UN peacekeeping mission to resume patrolling of the contested border between Syria and Israel after "a six-year hiatus."
Russia also managed to secure the withdrawal of all Iran-backed groups from the Golan Heights to a "safe distance for Israel," more than 140 kilometers to the east of Syria, the spokesperson said, adding that this was done at the request of Tel Aviv. "A total of 1,050 personnel, 24 MLRSs and tactical missiles, as well as 145 pieces of other munitions and military equipment were withdrawn from the area," Konashenkov told journalists."
I feel disappointed sometimes too, but I also understand why Russia is reluctant to even symbolically Israel as an "unfriendly country" as I explained in my analysis.
The fact that it isn't designated as such despite Lavrov's comparison shows that Russia doesn't believe that Israeli regional warmongering is on the same level as Ukrainian or Western.
I thought the two conflicts were highly similar. But after reading this post, I agree that the two different wars, with more similarities on the side of USA/Israel, but less similarities on the side of Russia and Muslim people. Current Russia military posture and capability focus on national defense rather than global projection. USA have more forces ready for global projection. If Russia is dragged into ME conflict on the opposite side of USA, it almost guarantees two conflicts to sync-and-lock, and effectively forcing the stake holders into two dinstic camps. Then we have a WW3. To avoid WW3, Russia is probably the only adult in the global arena to promote restraint. And one key step is to prevent the two conflicts to merge into one. Also along this line, it is better that China does not openly participate in either conflicts with offensive arms. Instead, it is better to highlight effort to restrain and promote peace in ME and keep silent about the Ukraine conflict. In comparison, India can play both conflicts with the same role and attitude. Let's keep these two "brush fires" far from each other.
Thank you. Useful information. Here's another take. The Anglo-Zionist Empire does indeed want war with Russia as well as the biblically prophesied Gog-Magog War. The central issue is the timing of these conflicts.
What you describe as the Anglo-Zionist Empire, a term that I personally don't use but I respect your right to call things whatever you like, could just start a major war whenever they want one.
They don't need to go through the work of manufacturing pretexts and all that other convoluted stuff since average folks' opinions have no power to shape their decisions, plus most people would predictably die in the Third World War that they'd want to spark.
I acknowledge that some people see everything through their own religious interpretations, but even if that's what you think is going on, then that doesn't explain why Russia won't even symbolically designate Israel as an "unfriendly country".
Time and again, for years prior to the SMO, we see Russia engaging in "goodwill gestures" for the sake of regional peace, albeit with Israel instead of nowadays with Ukraine and the West. Syria still can't use the S-300s to defend itself and its IRGC-Hez allies.
These observations suggest that while the US-Israel might see everything the way that you do (I disagree that they do but just going along with your train of thought), Russia doesn't share that view at the policymaking level.
Thanks for your response. I think the operative word is "start" a major war. The Empire seems committed to provoking war rather than starting war. At least, that's the impression held by many well-informed U.S. pundits in alt-media. What would Russia gain by declaring Israel an "unfriendly country?" Israel is doing quite well destroying itself. Even Arab states don't want to cozy up to the Hamas-Hezbollah version of reality. Please don't misunderstand me: Russia is the 'good guy' in this mess.
Okay, but why would they want Russia to carry out a first strike against them? Why not carry out a first strike against Russia?
This isn't a rhetorical question either since decades of strategic plans (strategic as in nuclear-related) have been predicated on preventing or surviving a first strike.
I also don't care what other people's impressions are. In fact, I consider most of my "peers" to be charlatans at worst and wishful thinkers at best.
Right back at you, what does Russia gain by designating Portugal as an "unfriendly country"? If it's useless or just cope, then what was the point anyhow?
As for Israel, I agree that its future trajectory is grim, but I think it's way too early to read its eulogy and it might very well eventually bounce back, at least a bit.
From arms control to missile defense and even Russia's hypersonic weapons development, everything from World War II on is based on achieving a first strike or deterring/surviving one.
The notion that the US and/or Israel want Russia and/or Iran to hit them first contradicts all of that and therefore isn't believable. No actor wants to risk receiving a massive first strike that they might not survive.
Whatever Alt-Media folks are claiming otherwise are either misguided or are trying to misguide others for reasons of clout, ideology, and/or to solicit donations.
You can verify what I wrote by simply reading about strategic arms control and related doctrines. There's plenty of material easily available online. What I shared was the gist of what it's all about.
In International Relations, security studies, and other related fields, this is 101-level knowledge. It's required in order to proceed further, at least in respected programs. I'm not sure what education these people have.
But I can tell you as someone who holds a Master's and PhD from MGIMO (which is run by the Russian MFA), that this is how everything is perceived and the way in which policy is formulated at the decision-making level.
If one party wants war, they can provoke another into acting below the threshold of a nuclear response like the West did to Russia in Ukraine, but you're talking about World War III from what I can tell so that's not relevant in the context of this discussion.
When dealing with a peer competitor, especially a nuclear-armed one like Russia and the US are to one another, neither wants to rely on the other's "goodwill" and hope their first strike won't be nuclear or overwhelming. It hasn't ever worked like that nor will it ever work like that as I explained.
This is an amazing piece that significantly alters my perspective on both Ukr and Iran situations. It all makes complete sense, but I'm left with so many questions.
Does Israel have a path back to normalcy, because it looks likes it doesnt care who or what needs to be destroyed to assure its security?
To what extent is the ME situation rooted in access to energy and other resources? Are there other agendas at work that are other than Israel's security, because the initial Hamas attack seemed odd with respect to how it all unfolded?
What is the likelihood of war breaking out with Iran, and will Russia stay unaligned? What about Turkey?
What the heck motivated the Ukraine situation if not to trigger a war between NATO and Russia? Lavrov or Medvedev suggested it was over $10T of resources in the Donbas, but Ukr already had it so it's hard to see that as a cause. NATO membership adds nothing. Likewise, it's hard to see the money-making machine of war as a root cause.
The entire neocon enterprise of sanctions and regional turmoil looks like a complete waste with no coherent thinking beneath it. It looks like a bunch of geopolitical idiots pushing pieces around on a board so they can claim they're players. Please make it all make sense.
Lastly, whatever the game being played in Ukr really is, it looks foolish and extremely dangerous. What is the likelihood it will ignite into something bigger as Russia finishes the job of this entirely pointless exercise, which with rise of BRICS and the new partnership between Russia and China, appears to have resulted in a severely diminished West? How could these consequences not have been foreseen? Can all this reach the level of nuclear conflict or is that risk now behind us?
The neocons could not have done more to wreck the US if that had been the intent of all this.
Lavrov commented yesterday that Turkey was planning to withdraw its troops from Syria. Could this and the recent establishment by Russian forces of fortifications in Golan signal a more aggressive approach by Russia towards Israel?
Russia has had a presence in the Golan Heights for some time now, here's one of the first things that come up when I just Googled for sources:
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/russian-military-police-set-up-additional-checkpoint-in-golan-heights/3164951
That hasn't had any effect on deterring Israel though. Rather, we can surmise that it might be meant to deter Iran going by what was reported in September 2019 by RT:
"The Russian military supported the Syrian military operation in the Golan Heights to "ensure there were no shelling attacks on Israeli territory" anymore, thus allowing the UN peacekeeping mission to resume patrolling of the contested border between Syria and Israel after "a six-year hiatus."
Russia also managed to secure the withdrawal of all Iran-backed groups from the Golan Heights to a "safe distance for Israel," more than 140 kilometers to the east of Syria, the spokesperson said, adding that this was done at the request of Tel Aviv. "A total of 1,050 personnel, 24 MLRSs and tactical missiles, as well as 145 pieces of other munitions and military equipment were withdrawn from the area," Konashenkov told journalists."
https://www.rt.com/news/439151-russia-israel-il-20-negligence/
I wrote that it was Golan but I made a mistake, here's the article
https://tass.com/defense/1836423
It's okay, that's practically the same place for all strategic intents and purposes.
This is rather very disappointing. Especially, for the poor Palestinians who are dying in thousands.
I feel disappointed sometimes too, but I also understand why Russia is reluctant to even symbolically Israel as an "unfriendly country" as I explained in my analysis.
The fact that it isn't designated as such despite Lavrov's comparison shows that Russia doesn't believe that Israeli regional warmongering is on the same level as Ukrainian or Western.
I thought the two conflicts were highly similar. But after reading this post, I agree that the two different wars, with more similarities on the side of USA/Israel, but less similarities on the side of Russia and Muslim people. Current Russia military posture and capability focus on national defense rather than global projection. USA have more forces ready for global projection. If Russia is dragged into ME conflict on the opposite side of USA, it almost guarantees two conflicts to sync-and-lock, and effectively forcing the stake holders into two dinstic camps. Then we have a WW3. To avoid WW3, Russia is probably the only adult in the global arena to promote restraint. And one key step is to prevent the two conflicts to merge into one. Also along this line, it is better that China does not openly participate in either conflicts with offensive arms. Instead, it is better to highlight effort to restrain and promote peace in ME and keep silent about the Ukraine conflict. In comparison, India can play both conflicts with the same role and attitude. Let's keep these two "brush fires" far from each other.
There needs to be a meme for That Moment When you realize Vladimir Putin, of all people, is “the only adult in the global arena to promote restraint.”
Thank you. Useful information. Here's another take. The Anglo-Zionist Empire does indeed want war with Russia as well as the biblically prophesied Gog-Magog War. The central issue is the timing of these conflicts.
I generally refrain from including links in my comments. It's impolite. So, with apologies and pleas for indulgence, I offer my explanation of the Gog-Magog Prophecy. Alexander Dugin is a staunch proponent of incorporating Biblical prophecy into geopolitical assessments. https://open.substack.com/pub/rationalspirituality/p/gog-magog-and-the-armies-of-satan?r=g6u5j&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
What you describe as the Anglo-Zionist Empire, a term that I personally don't use but I respect your right to call things whatever you like, could just start a major war whenever they want one.
They don't need to go through the work of manufacturing pretexts and all that other convoluted stuff since average folks' opinions have no power to shape their decisions, plus most people would predictably die in the Third World War that they'd want to spark.
I acknowledge that some people see everything through their own religious interpretations, but even if that's what you think is going on, then that doesn't explain why Russia won't even symbolically designate Israel as an "unfriendly country".
Time and again, for years prior to the SMO, we see Russia engaging in "goodwill gestures" for the sake of regional peace, albeit with Israel instead of nowadays with Ukraine and the West. Syria still can't use the S-300s to defend itself and its IRGC-Hez allies.
These observations suggest that while the US-Israel might see everything the way that you do (I disagree that they do but just going along with your train of thought), Russia doesn't share that view at the policymaking level.
Thanks for your response. I think the operative word is "start" a major war. The Empire seems committed to provoking war rather than starting war. At least, that's the impression held by many well-informed U.S. pundits in alt-media. What would Russia gain by declaring Israel an "unfriendly country?" Israel is doing quite well destroying itself. Even Arab states don't want to cozy up to the Hamas-Hezbollah version of reality. Please don't misunderstand me: Russia is the 'good guy' in this mess.
Okay, but why would they want Russia to carry out a first strike against them? Why not carry out a first strike against Russia?
This isn't a rhetorical question either since decades of strategic plans (strategic as in nuclear-related) have been predicated on preventing or surviving a first strike.
I also don't care what other people's impressions are. In fact, I consider most of my "peers" to be charlatans at worst and wishful thinkers at best.
Right back at you, what does Russia gain by designating Portugal as an "unfriendly country"? If it's useless or just cope, then what was the point anyhow?
As for Israel, I agree that its future trajectory is grim, but I think it's way too early to read its eulogy and it might very well eventually bounce back, at least a bit.
From arms control to missile defense and even Russia's hypersonic weapons development, everything from World War II on is based on achieving a first strike or deterring/surviving one.
The notion that the US and/or Israel want Russia and/or Iran to hit them first contradicts all of that and therefore isn't believable. No actor wants to risk receiving a massive first strike that they might not survive.
Whatever Alt-Media folks are claiming otherwise are either misguided or are trying to misguide others for reasons of clout, ideology, and/or to solicit donations.
You can verify what I wrote by simply reading about strategic arms control and related doctrines. There's plenty of material easily available online. What I shared was the gist of what it's all about.
In International Relations, security studies, and other related fields, this is 101-level knowledge. It's required in order to proceed further, at least in respected programs. I'm not sure what education these people have.
But I can tell you as someone who holds a Master's and PhD from MGIMO (which is run by the Russian MFA), that this is how everything is perceived and the way in which policy is formulated at the decision-making level.
If one party wants war, they can provoke another into acting below the threshold of a nuclear response like the West did to Russia in Ukraine, but you're talking about World War III from what I can tell so that's not relevant in the context of this discussion.
When dealing with a peer competitor, especially a nuclear-armed one like Russia and the US are to one another, neither wants to rely on the other's "goodwill" and hope their first strike won't be nuclear or overwhelming. It hasn't ever worked like that nor will it ever work like that as I explained.
the special operation in Ukraine takes a long time
This is an amazing piece that significantly alters my perspective on both Ukr and Iran situations. It all makes complete sense, but I'm left with so many questions.
Does Israel have a path back to normalcy, because it looks likes it doesnt care who or what needs to be destroyed to assure its security?
To what extent is the ME situation rooted in access to energy and other resources? Are there other agendas at work that are other than Israel's security, because the initial Hamas attack seemed odd with respect to how it all unfolded?
What is the likelihood of war breaking out with Iran, and will Russia stay unaligned? What about Turkey?
What the heck motivated the Ukraine situation if not to trigger a war between NATO and Russia? Lavrov or Medvedev suggested it was over $10T of resources in the Donbas, but Ukr already had it so it's hard to see that as a cause. NATO membership adds nothing. Likewise, it's hard to see the money-making machine of war as a root cause.
The entire neocon enterprise of sanctions and regional turmoil looks like a complete waste with no coherent thinking beneath it. It looks like a bunch of geopolitical idiots pushing pieces around on a board so they can claim they're players. Please make it all make sense.
Lastly, whatever the game being played in Ukr really is, it looks foolish and extremely dangerous. What is the likelihood it will ignite into something bigger as Russia finishes the job of this entirely pointless exercise, which with rise of BRICS and the new partnership between Russia and China, appears to have resulted in a severely diminished West? How could these consequences not have been foreseen? Can all this reach the level of nuclear conflict or is that risk now behind us?
The neocons could not have done more to wreck the US if that had been the intent of all this.