Since the very early days of the Syrian conflict, the western propagandists have worked very hard to demonize the Syrian state while whitewashing all atrocities by the ‘moderate al-Qaeda heavily armed suicide terrorist mainly non-Syrians opposition’, the western pundits ignored the presence of any terrorist group in Syria, many until today deny the existence of such groups, they doubled their work to paint a picture that the Syrian state is isolated with not a single ally, and when allies finally started showing their direct military assistance by mid-2013 and after the Russian direct intervention in aiding the Syrian Arab Army combat international terrorist groups in the country upon the invitation of the Syrian government, the west and its regional mainstream media had to devise new plans to always fake a rift in relations between Syria and Russia, Syria and Iran, Iran and Russia, Hezb Allah and Russia, Hezb Allah and the SAA, even Hezb Allah and Iran!
NATO and its propagandists could not accept defeat in Syria, they had to bankrupt all their budgets to the extent they couldn’t handle a new seasonal flu type of virus and lost thousands and tens of thousands of their own citizens to the pandemic, as they themselves claim.
The latest of such attempts is a report circulated widely by a number of western and regional mainstream media outlets quoting three Russian analysts of a Russian change of stance towards Syria and in particular towards President Assad. Western mainstream media outlets are depending on literally three analysts, who have no official capacity in the Russian state, one of them is President Putin’s chef, or that’s how he’s called, and the others are former diplomats. The same outlets ignore dozens of statements issued periodically by formal Russian officials and turn a blind eye to the actual Russian military presence in Syria, bleeding with the Syrian Arab Army, yet this latest frenzy got its share and some small-brained Sheeple fell for it, could be the effect of long days of quarantine or social distancing causing social dumbness.
In the wake of the non-stop attempts of the Western MSM, the Russian Embassy in Beirut issued a statement refuting all of the information circulated. Minister Plenipotentiary and Russian Ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin also appeared in an interview with the Lebanese-based Al Mayadeen news channel on 28 April evening discussing the topic, the Russian embassy’s statement and affirming the Russian position towards the US-led War of Terror waged against Syria. We’ve added the English translation, the transcript of which follows the below video:
Russia denies changing its position on Syria and affirms that there are no deals with the USA and Turkey
The Russian embassy in Lebanon issued a statement in which it denied what is being circulated in some media outlets that Russia had concluded deals with the Americans and Turks to share influence in the Syrian regions. What came in this statement we follow in this report?
“An episode of a pseudo-deluded series,” with these words the Russian embassy in Beirut described what is being published in the media and online sites about Russia’s attempt to conclude deals with the Americans and the Turks to share influence in the Syrian regions at the expense of the sovereignty of Damascus, noting that these lies have been going on for years and will now fail to achieve their goals as they failed before.
Neglecting these invalid intrigues is best for Moscow and its friends, this is what the embassy saw in accusations that it attributed to the ignorance of its owners of the reality of the Russian position and their lack of awareness of the nature of the current global situation that requires the arrangement of equal dialogue on issues of international security and strategic stability.
The embassy, in a statement, affirmed that it is impossible for Russia to retreat from the independence of its approach or to waive its obligations to international legitimacy, or to show weakness in front of the West and provide an opportunity for the forces of hegemony to advance, adding that Russia does not accept any suspicious equivocal deals or attractive proposals at the expense of others.
Question: Your Excellency, after the greeting, what was the motive behind the Russian embassy in Beirut issuing this statement?
Minister Plenipotentiary and Russian Ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin: In the context of the media war against us, from time to time it is necessary to respond to rumors and forgery, and as we have said, this is not the first time, but in the current circumstances, this response is necessary.
The main reason, I think that the tactical issue is not a passing issue, is very clear that this is fraud, but now in light of what is going on and preparing the ground for the summit of the five permanent members (in the Security Council) and the Russian logic before the whole world that we want to unite efforts against the threats that threaten everyone, this It is logic and not the subject of global or regional spheres of influence…
Question: Not even in the context of a permanent political solution in Syria?
Ambassador Zasypkin: In Syria, there is the same approach. Even if we were talking pragmatically, what is the link between our positions in Syria and the global atmosphere and goals? We need partners and the strength of the relationship with Syria, with Damascus, between Moscow and Damascus.
Question: Some people might call the dialogue taking place between Moscow and Washington, or between Moscow and Ankara over Syria, that it is sharing regions of influence, that it is sharing influence, but it could be a discussion for the solution?
Ambassador Zasypkin: This seems as if the issue of sharing influence is a natural thing, as if there are great countries like America and Russia and there are regional countries like Turkey, as if this thing is possible, but I insist that for us Syrian sovereignty this is superior to all other considerations and is not on our minds the spheres of influence, this is first. Secondly, the Russian call for joint efforts, this is the basis for our understanding of the global situation, not a deal
Question: There is a big difference between there being joint efforts to solve a specific crisis and that there is a sharing of spheres of influence or a deal, but if you allow me to return to the origin of the issue, how did this topic begin: Western diplomatic sources quoted figures from the Syrian opposition that there is understanding or an agreement or deal, whatever the nature of it, was made between Washington and Moscow in consultation with Turkey regarding the shape of the final solution in Syria, and making structural changes within the ‘state’ in Syria, this is what the opponents said, quoting diplomatic sources in the media?
Ambassador Zasypkin: This is if we are talking about information, this is not correct and there is no such information at all, this does not fall in line with the Russian approach, first, and secondly even if we assume that the conversation between Russia and America is this way, today, and during the entire term of President Trump we see that there is a constant targeting of the Russian – American relations and the meetings between the two presidents and every agreement that can be reached, does anyone believe these words that it was within this atmosphere that agreement of this kind was reached? This is simply excluded, simply.
Another thing, if we talked about information now and this news, this is all that the Arab and Western media depend on, and I looked at some of them, of course, this is forgery in two forms, the first form is a complete forgery as happened to the website of the Federal News Agency, which they based their information on, and this agency is very close to the Russian formal approach, therefore, they pointed to it, but that was referred to is a result of hacking. The second thing is almost forgery when they say that the former ambassador to Syria, and this is not true, this retired diplomat person may have this opinion, but this opinion is widespread that the Syrian authorities want a military settlement and do not want a political settlement, and this is known to be likely to happen. This is half fraud that this former ambassador to Syria and that it expresses a semi-official position, but this is not true, this is a personal position…
Question: Currently and previously, during the past years, have there not been pressure on Russia, opening of (other) files, or submitting requests to the Russian side specifically related to the Iranian and Hezb Allah presence in Syria, has this not been done by the Americans and Israelis before and now?
Ambassador Zasypkin: As for the list of American list of demands it is very long, the first item is the so-called Russian interference in the American elections, this alone covers everything else, even if there is nothing, this request exists, it is likely for the next stage, that any elections will take place this request will always be there, the second thing the demands relate to Syria or Ukraine or anything else, this is a secondary thing because in the essence of the matter the independence of the approach of Russia and Russia always stands in all files, because our diplomacy includes all the issues raised today, so for the Americans, this is the Russian position in all places and in all the issues is an independent position, and naturally we disagree often with the Americans because of the US approach. Therefore, of course, we are accustomed to all these demands, and the answer is quite clear for Syria as it was from the first day and until today is the same. If we make any concessions on any of these issues, there will be a request for more and more demands, and we know that.
Question: Your Excellency, the United States does not present its demands in the form of requests to Russia or others, it submits the demands and with it the pressure directly, the pressure papers, it has two files now in Syria it’s using as pressure tools, the first file is the Syrian chemical file and the accusation of Syrian officials in this matter, it’s being moved in The Organization for the Non-Proliferation of Chemical Weapons, and the second file is the Caesar Law and the paralyzing of the economic life in Syria. It is submitting requests to the Russian side or submitting requests inside Syria and attaching them by means of pressure.
Ambassador Zasypkin: It is true, and we are talking not about the demands without the details and without focusing on them, and the issue of the chemical weapon is at the height of importance in several respects, and within years we have the principled position that they falsified the whole subject and the use (of chemical weapons) by the terrorists first and with media coverage and other from the West the second thing this forgery, part of the media war by using video clips and the Internet, and there must be a strong response to that. The third thing, from what happened that they were active in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and as a result of Western pressures there has been an increase in their secretarial powers in this organization, so there are more risks to international security because employees can accuse any party of using chemical weapons and this is dangerous. Finally, Russia was targeted as a result of what happened in Britain, the poisoning of the former spy Skripal, they accused us at a time when the chemical weapon in Russia was eliminated before everyone else and in Syria, but they have a chemical weapon, the situation is different.
Question: Are you talking about the 2013 agreement regarding the Syrian chemical stockpile (which was destroyed) in 2013?
Ambassador Zasypkin: Yes.
Question: With regard to Turkey, Turkey places its hand today on the Syrian opposition, whether the military side in Idlib follows Turkey’s orders, and this is no longer a secret, and even almost all the political track and political figures have been acquired by Turkey after the withdrawal of a large number of countries from the Syrian file. Isn’t it natural here that Russia and Turkey engage in a discussion about the future of Syria in light of Turkey’s control of the opposition and parts of the Syrian land it occupies?
Ambassador Zasypkin: We can discuss the future of Syria with any party, and there is an existing basis for the position of the international community, this decision which was taken after the Geneva Declaration and on this basis, there are written principles, so it is not wrong that the international community has a position or the position is the result of dialogue with the countries of the region, especially with the neighboring countries including Turkey, and you have asked about Israel as well, and this is almost in terms of form that we are ready to communicate with everyone to arrange things because every party has security concerns and fears or economic interests such as Turkey and Syria, and the issue of the displaced and so on, but there must be a difference between these talks and the sovereign rights of Syria which we do not cross, and all of this is the matter of the Syrian people, so this issue is when they always ask us about our position on the Syrian leadership or something similar, we always have the answer that this is the affair of the (Syrian) people. We do not interfere in this matter.
Question: The alliance with Damascus and Tehran, and also the alliance with Hezb Allah in Syria on the ground, has this alliance changed, or will there be some change in the future?
Ambassador Zasypkin: This alliance may include several aspects, but the main aspect or main feature of it is the security situation in Syria, and the presence of these parties was a result of the security situation and threats by terrorists, and the Syrian leadership’s invitation to these parties, so whenever this terrorist threat remains, I do not see the possibility of remarkable changes in this composition (the coalition), later on for the next stage, there must be changes according to the circumstances and this is a natural thing that this will change.
Question: Bloomberg News has published a report on what we are talking about now. I will quote some of it as questions. The agency says that Putin, whose country is suffering from two shocks, the (fall of) oil price and the outbreak of the Coronavirus epidemic, in addition to his eagerness to end his military adventure in Syria by declaring victory, insists that Assad shows more flexibility in talks with the Syrian opposition on a political settlement to put an end to the conflict that has lasted for nearly 10 years, and the agency says that this depends on 4 sources familiar with the Kremlin’s deliberations in this regard, meaning there appears to be a discussion in Russia, according to what the agency says about this matter?
Ambassador Zasypkin: If we look at the summit, who is attending the personal meeting between President Putin and President Bashar al-Assad? In reality, which source everything they talk about depends on? Therefore, this talk does not have much credibility in this respect. Second, objectively, the tactics of the Syrian authorities, I think, are discussed during all this period, and we have heard comments in this way during the past years, practically, from the beginning, there have been attempts to sow doubts that the Russians call for flexibility more for the ‘regime’ in Syria, please only…
Question: You only put this in the context of a psychological media war?
Ambassador Zasypkin: To confirm why this talk is not correct, please only consider that during the past years there has been no official Russian statement in this sense, when we are talking about precautions in the dialogue, Russia points to the lack of flexibility on the part of the (Syrian) opposition and does not point to infelicity of the (Syrian) authorities, this is a principled position of Russia that we are convinced that this side is more prepared than the second side during all this period…
Question: You mean, the Syrian government is more willing and flexible than the opposition to find a solution, this result that Russia has reached?
Ambassador Zasypkin: Yes, absolutely, this conclusion is from the first stage, and this conclusion continues across all stages. If there is a change to this logic, then it means that there is an initial change in seeing what is happening, and I do not see that.
Question: You mentioned the issue of publications in the Russian press, whether Alexander Shumlin, a former Russian diplomat who runs the European Center for the Middle East, has published that, about this issue that we were talking saying, the Kremlin should get rid of the Syrian headache. Evgeni Bricusen, also known as Putin’s chef, also published the article, and you said that the Russian Federal Agency website was hacked and this article was deleted, also in a telephone interview with Alexander Aksyonko, a former Russian diplomat and deputy head of the Council of International Affairs, he also wrote a comment in this regard, all of this is being conceived as a Russian message to Damascus, or a Russian outcry over Damascus, what do you say, Your Excellency Ambassador, about what has been written?
Ambassador Zasypkin: I meant that this is a fraud, that hacking or piracy of the website first, and secondly is a reference to the experts, and we have a large group of experts and specifically those referred to, each one of them has an opinion and we have a number (of those experts) who have more working with the West and close to them and always they communicate with them, so it is not surprising that among the experts there is one opinion and another opinion and others. If anyone watches a Russian TV talk show who will see different opinions, the problem is that they refer to this as if this is the official position and this is not true at all.
Question: You made it very clear, Your Excellency Ambassador. I still have one question that I should have asked at the beginning: The statement you made at the embassy, why was it issued by the Russian embassy in Beirut? Why was it not issued by the Russian embassy in Damascus, for example, or by the Russian Foreign Ministry or from another diplomatic path?
Ambassador Zasypkin: It may be because Beirut is first a prominent media center, and secondly, there may be speed in coordination and initiative for some, and all of that.
End of the English transcript, Arabic transcript in Page 2.
نص المقابلة باللغة العربية في الصفحة 2
