Question:

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

Dear brother, Sheikh Ata, May Allah safeguard you as an asset to the Ummah. A question about the Russian position towards the revolution in Ash-Sham, it appears to me that Russia is standing on par with America on the issue of the revolution and is wagering upon the realisation of gains. This is whilst the analysis that has come from you has stated that America is using Russia ... please clarify how this was carried out. Please benefit us and Barakallahu Feekum.

Answer:

wa Alaikum Assalaam wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuhu,

To illustrate the answer, I will remind you of the following issues:

1) The political events are not explained by their appearances as in most cases it is deceptive and misleading. Especially since the influential nations in the world today deal politically without abiding by any valid standards!

2) Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union diminished its political role in the worldwide arena which the former Soviet Union used to look forward to infiltrate and influence it. It diminished its vital domain i.e. the former Soviet Union and even former Eastern European states that were previously under the dominating control of the Soviet Union have now become part of the European Union which do not join until readily prepared. Indeed even Serbia was struck by intensive NATO attacks whilst Russia was unable to rescue it despite being inextricably linked to Russia! Even Serbians who were being driven by Russia in their acts have been taken to an international criminal court without Russia being able to protect them!

3) The actions of Russia in other regions like the Middle-East and East-Asia are not more than economic interests stripped of political influence. And if Russia engages in political actions in these regions then it is in line with the American measures whether with or without agreement, at least in the near future.

4) And now I will mention some of the Russian actions in its vital domain in East-Asia and the Middle-East so that it can be seen how the Russian political concern lies predominantly in the former Soviet Union Republics in contrast to its fragile position in relation to other regions and if it does have a position in them then it is in harmony with the American position.

a) The former Soviet Union Republics:

i. Georgia: When Saakashvili attempted to make Georgia an American point of focus within the Russian sphere from the time of the Rose Revolution of November 2003 and America later pushed him into attacking South Ossetia whilst ultimately promising to support him in negotiating solutions with Russia.  So Georgia began its actual attack on South Ossetia on 08/08/2008 even though Russia was aware that America was behind this attack and especially since America had demonstrated this in statements made by some of its officials. Despite knowing all of this Russia expended all of its efforts to launch a large scale attack upon Georgia and separated Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia i.e. it worked to break up Georgia and it dug a knife deep into it, incapacitating it of any harm or disturbance towards Russia. They paid no attention to the American focus of portraying Russia to be sinking in a swamp in South Georgia in an attempt to negatively affect the morale of the Russian army. In addition it paid no attention to the international affects of the Russian attack upon Georgia and its contravention to the international law and so on....

ii. Kyrgyzstan: Russia supported the election of Bakiyev on 23/07/2009 and the Russian support for his election was noticeable. Russian President Medvedev attended the inauguration ceremony in Kyrgyzstan himself which was held for Bakiyev on 02/08/2009! Despite this when Russia noticed that America was getting close to Bakiyev during American politician Richard Holbrooke's visit to Kyrgyzstan on 19/02/2010, when he met with Bakiyev away from the limelight as was mentioned in the Russia Today Newspaper from the Russian Interfax service on 19/02/2010 when it stated that Holbrooke discussed with Kurmanbek: ‘The horizons of the bilateral relations and the situation in Afghanistan and the two parties exchanged views far away from the spotlight regarding the situation in Afghanistan and the discussion about activating mutual and beneficial cooperation between the two states'. This is addition to what the same newspaper mentioned on 17/03/2010, ‘The United States has recently announced specifying $5.5 million to help Kyrgyzstan build a centre for training special units for combating terrorism in the town of Batkin, Kyrgyzstan'. When Russia noticed Bakiyev's inclination towards America, it rushed into planning a coup against Bakiyev to prevent the continuation of his relation with America. And the sheer jubilation of victory was clearly evident in Russia upon the successful coup that took place against Bakiyev on 08/04/2010.

iii. Uzbekistan: Karimov used to proceed with Russia and specifically it had helped him militarily in the events of Andijan. However the economic and security enticements from America made him incline more towards America and distance noticeably from Russia. This was shown clearly when Uzbekistan refused to take part in the manoeuvres of 26/08/2009 conducted by the Collective Security Treaty Organisation when the manoeuvres continued until the 15th of September 2009. This disturbed Russia because the behaviour of Uzbekistan was tantamount to freezing its membership in the organisation. Especially as this refusal to participate occurred after the visit of the American General David Petraeus to Tashkent and Karimov meeting with him on 18/08/2009 where Karimov stated, ‘That Uzbekistan is ready to broaden its positive cooperation with the United States upon the basis of mutual principles of respect and equal partnership' (Nofosty News Russian Agency 18/08/2009). And an agreement of cooperation was signed between the two lands that included a military, training and occupational educational programme.

These matters have rung Russian alarm bells as it stands with firm determination towards the former Soviet Union republics. It has begun to lay down plans for Uzbekistan to return to the Collective Security Treaty Organisation i.e. to the Russian influence. Russia has pushed the temporary government and Russian lackeys in Kyrgyzstan to launch an attack of burning, destruction and killing upon the ethnic Uzbeks to drive them towards the Uzbek border. The large migration number of the minority ethnic Uzbek population from Kyrgyzstan to Uzbekistan would cause it a problem and this would lead to the justification of the intervention of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation to solve the problem, in which Uzbekistan's membership had been frozen long ago. Russia's aim was to achieve from this to push Uzbekistan to return to the Collective Security Organisation so as to solve the problem. And naturally this is all under the leadership of the Russians and as such Uzbekistan would return to the Russian house of obedience and as a result distance itself from America. And the plan was nearly successful with Uzbekistan agreeing to participate in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the sending of military forces under Russian leadership to solve the problem, had the American ambassador in Tashkent not intervened speaking on behalf of the American government, who contacted the Uzbek government and convinced it to not participate with the forces of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. So the government responded to the American request and closed the border to the fleeing ethnic Uzbeks after it had initially opened them. As a result the American assistant to the Secretary of State Robert Blake commended the actions of Uzbekistan and its closing of the border in the face of the displaced.

iv. Ukraine: When Yushchenko reached the position of ruling in Ukraine following the Orange Revolution and Russia's favoured man Yanukovych fell, this was a painful blow to Russia. This was where America exploited the period of his rule to speed the process of integration between Ukraine and the West. And throughout the period that he remained in his post, Yushchenko used to threaten to dispel the Russian Black Sea fleet from Sevastopol at the end of the Russian military lease in 2017. And Yushchenko did not conceal his desire to integrate Ukraine completely within institutions like the EU and NATO. Kiev entered into negotiations about a partnership agreement with the EU and requested a plan of action to become a member of NATO. Consequently Russian influence was disrupted in Ukraine; however Russia began to instigate its loyalists in Ukraine and used the halting of gas supply followed by a price increase as a means to cause turmoil within the country and in particular in the winter. And since many economic aspects still remain tied with Russia, it was able to effectively utilise all of this in its favour until it was able to return its man Yanukovych once again to ruling in February 2010. He was the fourth president of the country and a staunch supporter of Russia. Subsequently, American influence began to decline and Ukraine moved in the direction of normalising relations with Russia even if it was now at a slower pace than what it had been prior to the Orange Revolution.

Therefore it became apparent that Russia has utilised all possible approaches whether political, economic and even military in order to protect its interest based influence and control within its conventional vital area i.e. within the former Soviet Union Republics. It will not surrender its influences unless compelled or unable to preserve them due to regional and international factors.

b) As for other regions, the situation differs as its role is sometimes tenuous or marginal. If so, it occurs then it happens in line with America directly or indirectly. Examples of this are as follows:

i. East-Asia and North Korea: America roams near the boundaries of southern Russia and has set up a defensive missile shield in the Island of Guam. Indeed Russia agreed to the Resolution 2094 against North Korea and any difference between the political position of Russia and America in regards to North Korea is nearly not noticeable. America has provoked North Korea with very large military exercises which were conducted in close proximity to her. They began on 19/02/2013 and continued until the end of this month 30/04/2103. Unprecedented in size, exercises occurred in harmony with the timing of the sanctions that America put forward in the Security Council and which both Russia and China agreed to on 07/03/2013 after Western and particularly American movement following the third Nuclear test conducted by North Korea on 12/02/2013. These military exercises have generated what represents real provocation to North Korea and it (America) had announced prior to this a new strategy within Asia and the Pacific Ocean of strengthening its force in this region by moving 60% of its naval forces in order to face anticipated threats up until the year 2020. All of which drove North Korea to threaten to strike American bases with medium range missiles. America exploited this threat to accelerate the establishment of the missile defence shield in the Island of Guam despite this being a threat to Russia in addition to North Korea. However the Russian position was soft and indeed it barely differed from the American position. The spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry Lukashivic expressed, "we stand in solidarity with them with respect to reject the provocative behaviour that threatens fighting from Pyongyang at the current time." So Russia did not take a serious position towards the hostile American position towards North Korea or towards the provocative military manoeuvres and exercises which America conducted with South Korea which included the use of advanced weaponry. Russia did not heed or condemn this whilst knowing that this represents a danger to the region and aims at strengthening American presence to strike fear in everyone and forcing its hegemony upon the world. So this is actually directed against Russia itself in terms of not allowing it to have any presence in the region!

We now come to the Middle-East and before answering the question related to Syria, I would like to mention the Russian position regarding the Libya events:

The Libyan popular movement began on 17/02/2011 and the end of February 2011 and the beginning of March, Europe and particularly France was preparing the atmosphere for military intervention in Libya and even to undertake it itself on a limited scale.

During this time the American Secretary of State on Wednesday 02/03/2011, during a Senate Hearing about intervention in Libya that the United States ‘is not ruling out any option'. However, it also warned that any military intervention to help those opposing Gaddafi will be a matter that ‘stirs debate' not just in Libya but the Arab world as a whole.

After that the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed that his country was against foreign military intervention in Libya. He made clear the firm stand of his country regarding Libya in a press conference held on Tuesday evening 07/03/2011 in the city of Leningrad when he said: ‘Russia opposes foreign intervention specifically military intervention as a means to solve the crisis in Libya.' Adding, ‘It is upon the people of Libya to solve the problem themselves.'

A few days later America agreed upon military intervention and was behind the Security Council Resolution No. 1973 on 17/03/2011. When the time for voting came Russia swallowed its previous statements, it did not use its veto and did not put forward any objection. Rather it abstained from voting and as a result the resolution was passed and American and European military intervention commenced. I.e. Russia opposed military intervention when America did not want it and then when America wanted to go forth with military intervention Russia did not oppose it.

And now we arrive to the issue of Syria:

Something new occurred with Syria from the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. This new occurrence was the raising of Islamic slogans which frightened America amongst others. These slogans were those of the Khilafah "Caliphate" which stoked the feelings of the people in a striking manner. The new matter generated an occurrence that the western states and in particular America who controlled the political affairs of Syria since the time of Hafez and his son, were made to stop and take notice.

The revolutions surprised the West from the time Bouazizi set himself on fire from the oppression, humiliation and insult of Ben Ali's regime and police... the West was able to divert those revolutions from their aims by assigning agents to infiltrate the ranks of the revolutionaries to be amongst the loudest chanting slogans with the most energy. Afterwards, they removed the former tyrant whose face was grim and dark and replaced him with another not so grim face whilst the infrastructure of the regime remained a secular republic. All that changed was a replacement of faces. And they took this matter like a set doctor's prescription so that every time people discover that change has not occurred, they revolt and call for freedom, in which these colonising powers bring their agents who then call with the loudest voices and thus any change remains confined to the agendas of the these countries.

As for what has happened in Syria the slogans were not for nationalism, a civil state, freedom and democracy so as to allow for western agents to infiltrate and to call making their voice the loudest and most energetic so as to seize the leadership of the people to exchange of one face for another to conclude the matter. Rather the slogans were calling for the Khilafah "Caliphate" or Islam and in a way and by those who not under their influence like the supposed ‘Moderate or Middle Islam' groups that are sung by the west. Although these slogans were mixed with other revolutionary slogans like those of democracy, civil state and the like, rather these slogans were not the dominant in the revolutionary arena to easily penetrate as the other revolutions.

Therefore the American apparatuses abroad such as the National Council and the Coalition and even American apparatuses at home such as a national coordinating body were all unable to gain acceptance from the people and America as a result has found itself in problems:

On the one hand it can see that its agent Bashar is in a doomed rule and that his regime can no longer realise the American interests or the security of the Jews as he and his father had the past forty years. And on the other hand, their productions are not accepted in Syria by the revolutionaries and it (U.S.) fears that if Bashar was to fall without prior arrangements being in place to follow him then the next rule could be other than what it wants, either the Khilafah "Caliphate" or another rule not from its path. In addition to this there is the problem that it wants to appear to be on the same side as the revolutionaries in Syria and against oppression and tyranny like it did with all other previous revolutions!

Therefore America seeks an exit from its dilemma that maintains it appearance that stands on the side of the people against the tyrant. At the same time it does not want the tyrant to leave before it has guaranteed the replacement of an old agent with a new agent. This exit came from Russia which supports Bashar while America appears incapable of solutions because of Russia. So you see it going to Russia to negotiate with it giving the impression that Russia is on Bashar's side whilst the US is on the revolutionary's side appearing as if Russia and America are at odds with the solution. The comings and goings, grace periods one after another provided to Bashar so that he can increase the killing and destruction with Russian weaponry. All of this is done to provide America with time to mature its replacement agent who will come after Bashar whether this objective occurs by increased killing so that the people concede and accept their manufactured agent or through military intervention at the end of the matter legitimised by a UN security council resolution under the pretext of the need to protect the security of the new rule.

Thus every time it was in an awkward situation it would go and meet with Russia, appearing as though there was an agreement for a negotiated solution and then claim there was a disagreement between Russia and America. Then even when it stated that the use of chemical weapons was a red line and France provided evidence of its use, America then responded by stating that the evidence was not conclusive. Then when the evidences mounted up Obama stated that we have evidence but Russia remains doubtful! And all this is because America has not found an alternative agent that is acceptable to the people to replace their current agent. So none of their foreign manufactured agents have found any acceptance amongst the people and no proposed transitional government made up of the current regime and a mixture of external and internal opposition is acceptable to the people. So it is currently attempting a mix between the carrot and stick approach at the same time. It is not using one at a time but rather it makes use of the warplanes and missiles of Bashar and his allies as the stick whilst offering the carrot of providing weapons upon conditions to resist the planes and missiles of Bashar i.e. the weapons of Russia that have sided with Bashar in his campaign of murder and destruction. This is whilst the American, European and their allies and followers' weapons are made upon the condition of a speedy death. They then market this with the argument of repelling Bashar's aggression so as to drive him towards the Geneva Convention for negotiations between the opposition and the regime to establish a transitional government as was what took place recently in the Doha Conference. So what concerns America is to steer the change itself and Russia has not opposed this direction and indeed serves it!

Therefore the one who scrutinizes the American and Russian positions will find that they are not in opposing directions. Rather the actions of Russia serve the aims of America by paving the path for a new American agent to take the place of the current older agent.

And like in Libya, once America decides upon a political or military solution, then it is expected that Russia will not uphold its right to be critical but will pass a Security Council Resolution. And all of this is because the Middle-East is not an area in which Russia strives to assert its political influence but rather it proceeds within it upon the path that is in agreement with the American path.

In conclusion, Russia does not politically oppose America regarding the Syrian crisis but rather is at the forefront of its solution, supporting Bashar in its killing and massacres as pressure upon the people to accept America's creation.

This is in respect to the America, Russian, European side in addition to their allies and followers. As for the side of the Ummah then within it are sincere and truthful men, with the permission of Allah, and no matter how long or severe the oppression and darkness, however, the good result belongs to the Muttaqoon (Pious) and even if this after a short while and Allah is Al-Azeez Al-Hakeem.

Your brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

The link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook Page: