A couple of weeks ago we posted a video of an interview with Professor Miklós Maróth, a Hungarian orientalist. The article below is a longer and more detailed interview with the professor on the same topic, originally published at 888.hu.
Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation:
Miklós Maróth: The Islamic State is already in Europe
Interview with 888.hu by Viktor Attila Vincze
The Islamic State can be defeated militarily in 2017, but it does not eliminate terrorism, declared Miklós Maróthi to 888.hu. According to the academic and orientalist professor, European leaders should be aware of the fact that the Islamic State is already is here in Europe, because a fully Islamic infrastructure has emerged around mosques. Although Europe has lost all religious and cultural backbone, the migrant masses are proudly Islamic.
888.hu: When will the war in Syria and Iraq against the Islamic State end, which according to many has now partly widened out to a civilizational collision between Islam and the Christian world? Could 2017 be the end of the war and related terrorist attacks?
Miklós Maróth: We must not forget that in 2011, Western countries and some Sunni countries initiated the civil war inside Syria. Today, those countries who were responsible for the outbreak of civil war — are shedding crocodile tears — when they refer to the damage to humanitarian principles in Syria, in connection with the war. We are mainly talking about the United States, Britain and France, who ignored the results of the elections in Syria and wanted to achieve the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad. In addition to this, this was an intervention by Western countries, which the Middle East countries assessed as an attack by Christians, while Christianity in fact had nothing to do with this. As a consequence of the intervention, the Islamic State was established and a number of other extremist Muslim militant groups created, all of them then carrying out terrorist attacks. These groups in response then turned against the Christian world. These extremist groups will likely be defeated militarily by the allied forces in this year, but as a result the members of these groups will scatter. Because the motives driving these groups will not disappear at the end of the war, so these extremist Islamist groups in other forms or under other names can be expected to operate and will continue primarily to commit acts of terrorism if they have the opportunity. If they make it to Europe, they will carry out terrorist acts here.
888.hu: Will the occupation of Aleppo bring the possibility of settlement of the situation in Syria significantly closer? What settlement is expected, if Russia, Iran and Turkey are able to reach a peace agreement about the region?
Miklós Maróth: With the presence of the Russians, we must mention a rarely known fact, that historically they are the protectors of Christian communities in the Middle East. We must note the important circumstance that a Shi’ite government is in power in Syria. The Shi’ites were a minority, and without the Christians they could not stay in power. So when the Russians sided with the Syrian government, they actually just fulfilled their historical role and helped Bashar el-Assad. Based on the recent past, I can definitely say that the Russian military intervention in Syria was successful, with the result that they now managed to align with the Turks, who were previously fighting against Assad and the Iranians, but now support Assad, to combine their efforts to fight against the Islamic State. As a result of the success of the Russian military intervention, a change in the regional military and diplomatic power relations was shown, when at the end of December an international conference was held in Moscow to resolve the situation in Syria, and they did not invite the United States, and the Western States that had previously been in Geneva failed to bring together a similar conference. Only Russia and its allies Syria, Iran and Turkey have the necessary initiative and the ability to settle the conflict in Syria; the United States and its allies are no longer considered an indispensable force. Russian-Turkish-Iranian military and diplomatic cooperation now seems capable of clearing out the outskirts of Damascus and cleaning up Idlib province and ending the civil war. Every analysis shows that in the near future, when the Syrian army recaptures Aleppo, it will free up its forces to fight the Islamic state, Al-Nusra Front and their allies in the countryside. Compared to the fight in urban areas, in an open terrain the government forces have superior firepower over the rebels. This will result an even faster collapse of the radical Islamic rebel forces. To add to this, when the rebels were pushed out of Aleppo, their supply of weapons was cut off. In Aleppo there were some so-called moderate groups — as the Americans called them — but they actually only existed on paper. However, in Idlib province, to which the government forces are now turning, there have never been such forces, not even on paper, so the Western countries can no longer provide weapons on this front to the Islamic extremists. An interesting lesson from Syria is that those countries that believed they have the right to intervene in Syria’s internal affairs now have to confront the failure they achieved with a nearly seven-year war that they sparked off. Syria is in ruins, with four hundred thousand dead, seven million people displaced, three million people living abroad in exile — half the population of Syria is now homeless. For what happened, the makers of this conflict [Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Soros — translator] should assume responsibility, to face up to their conscience, if they were willing to do so.
888.hu: Turkey is a Sunni-majority country as well as a state that wants to recover its Ottoman superpower status, while at the same time being a NATO member. What role may it be seeking in the Syrian war, in Iraq and in the region?
Miklós Maróth: Turkey has a 30% Alawite minority; therefore the Turkish state has no interest in the existence of a Syrian state government run by Alawites in places such as its current Assad-led neighbor. But now it seems Turkey is more than willing to adapt to the will of the Russians, who have much stronger arguments in the military intervention in Syria. Turkey’s behavior in the region and its plans are heavily influenced by the presence of Kurdish rebel forces in the region. The Kurds are officially allies of the United States — for example, in Iraq in the siege of Mosul, they are involved with the Iraqi and US military forces, while in Syria they are being attacked by the Turks, who are also American allies. Turkey is as much an ally of the Russians against the Islamic State, as it is against the Kurds. The Turkish army is constantly attacking Kurdish armed groups in order to prevent the involvement of the multi-million Turkish Kurdish community in the creation of an independent Kurdish state. A Turkish-Kurdish conflict now appears to favors the central Syrian government, because the Turkish army is taking over the job of clearing out the Kurdish armed groups from the northern part of Syria.
888.hu: So the biggest losers in the peace process following the end of the fight against radical Islamist forces in Syria and Iraq will be the Kurds? What will happen to Kurdistan, which is now an arbitrarily proclaimed area in the north of Iraq, and so far not internationally recognized?
Miklós Maróth: In Northern Iraq there is an area of virtually full Kurdish control, which operates completely under their administration, and Turkey is not happy with its existence. However, with the current balance of power the Turkish army can only successfully attack the Kurdish forces in Syria. After defeating the Islamic State and the forces of the Al-Nusra Front, most likely Syrian government troops will immediately turn against the Kurds to take back the occupied areas from the insurgents. At this moment, however, it can’t be determined how long it might take, and what might be the final outcome of a military action against the Kurds, since the armed groups of the Kurdish rebels are considered to be a serious military power in the region. It is impossible to predict the extent and influence of the great powers or specific agreements, occasional regional interests, and even the future of the Kurdish autonomous area. One thing is certain: the states that historically have influence in the area would never by themselves contribute to the creation of an autonomous Kurdish area.
888.hu: After the war against the Islamic State, what would be the likely fate of the former combatants and their civilian supporters? Could the followers of the Islamic State possibly move towards the Islamic enclaves of the Balkans?
Miklós Maróth: Among the members of the Islamist rebel groups are many European, Chechen, Arab and other international adventurers of all different origins, the majority of whom at the end of the war will definitely have a place to go back to. At the same time, for the former combatants there are a number of Gulf countries and Turkey that are open targets for them, the states that funded the Syrian war. Those soldiers who have any background in Europe, will certainly come back to Europe, and are waiting for an opportunity to pounce somewhere in a terrorist attack. These ex-militants will reorganize their ranks to get ready for action as soon as possible.
888.hu: How much are the Balkans — which are very close to Hungary — threatened by Islamic extremism and terrorism?
Miklós Maróth: In the Balkans we can currently see a race between Sunni Islam and the fundamentalist alternatives. The Saudi Wahhabists, the Turkish-supported Hanafi ideological versions, both trying to expand there. Many from the Balkan joined the ranks of Salafist ISIS soldiers. Between the two Sunni trends, Salafism and Wahhabism, there is little distinctive difference. Historically the Wahhabist trend split from the Salafist one. Salafism was born in the 14th century, and Mohammed Abd al-Wahhab lived in the 18th century, and he was a Salafist. Wahhabism is really a slightly more orthodox version of Salafism, and follows every religious doctrine even more strictly.
888.hu: To what extent is it true that the root problem of European Islam is the fact that imams imported from abroad arrive in the mosques and disseminate extremist views? How can Salafists be compared to the Wahhabis or to the Turkish Islamic nationalists who are working on the revitalization of the Ottoman imperial traditions? Why is what happens in a mosque in Europe important?
Miklós Maróth: Where the Turks are the majority, as in Germany, naturally the Turkish-speaking imams lead the religious communities. And where there are Arabic speakers, then religious scholars are usually sent by an Arabic-speaking country that can sacrifice the most for this purpose, namely Saudi Arabia, generally speaking. In places that historically fell under the Ottoman Empire, a re-Ottomanisation experiment is taking place. In Germany we can see the attempt to strengthen Turkish influence; elsewhere in Europe, it is largely Wahhabism that tries to put Muslim communities under its spell. It is currently impossible to train European imams in Europe for Muslim believers. Certified Islamic imams can only come from Muslim countries. And because sending those has a financial dimension, the richest countries — i.e. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are those that are the richest, and have the greatest proselytizing tendencies — are the ones sending the majority of imams to Europe. The significance of imams can only be understood if we know that world of Islam, religion is the most influential factor in all aspects of life. We in Europe live in a secular society, and for us religion is a private matter, which is the reason why we relate very differently to this question than the Islamic world. In the Islamic world, the political and religious communities are one and the same, so religious expansion is means political expansion, too. It’s not a coincidence that when the migrant wave started in the direction of Europe — which ended up getting about 1.5 million Muslims into Europe — only Saudi Arabia offered to help European countries handle the crisis. The Saudi help offered was to build 1,500 mosques. Currently the European leaders do not know that in the mosques of the countries under whose name the prayers are announced and on whose behalf they collecting is where they send the zakat (tax). Why this is important? Because an Islamic State does not have a constitutive element like a state border, but instead where and under whose name they announce the prayer and where the zakat goes. Based on these correlations, today it can be clearly reported that, practically speaking, the Islamic State is here in Europe, as it has now fully established the essence of Islamic infrastructure, and the Islamic State can fully rely on that. In addition, there are presently significant amounts of ”halal” (religiously approved) funding moving around in Europe, which completes the Islamic religious and political community infrastructure. The Islamic religious communities have serious financial funds at their disposal; they can operate in Europe in a way that the secular-minded European authorities and public administration are simply unable to comprehend.
888.hu: How do the Islamic believers regard European territories that were once under Islamic rule?
Miklós Maróth: There is a specific mindset that we can talk about in most of the Islamic world in this respect. Any area that which once belonged to Islam, according to their vision, will remain their own. I saw a good example of this in an Al Jazeera TV report. A Moroccan government delegation traveled to Spain. A television reporter knew that the ancestors of the delegation leader once fled from the Christian Reconquista from Andalusia, and settled into Morocco. So the Arab television reporter began his interview by asking a question of the head of the delegation: ”How you feel when you go back to the land of your ancestors, which is under foreign occupation at the moment?” So the alien invaders are the Spaniards in Spain. In many ways, the same attitude can be seen behind the Turkish endeavors at re-Ottomanisation.
888.hu: Is there any risk from the local Islamic community in Hungary? Is there a chance of radicalisation of the local Islamic community here?
Miklós Maróth: You do not need afraid of such things here, because the the major part of our Islamic community is made up of people who came here during the period of the ‘50s to the ’80s, mainly as Arabic-speaking students. They came from one secular society to another one, and therefore are not just integrated, but practically assimilated into Hungarian society. They have Hungarian wives and children. They represent a completely different mentality from that of the people who are flooding into Europe now, who have no skills, but expect a livelihood for free, and who also want to expand Islam. I would like to emphasize in this regard that important element of Islam is the (Sharia) law. In the ’90s they developed new rules in Islamic law relating to minority Muslims as well. These laws state that Muslims can only stay in non-Islamic countries, such as Europe, if they fulfill a mission to convert others to Islam.
888.hu: What changed in Europe or in the Islamic world, that Christian Europe unexpectedly had to face Islam as a source of unexpected problems and threats? Why are the Islamic extremist and terrorist acts now gaining ground?
Miklós Maróth: In recent years, several circumstances changed and led to the current situation. The first major group of Muslim migrants that arrived in Europe was looking for work and a better life. They were satisfied with what they earned and gladly performed tasks assigned to them, and in exchange they received a better livelihood. The second generation of this group had different attitudes toward everything. They want higher European lifestyle. But according to statistics the majority of students are who drop out of the school system are migrants or from an immigrant background; the young people of this group have no educational qualifications. They live adrift on the periphery of society, which makes them frustrated. An important difference is that up until recently the Muslim immigrants were very few. Recent large waves of Muslim immigration have increased the number of believers and the proportion of Muslims in Europe. The Muslims who settled in have fertility rates much higher than the host societies, which is now clearly visible. With the growth of the Muslim population they started to become louder and to make demands more boldly. However, the expansion of the Islamic mindset was helped by European public opinion, political attitudes and social conditions that consider religion a private matter, and the rights of minorities have to be taken into account in all aspects. This attitude finally led to the giving up of all European traditions.
With this spirit right now in Europe, we are the ones who remove the crucifixes from the walls and church bell towers, and we do not wish each other a Merry Christmas, but only say “Season’s greetings”, so as not to damage the religious sensitivities of Muslim immigrants. So Europe lost all cultural and religious backbone, as opposed to the migrants flooding in, who are devout Muslims holding on to their religion, and they are not ashamed to represent it.
CrossWare, you have the professor saying that “Turkey has a 30% Alawite minority,” but according to the Wiki article “Alawites”, “The exact number of Alawites in Turkey is unknown; there were 700,000 in 1970, suggesting about 1,500,000 in 2009.” Was that supposed to be 3%?
Well the article said 30%. Could be a typo… To tell you the truth before I read it I had no idea who the heck those Alawites are.
Islam’s various genocides are most educational…I, too, recommend V.S. Naipaul’s “Believers” for a look at the internecine wars Islam has produced. Surely it has murdered far more of Mohammed’s followers than it has killed unbelievers.
Back before Naipaul I had no idea of the mortally serious nature of the Sunni<->Shi’ite divide. Naively, I thought their arguments were akin to, say, the differences between Episcopalians and Baptists. [OTOH, in the latter case it was my own Roman Catholic upbringing that tended to lump all “non-Catholic” denominations into One Big Mistake.]
A warning from history, already too late I fear as does David Vincent in his book “2030: Your Children’s Future in Islamic Britain” (Amazon and Kindle) the best publication on this subject specifically pertaining to Britain and Europe.
Here is the U.S. link to Mr. Vincent’s book:
http://amzn.to/2jBBqVB
[That’s the GoV affiliate link, which is quickest for me to access].
Those who belong to Amazon’s book bub can read it for free.
I also recommend that every Brit read Dark Albion: A Requiem for the British by David Abbott.
Scroll down our sidebar and you’ll see the book cover; it is the link. Dark Albion is aptly named: a series of essays both darkly funny and deeply sad. I don’t know if there is a Kindle edition – iirc, Amazon doesn’t carry it, but if someone could check the UK Amazon, I’ll put up the link. Best chapter, or at least most poignant: the time is 2066 and King William is preparing to turn over the keys of the Kingdom to its Islamic overseers. I can’t remember the details now, but I think his Queen has long since died and he is alone in his old age…
…we used to have that chapter archived somewhere but I can’t find it now…
While agreeing with most of this Islamic assessment included in this article I take issue up with the following:
1. Maroth seems to disregard the root cause that encourages the second and third generation of imported Muslims to take up flexing their Islamic muscle, and that root cause is multiculturalism, a deliberate policy that does not permit the state to exercise its cultural authority over Muslims of any generation and as a direct result of such deliberate appeasement, every Western country is now finding itself having to deal with the fallout.
2. While Maroth is able to identify the main actors within Islam and the role they now play, there seems to be an almost lack of comprehension in what he states as to what is really at stake here – no Western country, in fact, no country that values its own cultural heritage should be taking in those who are self-identifying Muslims, no matter how small in number or how ‘influential’ they may be because the problem that he seems to skirt around is Islam itself.
3. The use of words such as ‘radical’, ‘radicalisation’, ‘moderate’, etc, in order to describe personal misunderstandings of how Islam operates has a tendency to blind those who use these terms because by using such words it gives unfounded hope that there are actually ways in which to peacefully combat such perverse behaviour when looking at how Islam operates from the Western perspective. Islam is Islam, and those who take to practising its tenets should be referred to as fundamentalist Muslims because they are practising the fundamental aspects of Islam as dictated by Islam.
4. But, and by far, the worst mistake that many make, and Maroth makes this mistake, is in describing Islam as a religion, as if Islam has earned its place amongst the other great religions of the world by virtue of its purported beneficence to all mankind. When one takes up study of Islam’s history and can accept the truth of what they discover, then one is left with the knowledge that Islam is not a religion in the sense that we who uphold Christian-Judeo values know religion to be. Islam is first a supremacist ideology, and second, an ideology that holds sway through social and religious aspects over those who submit to such an ideology.
5. Maroth then makes the grave error of deducing – and wrongly I believe – that just because Muslims have ‘assimilated’ into various cultures that they no longer pose a threat to the country that originally took them in. In my opinion, if those who have ‘assimilated’ still call themselves Muslim, then they should remain a threat because they have no intention of truly assimilating!
6. ISIS is amongst us all in the West. We can’t escape this death cult while ever our governments and intelligence services refuse to recognize this Islamic problem, an imported problem that stems from allowing Muslims to settle amongst us and who have no intention of assimilating and every intention of undermining us all.
Nemesis you present a great analysis.
I too was disappointed with the fundamental mistakes apparent from this ‘expert’. Their memes are those of a relative ‘n00b’ draped in fine-sounding words. It was people like this who thought they were authoritative that have been giving terrible advice to the leaders of the West.
Whenever people use the term ‘religion’ with Islam I cringe. The distinction is between ‘personal faith’ that asserts no earthly authority over unbelievers and ‘political ideologies’ that do. Judaism and Christianity are personal faiths. Islam looks like a personal faith but is actually a political authority as it is founded on the increasing use of state coercion to enforce Sharia adherence on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
I think the terms ‘personal faith’ and ‘political ideology’ (theocracy) are much more useful than ‘religion’ as the latter is too generic.
Thank you Moa. I agree with the use of your terms, but what a pity that our ‘educators’ have to be educated on what they actually appreciate concerning Islam.
I do not want to be a defense lawyer for Prof. Maróth, specially I agree with you, but…
He is an academic, so for him looking at the object of study is without emotions, scientific clarity is a must have. Also he educated and researched islam when it was a bit different world, started from 1950.
(let’s not forget he also quoted the British method of dealing with the muslims = wrapping them in pigskin and hang them… so that was good!).
I agree, islam is not a religion only has some religious elements which help to indoctrinate the members. It is more of a political cult.
My analysis is simply what I believe the good professor missed in his answers CrossWare. I guess if given to answering questions, not everyone, including yours truly, is able to come up with everything they have learned about a subject over a lifetime when given only minutes to convey that knowledge.
Great, all of your emphasis here, Nemesis
The great thing about comments to articles, is that they can add knowledge to the whole.
In my opinion, the unspeakable nightmare comes through, which is that ISIS is well established in Europe, in a fluid infrastructure invisible to the eyes unwilling to see.
Thank you reply. Indeed, it is a long road for us all to travel to rid ourselves of this pestilence called Islam.
Will it be in our lifetimes? More likely a generation or two from now…perhaps an erosion instead of a revolution. Just the way mainline Christian churches have eroded. When the Leavers from Islam outnumber the Remainers, it will be safe for the former to do so without having to hide.
You know Dympthna, when I first came to this blog a few years ago, and BTW, I had been reading what you guys put up for a few years before then, the ‘climate’ on this site and indeed on many others, was one of disbelief and a searching for a remedy, any kind of remedy to rid ourselves of what we knew was destroying everything that we held dear.
I think sheer frustration ate at many of us who just could not fathom why so many could have been still sleeping as the march against their very existence was continuing unabated.
But look as us now, and what is occurring all throughout the West! We are winning!
“…Russians, we must mention a rarely known fact, that historically they are the protectors of Christian communities in the Middle East…”
noooo.
not this again!!
everyone can google Ramzan Kadyrov, what is going on in Chechnya, and how many Russians/Christians are left there. All in agreement with Putin’s admins.
and don’t forget Russia’s alliance with Hezbollah and Iran in the war in Syria.
these great defenders of Christianity. 🙂
akso don’t forget brutal war Russia currently conducting against Christian neighbour, Ukraine – 3 years of war, 10000+ Ukrainians killed.
and if one wants to speak “historically”, then how one explains the fact that Russia was occupying and oppressing Christian countries – Poland, Finland, Baltic states, etc. for years and years, but oops – Russia”protects Christians” in Middle East.
well I can answer that.
neo-feudal Russia doesn’t give damn about Christians who don’t subscribe to the “Russian World” project. All it cares is preserving power internally, and imperial domination, or at least spreading supremacist mythology about Russian Greatness.
and they use every resource to push these lies.
including Hungarian journalists, and this blog.
…
This blog happens to be one of the few sources of Truth. There is a bigger picture you don’t grasp.
Part of the “bigger picture” is Russian imperialism. AY sees this part of the big picture along with the Muslim-imperialist part of it, so he “grasps” more of the big picture than many do. If Russia were truly the only thing standing between the Islamic Darkness and us poor shivering Hobbits, then it would be right to accept Russian leadership, but in fact Gondor hasn’t yet fallen. It’s honorable for Russians to be pro-Russian, but we Men of the West (or Hobbits) (who acknowledge the awesomeness of Fedor Dostoevsky and Fedor Emilienenko) should remember who we are.
Garr, nothing that concerns Russia today smacks of what you term ‘Russian imperialism’. If that were the case then Syria and also the entire Ukraine would now be under Russian control, not just the Russian part of it.
And one should not put words in other’s mouths as you have done with AY – pleas allow AY to express his/her own opinion.
AY,
Russsia has always subscribed to a different strain of christianity than the West; the roots of this go all the way back to the breakup of the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. And it is disengenuous to ascribe the excesses of the communists in persecuting christians in countries under their boot to Russia. Russia was just as much a victim of the communists as the countries they occupied.
Putin is not a communist, he is a pragmatist and patriot who follows whatever course of action that leads to a more powerful and respected Russia. Russia under Putin is a bastion against the shadowy forces behind the scenes worldwide agitating for globalism and multiculti dilution of every western nation into a neofeudal third world cesspool. Putin’s Russia should be a natural ally against the infiltration of islam and globalism into the veins of western civilization. That he is so villified is proof of how much of an obstacle he is to the globalists plans.
for now, the American troops arriving to Czhech Republic this month are met with slogans “You are 70 years late”.
maybe they remember how it was in 1968.
wounded Ukrainian soldiers are treated in military hospitals in NATO countries, in particular in Hungary.
maybe they remember how it was in 1956.
Sweden deploys troops to Gotland, first time since Cold War.
Sweden, the rape capital of Universe, but they don’t want to be raped this way, by some reason.
deployments of German, Canadian, British and American troops are planned for Poland and Baltic states, and already arriving.
but please continue to ignore reality, and spread more of that [information I disparage] about “shadowy forces behind the scenes worldwide” and shiny “patriot who follows whatever course of action”, – your perspective adds colour to the picture.
…
“Putin’s Russia should be a natural ally against the infiltration of islam”
then, how do you explain phenomenon of Chechnya?
Ramzan Kadyrov bragged that he is able to punish Charlie Hebdo for blasphemy against prophet – again if needed.
Chechnya is part of Russian Federation.
using your own words, this is “multiculti dilution”, Putin style.
I mention this third time here, but no reply.
frozen minds.
…
“Russia under Putin is a bastion against the shadowy forces behind the scenes worldwide agitating for globalism and multiculti dilution of every western nation into a neofeudal third world cesspool.
Putin’s Russia should be a natural ally against the infiltration of islam and globalism into the veins of western civilization.
That he is so villified is proof of how much of an obstacle he is to the globalists plans.”
True. So true.
I think, people need to look into this more, now that the world we used to know is totally turned upside down, hopefully, being turned back on track with Trump and Putin.
I wonder what’s your opinion about Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)? According to some texts, Christian French savagely mascaraed 90% of population of Christian Germany. What does that mean to you? Did Russia claim they attacked Ukraine on religious basis? Come on!
I remember I have read about three occasions that Russian army intervened and successfully prevented massacre of minorities in Iran. One incident has been described in “Iran between two revolutions”, a book available in English on internet for free and it’s content is based on documents granted by Queen Elizabeth her majesty. Unfortunately there are no resources on the other two incidents in English, as long as I know, and I hope you can trust me on that. That certainly does not mean Russia is the historical survivor of Christians in ME, but a few occurrences I can remember.
I wonder about your reading skills – I only wrote that Putin started and conducts colonial war of aggression in Ukraine DESPITE Ukraine is Christian country.
Putin used Chechen Muslim militias in wars against Christian Ukraine and in 2008 against Christian Georgia.
remind again, Chechnya is the Sharia kingdom, well armed satrapy and defacto a headquarter of influential and cruel Islamic ethnic mafia. Russian Christians and non-muslims in general, were cleansed from there long ago. Kadyrov proudly calls himself “Putin’s soldier”. better to say, executioner.
– BTW Russian army illegally occupies part of Christian Moldova, too.
what else is needed for you to understand that “defending Christians in ME” canard is no more than a pretext for imperial expansion.
…
I get it. You don’t like he Russians and Putin. (Are you Polish?) You do not like Christian Orthodoxy. Get over it. I am sceptical about anything to do with the Nicene Creed – drummed into my head while young.
That said: Do you know what Nikita Khrushchev did with Crimea in 1954? Do you believe in self-determination and free association? Do you have a clue who Victoria Nuland is? She handed out cookies.
what is wrong with being Polish?
you guys are funny.
when arguing, hold your prejudices and emotions.
we are not talking about what grandfather neanderthal did to grandmother neanderthal in the year 1954 after Big Bang.
talking about now.
and see that now Putin did with Crimea exactly what Hitler did with Sudet.
…
Well, I like that you present your points of view.
You like American troops in the Czech Republic. Do you think a war with Russia on Russia’s doorstep would do the US any good? Similarly, do you want us to interject troops into Ukraine on Russia’s doorstep because Russia annexed the Crimea in response to a US-sponsored coup in the Ukraine?
You mention Russia’s alliance with Hezbollah and Iran. This is in support of the Syrian government, which protected the Christians and Yazidis in Syria. The Russian actions would not have been necessary without the US support of Syrian rebel Islamist groups to overthrow the government of Syria. I’m still unclear as to any rationale whatsoever as to why the US sponsoring the overthrow of the stable Syrian government would help the US.
Russia is not an ally, and should not be trusted. That doesn’t mean that limited alliances with Russia can’t be useful. In a sense, no country is an unconditional ally. It is up to each country to protect its own interests.
I support the Trump doctrine 100%: the US will not presume to impose its values on other countries or involve itself in foreign affair, except where US security is directly involved. The Russian invasion of Georgia, occupation of Moldavia, annexation of Crimea, bullying of the Czech Republic, and threat to Sweden are simply none of the US’s affairs.
The neocon globalists want the US to become involved in every international squabble and to develop protocolonies in Europe and the Middle East. The fact is, every such involvement weakens the US. At a minimum, it costs lives and treasure; it also invariably opens the way for huge migrant influxes of allied tribes, who are not substantively different from enemy tribes.
tell somebody else about “US-sponsored coup in the Ukraine”, “US support of Syrian rebel Islamist groups”, and flying pigs.
anti-criminal revolution in Ukraine in 2014 was caused by the rule of Russia’s satrap Yanukovich, who made country an all-out playground for lawlessness and corruption, up to a quality approaching concentration camps in some areas.
Syrian and Iraqi jihadis are “supported” first and foremost by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. USA under Obama was not willing to disrupt this, but that is different story.
your “none of the US’s affairs” expression shows your agenda very well.
you talk as if NATO already doesn’t exist.
I would advise to watch less RT and listen more to Russian dissidents, like Kasparov, in order to understand the issue better.
today, as 30 years ago, alternative to Western troops in Europe is Russian invasion, and alternative to freedom within or beyond NATO borders is archaic tyranny of Putin’s military and mafia castes.
would you like to see imperial batallions, including Chechen jihadis, marching to Prague, Warsaw, Vilnius, and Bucharest.
In 2014, Putin said he can do it in 3 days.
individuals like you may not care, but if that happens, people will resist, as they do in Ukraine.
dozens of thousands will be killed.
the alternative is military containment by well prepared NATO force.
knowing about full support of USA, Putin will never dare to attack.
…
It will be interesting, to put it mildly, to see how our new president copes with the reality of criminal states, Russia being just one. Americans are so anxious to withdraw and begin to cope with our own overwhelming problems. OTOH, what will be the reaction of regular people in the U.S. to déjà vu scenes in Eastern Europe flashing on their TV screens?
Hurts just to think about it.
the ultimate weapon against both Russia and Islamic oil-sponsored jihad – is fiscal noose.
they are hopelessly dependent on high-end Western technology and logistics.
military containment won’t be expensive.
Russia won’t start open invasion without some period of proxy meddling and disturbances, like they did in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
this is softening tactics.
decisively disrupting that, will cancel the whole project.
in Ukraine they were stopped even at later stage.
today, they can’ advance without using heavy weapons.
but, they are afarid to show even “anonymous” large scale involvement.
and no army emblems, – because that means more sanctions.
there is one well known collage, an image of BUK system signed “The Russian Army” above, and below – “this is not we”.
…
NATO, the bulwark of European nationalism and independence, bombed Serbia into submission, creating an Islamic Kosovo and Bosnia. Serbia, previously the fiercest fighter in East Europe, is now occupied territory.
It’s just wistful thinking to claim the US had no part in arming the anti-Assad Islamist rebels in Syria and in setting up training camps.
You’re saying we have to have an armed, US-supported and financed NATO to keep Russia from taking back the countries it gave up in 1989 on the condition that NATO not take in the countries, such as Estonia, that NATO has just taken in as members. Plus, put nuclear-capable missiles in countries bordering Russia.
Do you realize the US has zero civil defense right now? No radiation counters, no stocked fallout shelters, no plans and rehearsals for mass disasters. And you want to goad Russia, not just in Western European countries, but right on its borders.
France has an independent nuclear force. So does Britain.
Right now, the US, as a NATO member, is committed to going to war in a conflict between Turkey and Russia. Do you think Turkey has US interests in mind any more than Russia? Do you want to be hostage to Erdogan’s blustering: and he is making a deal with Putin anyway.
well not everyhting was linear in past 30 years.
bombing Serbia I think was one of the first influence operation of Saudis, which succeeded due to cretin Clinton and his European cretin friends.
Turkey in its present form shouldn’t be member of NATO, this is another nonsense.
on Baltic states, you again repeat RT distortions.
“Russia gave up” them to NATO, LOL.
there were popular uprisings there, many people were killed. Soviets were simply not able to hold these countries, prevent them from choosing freedom. Gorby could not afford big blood, that time. He had 14 USSR republics becoming independent.
So Baltics became independent among them, and to make alliance with NATO was their sovereign further decision. The correct one, as one can see by the example of Ukraine.
…
For AY,
I’m wondering how you could think of NATO as the protector of Europe after its actions in Serbia. You attribute it to Saudi subversion and US and European idiocy, but it shows how corruptible NATO is. And like it or not, Turkey is a NATO member and can suck us into a war with Russia, if we adhere to NATO agreements.
If it is in the vital interests of the US to protect, say, Hungary, a huge “if”, the US should have a bilateral treaty with Hungary and station troops in Hungary, unaffected by any other country. Getting involved in a common force with common decision-making like NATO, allows decision-makers to put off responsibility and accountability for bad decisions.
We should view Russia the same way as we should view Saudi Arabia: a country by no means a friend with whom temporary and limited alliances can be useful.
I think your explanation of why the USSR freed the subject Baltic and East European countries is telling: they became too expensive to maintain in an empire. It is the responsibility of the countries bordering Russia to find ways to get along with Russia, in the way that Finland maintained its independence during the cold war. I don’t deny the malevolence of Russia, but I think it’s the responsibility of now-independent countries to find diplomatic ways to lower the motivation of Russia to bring them back into its empire.
If the US gets pulled into a war with Russia, it should be a US decision, not the decision of a slew of NATO members, including Turkey.
Hello. I assume that the professor is referring to Czarist Russia, which was the driving force in the Balkan liberation wars and acted in defense of the Christians of Lebanon and Anatolia.
And the War of the 30 years, as a religious conflict ended in the battle of the White Mountain, won by Johann Tserclaes, Count of Tilly, in 1620. his entire follow-up was a miserable dynastic conflict between Bourbons and Habsburgs for European supremacy.
The classic figure of war mortality is estimated at one-third of the population of Germany. 90% never read anywhere.
The point is that AY tries to interpret things the way he wants. Russia never occupied Ukraine for religious matters, that was part of national security and any president worth his salt would have prevented US camps around him if he could regardless of the religion of the oppressors (Ukrainians). Russia is not in Syria for religious matters, they are there to save their oil market. One cannot connect these things to Christian persecution.
If AY is Polish then I would imagine he/she has much against Russia and probably Germany. Remember, that both those countries divvied up Poland in 1939 and Germany got its share while Russia got theirs and the Poles got slaughtered.
Poland has been the subject of many invasions over the centuries and there is much enmity between all three actors, Poland, Germany (Austria-Hungary) and Russia. As they say, old hatreds die hard especially the folklore type.
My thanks go to the original article and the follow-on comments. All very interesting and going a long way to describing and unravelling the complex situation in Europe and the Middle East at the moment.
Thankfully the Trump inauguration points to a brighter future. The look on Bill Clinton’s face at the end of the ceremony was worth all the ups and downs of the campaign. A broken man!
The war cry
– Our god is greater..than yours!
In essence, the religion part?
Trying to compete in religion, telling the Christian peoples being conquered that they were to surrender under the mohammedan warlord?
In war, it is crucial to keep obedience. Soldiers are not supposed to AWOL. So, in the mohammedan ideology you are to be killed if you are AWOL.
– We give you religion, if you give us war.
Look no further than Western civilization for ideology. The ideology of financial enslavement coupled with religious adherence has got us all hooked.