The Documentary "Bridges to the East" Interviews Lavrov

West Asia is more accurate.

Lavrov sat for another interview to provide content for the documentary “Bridges to the East,” which is odd for from Russia’s perspective the nations involved are all to its South in West Asia as the term Middle East slowly gets erased as a vestige of the discredited European colonial point-of-view. This will be the second installment of this documentary series. The first can be viewed here. This is how RT describes the series and the first episode:

As global power dynamics shift, our new documentary series explores a pivotal centre of influence: the Arab world and its deep connections with Russia. Journalist and orientalist Anna Knishenko begins this journey with a visit to Algeria. The longstanding cooperation between these countries dates back to the 19th century, when Russia supported Algeria in its fight for independence from French colonial rule. Today, Algeria and Russia continue to collaborate in the military industry, energy sector, and food security. Discover more about Algeria’s role on the global stage and its vital partnerships in the first episode of our new documentary series.

Why it chose the term “East” is unknown but is clearly a mistake IMO. Apparently, RT’s producers still adhere to the Europhile perspective of the world instead of developing their own independent perspective. I recall having reported a similar interview for an RT documentary that appears at my VK but can also be found at the MFA’s English site, “The Path to the Islamic World.” My search revealed no RT documentary by that title. I also seem to recall yet another interview that I reported to the Gym but after combing through the entire archive I found nothing, although there are many other interviews with Lavrov. I was hoping to add some additional context, particularly for newer readers. So, now we’ll jump right in:

Question: This year marks the 80th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations with several Arab countries. Among them is Syria. But the historical ties between Moscow and Damascus go much deeper. How would you characterize our relations with this country through the prism of time and today?

Sergey Lavrov: Official diplomatic relations were established in July 1944, when the Great Patriotic War and World War II were nearing their inexorable end.

You are right that trade and cultural relations, as well as through religious circles, were established much earlier. But they were officially formalized in July 1944, and since then we have provided serious assistance in the formation of the Syrian Arab Republic as an independent state, as we have done with the Arab and African countries and on other continents.

In Syria, an industrial base was created almost from scratch. The Soviet Union built about 80 enterprises, laid about 2 thousand km of railways and 4 thousand km of power lines.

Of course, the training of national personnel was no less significant contribution to the development of the Syrian state. Tens of thousands of Syrians were educated in the Soviet Union and continue to receive it in the Russian Federation. They form the backbone of the national elite in the field of industry, education and science.

We continue to work in this area and support the Syrian people and their efforts to overcome the current situation. In 2011, the United States, following Iraq and Libya, which it destroyed with its aggressive actions, decided to prepare the same fate for the Syrian people. We categorically objected to the repetition of such actions. In 2015, by decision of President Vladimir Putin, we sent a contingent of our armed forces to protect the Syrian Arab Republic from direct aggression.

After all, it was as a result of the US aggression in Iraq and the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the Islamic State, ISIS, was formed, which really threatened the existence of Syria.

When the Russian armed forces entered there in 2015, ISIS was already on the outskirts of Damascus, and Western countries, led by the United States, were trying to control eastern Syria. We have stabilized the situation. Since then, most of the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic has returned to the control of the legitimate authorities. We continue to work closely with the Syrian leadership on the remaining problems.

In July of this year, President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad was in Moscow on another visit. During the talks with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, we discussed in detail specific issues related to the further development of bilateral cooperation and our joint actions in the region. I am in contact with my colleague, Foreign Minister of the Syrian Arab Republic Fayez Mekdad, with whom I last met in May of this year in Moscow. There are many issues, but we have a mutual commitment to resolving them in the interests of the Syrian people and state.

Question: At present, not all of the country's territory is under the control of the Syrian government. This applies to the main oil-bearing regions. What is the way out in this situation and how does the presence of the American contingent in Syria affect this?

Sergey Lavrov: The US contingent has a direct impact on this situation. Moreover, this is the main reason for what has developed in the area east of the Euphrates, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River and in the southeast, where the Americans have created a zone with a radius of 55 km around the village of Al-Tanf, in which they have declared their presence as a "controlling" and as a preventive measure against the spread of the Islamic State's influence.

This is all from the "evil one". The Americans do not solve any problems in the field of anti-terrorism. They are very actively creating a quasi-state there. Unlike the entire territory of Syria, which is controlled by the legitimate authorities and against which severe sanctions have been announced, including the "suffocating" Caesar Act, these sanctions do not apply in the territory controlled by the Americans. Moreover, money is invested there. It is there that the richest oil and gas fields, the most fertile agricultural land, which are mercilessly exploited, are located. Oil, gas, grain are exported by the Americans and their henchmen and sold. These funds do not go to the treasury of the Syrian state, but are used to continue to encourage separatism and create a quasi-state.

It is sad that the Americans have drawn the Kurds into their "game", trying to bet on them. There have been skirmishes between Kurdish detachments and formations of Arab tribes that have lived in these territories for centuries. The Americans now want to take part of these lands for the project of their quasi-state. The Kurds must understand that their future is still in a united Syria. We should not hope that the Americans will help them out, but go to an agreement with the Syrian government, agree on the rights that they, as a national minority, are obliged to receive. There was such a dialogue. And we contributed to it.

The Americans then convinced the Kurds that it was better to escalate confrontation with the government than to engage with it. In our contacts with our Kurdish colleagues, we remind them of the fate that befell the Afghan leadership, which also decided to rely not on its own people, not on the national dialogue, but on the promises of the United States – they abandoned overnight, flew away and were left with nothing. I hope that this historical experience of a country close to Syria will be assimilated by our Kurdish partners and they will return to the path of national dialogue and coordination of the conditions for their residence in a single Syrian state with Damascus.

Question: Some time ago, there were reports in the press about a possible meeting between President of Syria Bashar al-Assad and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the restoration of bilateral relations. What is Russia's role in this process? What are the prospects for this settlement today after Bashar al-Assad's recent statement about the lack of progress in this direction?

Sergey Lavrov: The Turkish factor is also one of the circumstances related to the territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, because the Idlib de-escalation zone is controlled by Turkish troops.

This was done in 2019 in order to suppress the terrorist alliance called Jabhat al-Nusra (now called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) that was raging in the area. The Turks had no problem "calming down" this territory. In 2019-2021, President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President of Russia Vladimir Putin (taking into account the presence of our military contingent in Syria) reached agreements that made it possible to move forward on the path of squeezing terrorists out of this enclave and replacing them in the relevant settlements with authorities who would be ready to conduct a dialogue with the government.

There was an agreement to unblock the M4 road, which made it possible to connect Damascus with the central part of Syria. All this is fixed on paper, but, unfortunately, it is carried out extremely slowly. The threat from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham turned out to be more serious, but we urge our Turkish colleagues to fulfill their obligations.

President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ministers constantly emphasise that they respect the territorial integrity of Syria and that their stay in this territory is temporary until the terrorist problem is resolved.

Such obligations are clearly spelled out in all documents that are adopted within the framework of the Astana format. Russia, Turkey and the Islamic Republic of Iran work in it. It is the most promising format for facilitating the settlement of the remaining problems in the Syrian Arab Republic. But so far, due to the fact that Turkey is working in the "Idlib de-escalation zone", as well as carrying out separate sorties against Kurdish extremists who are trying to cause trouble for them on the border with the SAR, Damascus is very wary of restoring relations with Ankara.

Last year, with great efforts through our foreign and defence ministries, we managed to hold meetings with the participation of defence ministries, foreign ministries and special services. They tried to discuss conditions that could lead to the normalisation of relations between the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Turkey. Representatives of Syria, Turkey, Russia and Iran participated in these meetings. It turned out to be the Astana format plus the Syrian Arab Republic. The meeting was useful. We could not agree on how to proceed. The Syrian government believes that in order to continue this process, it is necessary to clearly resolve the procedure for the eventual withdrawal of Turkish contingents from the SAR. The Turks are ready for this, but so far it has not been possible to agree on specific parameters. We are talking about the return of refugees, about the measures necessary to suppress the terrorist threat, which will make the presence of Turkish contingents unnecessary. It's all in the works.

Now we proceed from the expediency of preparing for the next meeting. I am sure that it will take place in the foreseeable future. We are interested in our partners in Damascus and Ankara normalising their relations. Moreover, the current leaders of Turkey and Syria had warm personal relations until 2010-2011, before the beginning of the Arab Spring. I think that this will also play a positive role.

Question: Another country with which 2024 will mark the 80th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations is Lebanon. How did Russian-Lebanese relations develop?

Sergey Lavrov: It was all similar. Because the Soviet Union accompanied this "period of recognition" of the Arab states by providing the widest possible assistance in the formation of the national economy, industry, social infrastructure and education system.

Diplomatic relations with Lebanon were established in August 1944 after the conclusion of similar relations between the USSR and Syria. In addition to assisting in the establishment of Lebanese statehood, we actively assisted international efforts to end the civil war of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This has been going on ever since. It has already been proven by decades of these events that these problems cannot be resolved by force. They must be resolved on the basis of recognition of the legitimate rights of the peoples of the region, including the Palestinian people, to their own state. The fact that the "consequences" have periodically manifested themselves in Israel's actions against Lebanon and Syria, I am referring to the illegitimate use of aircraft to bomb the territory of sovereign states under the pretext of fighting terrorism, is still a serious irritant.

At the present moment, Israel intends to achieve a "final solution" (as some "figures" used to say in previous historical situations) to the Palestinian problem by force, and not through negotiations. Likewise, West Jerusalem is stepping up its use of force against structures that it perceives to support Palestinians in an extremist context, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. Israel intends to destroy it. An absolutely unpromising line. We need to negotiate. Hamas is part of the Palestinian people, just as Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese people. In Syria, in Iraq, there are structures that represent a resistance movement. Israel also considers them terrorist.

I will repeat once again. Military methods will not solve the problems that Israel sees before it and considers an obstacle to its peaceful existence. It is necessary to negotiate and implement what the UN decided to create a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, which is the only way to long-term sustainable peace and ensure Israel's security. We are seriously interested in this. These problems cannot be solved by force.

Lebanon now remains in a position where, largely due to the crisis in the Gaza Strip and in the Palestinian territories as a whole, it is being subjected to new tests. Hezbollah, for reasons of solidarity with the Palestinian people, is active and is dealing harassing blows against Israel. But all this is verified and characterized by a small scale. Israel believes that Hezbollah should "sit quietly" and not show solidarity with the Palestinians, embodied for Israel in Hamas, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to destroy.

We are in contact with our Israeli colleagues through the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry, and the Security Councils of the two countries. We are trying to convey the idea of the impasse of trying to solve everything by force without any alternatives.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said publicly that he is not concerned about the creation of a Palestinian state, he is concerned about the security of Israel as a country. This is a statement of refusal to comply with the UN decision. This is a sad development of events. It is especially sad that Washington is completely indulging in any Israeli decision. The United States is blocking any agreement in the UN Security Council that would lead to a full and permanent ceasefire. The Americans constantly supply weapons to West Jerusalem, which are then used to further violence against the Palestinian people. There, in the ten months of the operation after October 7, 2023, more than 40 thousand civilians were killed. This is a terrible figure. The methods of collective punishment of Palestinians for the terrorist attack committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023 (which we condemned) are no less criminal. Because this is exactly what is written in international humanitarian law.

Returning to Lebanon. There is another feature of this country – the state structure, which ensures equal and balanced representation of ethnic and religious groups. For the past couple of years, after the next elections, they have not been able to form ruling structures. At this stage, Lebanon's involvement in the conflict by "punishing" Hezbollah and the entire Lebanese people is preventing our Lebanese colleagues and partners from effectively implementing this state formula.

Question: So far, it has been possible to balance the Middle East. What is the likelihood that the situation and the ongoing escalation could escalate into just a big war between Iran, Israel and with the involvement of neighboring countries?

Sergey Lavrov: It seems that Israel is the only one who wants such a development of events. Probably, the government of this country (which is now quite politically tough) does not particularly hide the fact that they want to take advantage of this situation in order to try once and for all to resolve all the problems with Hamas, Hezbollah, pro-Iranian groups in Syria and Iraq, and, as you just said, with Iran itself.

Iran categorically does not want to succumb to provocations, to be drawn into any large-scale hostilities. They are trying to provoke him. The assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran at the inauguration ceremony of the new president is, of course, a provocation. At that time, Iran did not react, but stated that it reserved this right, because its territorial integrity and sovereignty were violated – the guest of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran was deliberately eliminated. When Tehran said it reserved this right... The Americans began to persuade him that, they say, "maybe it is not necessary." French President Emmanuel Macron and other EU figures have already begun to say that they are calling on Iran... Everything has already been turned upside down. It is no longer Israel that needs to be reassured so that it no longer commits political assassinations. It is necessary for Iran to "swallow" this and be ready, perhaps, for further situations when it will be pushed to rash steps, and it must silently "assimilate" all this.

I see an interesting parallel. Vladimir Zelensky (also fully controlled by the United States) wants about the same thing. Only around Ukraine to do everything to unleash a big war here. In order to step aside himself, the Americans and other NATO members would begin to fight for him. A similar situation is when they want to provoke a major war in the Middle East and in the territory adjacent to us. Now part of the Kursk region is under the control of the Nazi regime of Vladimir Zelensky with weapons supplied to him by NATO ...

Back to the Middle East. For all the complexity of the situation (and some say hopelessness), we must, taking into account the historical experience of stepping on the same rake for many decades: it seems that we have agreed on the settlement of the Palestinian problem more than once or twice. I myself participated in the creation of the "road map" written by Russia, the United States, the UN and the European Union. It was approved by the UN Security Council in 2003 and provided for the creation of a full-fledged Palestinian state within a year. Everything was written in steps and months. So much time has passed, and no one is creating any state.

Given this historical experience, many consider it useless to engage in further politics and diplomatic efforts. But in this situation, the alternative is only the same war. Therefore, in no case should we give up, it is necessary to continue efforts, insisting that the decisions of the UN Security Council must be implemented.

This is yet another example of hypocrisy and double standards when the West, with all its "incantations" that it is necessary to comply with the UN Charter and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of various states, is showing hypocrisy and double standards. If you respect sovereignty, then the Palestinian state, according to the decisions of the UN Security Council, must be created on the basis of its territorial integrity, within the borders that are written in the decision, and have sovereignty. They are now trying to slip the Palestinians some kind of "ersatz", "something" like enclaves controlled by Israel along the outer perimeter of the borders. I am sure that this will not lead to anything good.

Question: You mentioned the Kursk Region. I cannot help but ask a question about the agenda. You recently said that Vladimir Zelensky would never have decided to invade the Kursk Region without a US order. What is the West trying to achieve with such actions, as well as "pumping" Ukraine with new weapons and mercenaries?

There are reports in the press about the alleged replacement of Vladimir Zelensky. If this happens, will negotiations with Kyiv be possible?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the goal of those who organised the provocation in the Kursk Region, the invasion of Nazi units with a large number of mercenaries, or maybe not mercenaries, but regular servicemen... Foreign speech has already been recorded there.

It is difficult for me to judge what was the idea in this situation. Because our Western colleagues have sophisticated brains. Sometimes they turn everything inside out in their own way. Then nothing comes of it.

What was the idea of the invasion of Afghanistan? Destroy the terrorists. How did it end? Failure and shameful flight.

What was the idea behind the invasion of Iraq? Destroy weapons of mass destruction. It turned out that he was not there. The Iraqi leadership and parliament have been asking the Americans for several years to withdraw the remnants of their armed contingents. But the United States, as a country that "respects the sovereignty of independent UN member states," does not want to leave. As a result, they will be asked from there.

Libya. They destroyed the state, which was the most prosperous country in the region in socio-economic terms. This is almost free gasoline, education, including abroad. What has become of Libya now?

It is very difficult to judge what goal and plan they set. But now political scientists are discussing it. And even Vladimir Zelensky said (he sometimes slips through Freudian confessions) that they would need it for subsequent exchanges. Therefore, they say, he will take prisoners, and want to seize square kilometers. This is so simple-minded and naïve.

We do not discuss our territory with anyone. We are not negotiating about our territory. We are ready to discuss the suppression of the criminal actions that the Kiev regime took after the coup d'état. He began to bomb his own cities because their inhabitants refused to recognize the result of the coup. These people rebelled against the decision of the militants who came to power to ban the Russian language in all spheres of life. They were declared terrorists. In order to stop this, we were ready for negotiations. We led them. They ended with the Minsk Agreements, which, as it has now been publicly announced, no one was going to fulfill. It was necessary to gain time in order to pump the Nazi regime, which continued to strangle everything Russian, with weapons for the war against Russia.

In order to protect the rights of these people, history, heritage of their ancestors, language, religion and culture, we were forced to recognize the DPR and LPR and stand up for them in accordance with their request and Article 51 of the UN Charter. But until that moment, we were ready for negotiations.

We supported the talks that led to the signing of agreements between the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition in February 2014. Their opposition tore them apart in the morning and staged a bloody coup d'état. If they had been implemented, Ukraine would now be within the 1991 borders, which Vladimir Zelensky dreams of. Crimea would also have been within these borders if there had been no coup d'état.

If a year later, in February 2015, the Ukrainian leadership and France and Germany, which supported it, had fulfilled the Minsk Agreements, Ukraine would have been within the borders of 1991, but for obvious reasons without Crimea. If in April 2022 Ukraine had fulfilled what we agreed on in Istanbul and had not listened to the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who forbade it to do so, then it would also be within the 1991 borders, but minus Crimea and a significant part of Donbass.

Each time, the Ukrainians proved their complete inability to negotiate. The West has proved that it needs Ukraine only to "hurt Russia", irritate and fight against our country. Western countries do not need all these agreements. Each time the agreed documents were sabotaged, Ukraine lost more and more.

A year and a half ago, President of Russia Vladimir Putin touched on the topic of possible talks. He said that we did not mind. That was a long time ago. Six months after the start of the special military operation, the President of Russia said that we were not against negotiations. Those who are against it should understand that the longer they delay, the more difficult it will be to negotiate. In Istanbul, less than a month after the start of our special military operation, it was very easy to come to an agreement. Ukraine did not want this, because it did not fully achieve its goal of constantly "exhausting" Russia.

I am sure that there is nothing to even talk about the Kursk region. June 14, 2024 President of Russia Vladimir Putin, speaking at the Russian Foreign Ministry, said that we are ready to settle the situation on the basis of realities. Realities on the ground. The Constitution of the Russian Federation clearly states that in addition to Crimea, we now have four more new subjects of the Federation: the DPR, LPR, Zaporozhye and the Kherson region. There can be no talk of Ukraine joining NATO. This is not the same as a "red line". That's impossible. Those who are trying to present us with "denouements": they say, leave Ukraine what it has now, take the remnants to NATO and everything will be fine, are fantasists and provocateurs. Our position is clear.

Question: In other words, if these conditions are met, it is possible to return to the topic of negotiations?

Sergey Lavrov: There is no talk of talks now. We are tired of repeating that the President of Russia has repeatedly said this. Those who make statements hinting that Russia is "pushing back" the talks, and Ukraine is ready for them, Vladimir Putin has advised many times that they themselves should tell Vladimir Zelensky (when he is in his right mind) to revoke his decree prohibiting talks.

The other day there was a ministerial meeting of the European Union. In his last speech, Josep Borrell said that there is no alternative to the "Vladimir Zelensky formula."

I thought that they had at least some education, that they had an understanding of how to conduct a policy based on reality. This is a dead end. It is clear that Josep Borrell now wants to go down in history as the most important Russophobe in Europe. He is leaving his posts. This is dilettantism or already madness, which has replaced the reason of diplomats and politicians in the West.

Question: Going back to the Middle East. There is another country with which our diplomatic relations have been going on for eight decades. This is Iraq. How did relations with Baghdad develop? What are the most promising areas of cooperation with this country today, given the situation on the ground and the ongoing negotiations on the withdrawal of the contingent of the international coalition from Iraq?

Sergey Lavrov: Relations with Baghdad were established a month after Lebanon in September 1944. We supplied a lot of weapons to the armed forces, special services and law enforcement agencies of Iraq.

Today we are returning all traditions after that period that was tragic for the Iraqi people. In 2003, NATO led by the United States invaded the country under a false pretext, a flag. Subsequently, the Westerners "signed" that there was no reason for this, which was stated - the need to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. They broadcast to the whole world how President of Iraq Saddam Hussein was hanged for allegedly possessing weapons of mass destruction. This is a disgusting story. As well as the assassination of the leader of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Muammar Gaddafi, which was broadcast to the whole world to the enthusiastic exclamations of the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

For many years, Iraq suffered. Following this aggression, Iraqi statehood was also subjected to severe tests. But in the end, the Iraqis manage to overcome this fragmentation, including strengthening their relations with the autonomous Kurdish region in Erbil. We contribute to these processes. We work with both Baghdad and Erbil. I visited both a few years ago.

Our diplomats visit these territories, cities and various events that help promote political stability in Iraq. Now the new Prime Minister Mohammad al-Sudani, who paid an official visit to us in the autumn of 2023, has managed to effectively aim and mobilise law enforcement and security agencies to stabilise the situation and work effectively against the remaining terrorist entities associated with ISIS and some other associations.

ISIS appeared when the Americans invaded Iraq in 2003. At that time, the most experienced representative, in the opinion of the United States, P. Brenner, was appointed governor-general in Iraq. One of his first decisions was to ban the Baath Party and all structures that were associated with the party. It was the ruling party. All the armed forces, special services, their leaders, officers, were members of this party. They were fired from their jobs. The Islamists, who then wanted to create a terrorist organization, gladly accepted these officers into their ranks. They provided serious military effectiveness for the Islamic State. This is a direct "brainchild" of the American aggressive policy.

Our oil and gas industry is the main partner in their economy. These are PJSC Lukoil, PJSC Gazprom Neft, PJSC Rosneft. For the "three", they made investments in the country for almost $ 20 billion. The business is mutually beneficial. We see the prospects for this work in the field of hydrocarbons.

There are other plans in the field of industry, technology, information and communications. We hope that these issues will be considered within the framework of the intergovernmental commission established between Russia and Iraq.

Question: Does the presence of the international coalition affect the situation in the country?

Sergey Lavrov: To reiterate, the Iraqi parliament and government have repeatedly decided that it is necessary for the international anti-ISIS coalition to leave the territory of the Republic of Iraq. In response to a statement from Washington that they would "think about it," the Iraqis politely but firmly said that this was their land, that they "thanked" the Americans for everything they had done, including the creation of ISIS, for the fight against which they wanted to linger. I think this should happen in the near future. [My Emphasis]

Aleppo

This is the first time I’ve heard Lavrov refer to the Outlaw US Empire as “the evil one,” which is demonstratively true given the reality of past and present events within West Asia. While I admire Lavrov for wanting to limit mayhem and deaths by resorting to negotiations if at all possible, it seems clear from Russia’s experience with the Empire in Ukraine that the use of force as an extension of politics is not only applicable there but in West Asia too. The Zionists under no circumstances will allow any form of Palestinian nation and desire the exact opposite—the Final Solution as Lavrov noted: complete elimination of all Palestinians from their historical region.

Russia’s very long-lasting relations with Syria began with religion as the homeland of Orthodox Christianity is within Syria. Indeed, the role of religion in the region is paramount with mythos colliding with the genuine histories of the past and present realities. Long ago there was a conception based on the geographic reality of Greater Syria that’s synonymous with the term Levant.

France’s conception of the Levant region it hoped to attain as a result of WW1.

When one turns the pages of an historical atlas of the region, the one thing that stands out is the change in what lands belongs to which dynasty, empire or other political organization. Such a struggle is ongoing today, and the Syrians have very good cause not to trust the Turks or the Kurds, and the same goes for Iraqis. With the Age of Imperialism drawing to a close, this is one of two areas where Imperialist inspired conflict rages. IMO, peace in unlikely to arrive until the Imperial sponsors of the conflict can no longer afford its pursuit. The sooner that arrives, the better for Humanity,

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!