"Our weapon is the truth": Assad in an interview with RT Arabic - about Russia, Syria and the arrogance of the West

- Mr. President, I propose to start with the most significant topic in the international arena and, perhaps, here too.

I will ask the question that RT Arabic website visitors ask: “Why did Damascus support the Russian special military operation in Ukraine?”

- The reasons are different.

Russia is an ally of Syria.

A war has been unleashed against Russia, which I do not associate with the theme of the expansion of the NATO bloc, as some people think.

This war did not stop even before communism and the First World War.

This is a permanent war, and Russia has the main role here as part of the global balance of power.

We can consider Russia from two points of view: as an ally who, if he wins the battle or his political position in the international arena becomes stronger, then this is to our advantage.

Or from another point of view: one can say that the strength of Russia today contributes to the return of the lost international balance, even if this return is partial.

And this balance, which we so much want, is reflected primarily in small states, and Syria is one of them.

This is at least the reason (our support. -

).

But now I will not go into legal details, I am talking strategically.

- The Russian leadership says that this is a battle for a new world order.

Mr. President, do you consider this the last obstacle on the path to a multipolar world, or is there still a long road ahead through American hegemony?

“Some talk about this war in the context of the end of the unipolar world, which they assume began after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Such a statement is not accurate, but there is some truth in it: if we are talking about two blocs - Warsaw and NATO - and about the absence of one of the blocs, if we are talking in a political sense, if we say that the Security Council is controlled by Western countries headed by United States.

But in fact, the unipolar order began after the Second World War, after the Bretton Woods Conference, the dollar became the dominant currency in the world.

Now more important than the military aspect, or perhaps equal in importance, not to exaggerate, saying what is more important, the economic results of the current war (against a unipolar world), and above all the position of the dollar.

If the dollar continues to dominate the global economy despite the outcome of this war, nothing will change.

“Many people say that with the help of the US dollar they are blackmailing the world and those who do not agree with their point of view.

How do you feel about this economic war of the West against Moscow?

Can it be compared with the economic blockade that Syria was subjected to?

- The topic of the dollar is not blackmail, but theft.

America promised after World War II that the dollar would have a gold equivalent.

In the early 1970s, during the Nixon era, the United States decided to separate the dollar from gold, so it became a priceless paper.

However, the US has been able to buy whatever it wants around the world for pieces of paper that have no price.

This is theft, and this theft is happening all over the world.

Today, the US has raised its interest rate, and for this reason, all other currencies have fallen in price, while the countries with the weakest economies have suffered.

Yes, it is a way of blockade, because the dollar is the world's currency, and this dollar goes through the American banks or through the so-called American Federal Reserve System, and you are under the power of this dollar.

Therefore, your entire future as a state, country, people, as a society, as an economy, depends on the grace of America.

Of course, this is part of the blockade, without any doubt, and without this dollar, America will never be a great power.

- I ask you, Mr. President, to compare Western sanctions against Moscow with what Damascus survived (an economic blockade).

To what extent is such a comparison possible?

About the blockade.

You propose to talk about it without reference to the dollar ...

Of course, you can talk about the same mentality, because it is the mentality of hegemony and colonialism, the mentality of arrogance.

They reason the same as they did several centuries ago, believing that the West has everything the world needs.

Today the situation has changed with respect to Russia, China, and many other countries with growing economies.

We are in a blockade, but for many necessary goods we do not need imports from those Western countries with which our relations have been severed.

The same mentality, but the same will be a fiasco, since any state will be able to provide its basic needs related to its life and growth without American permission.

- I would like to talk more about the Kurdish forces, especially considering that they control oil wells with US support.

What is your vision of this situation and what trumps does Damascus have for the return of property and territories?

- As for the occupation, the problem is not the occupation of any country or the invasion as such, regardless of the size of the army.

The problem lies in the agents that go side by side with the invader.

That is the problem, and that is what is happening in Syria.

There are forces that operate under the leadership of the United States, representing their interests and threatening the unity of the Syrian society.

The natural reaction, which we observed in the eastern regions, in this case will be that most of the citizens do not accept betrayal and curtsy towards the invaders.

Therefore, conflicts began between these forces and citizens.

As long as there are agents, the occupier will be strong.

So the first step is to get rid of them.

If we weaken those who act in the interests of the occupier, then he himself will automatically leave, because the popular resistance will turn against him.

Thus, any invasion in the absence of military capabilities can be countered with the help of popular resistance.

This is the solution.

- But after all, we are talking not only about the problem with the United States, but also about Turkey, which does not hide its desire to create a so-called buffer zone on the territory of Syria.

How do you plan to prevent this?

- In the same way.

Any invasion is immediately met with popular resistance.

Of course, in those places where the Syrian army is present, which at the moment is not in all areas.

And when military conditions allow for direct confrontation, we will do it.

This already happened two and a half years ago, there was a clash between the Syrian and Turkish armies.

The Syrian army was able to destroy some of the Turkish targets that ended up on Syrian territory.

Now the situation will be identical, as far as our military potential allows.

In addition, as we said, there will be popular resistance.

• RT

What about Idlib?

What is your vision of the situation?

“We have military and political plans for his release.

The same applies to any other occupied territories.

This is not discussed.

Any territories occupied even by the Turks, even by terrorists, will eventually be liberated.

- Does Damascus have a grudge against those countries that left it in this crisis?

First, resentment is a sign of weakness.

Secondly, resentment does not lead to anything, to any positive results in relations between countries.

Thirdly, we must distinguish the mistakes of the policies adopted by countries from the peoples of these countries.

We strive for Arab-Arab relations, that is, for the peoples.

Therefore, there is no resentment.

Fourthly, we understand that the Arab countries have their own circumstances, because we can say “no” to many issues, but many Arab countries cannot say “no”.

We don't make excuses for anyone.

This is not an excuse, but a reality.

Therefore, we must proceed from reality.

Now reproaches and accusations are meaningless.

We must look to the future.

We always talk about this at all negotiations.

We look to the future, and what happened in the past has already happened.

Reproaches don't change anything.

The destruction has already happened, the losses have already happened, the blood has already been shed, so let's talk positively now.

This is the Syrian approach.

- It is believed that relations with the Arab countries will not be full as long as there is proximity between Damascus and Tehran.

How will Syria be able to balance its relations with Iran on the one hand and with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on the other hand if relations are restored?

“Firstly, Syria's relations with any country are not negotiable with anyone in this world.

No one can determine instead of Syria with whom it will build relations and with whom it will not build relations.

No one can define it for us, just as we do not define anything for anyone else.

No one should interfere with our decision-making, just as we do not interfere with anyone else's decisions.

This issue is non-negotiable.

Even if we were offered to discuss it, we would reject it from the very beginning.

Secondly, many countries that have raised this issue in the past (and today it has not been discussed for many years) are themselves negotiating with Iran.

But this is a contradiction.

Thirdly, Iran is an important country.

If we want to talk about stability in the Middle East, we need relationships with all countries in the region.

Based on these considerations, if we want to talk about the issue of the balance of relations, then (voiced by you in the question. -

) the principle is wrong.

“Especially considering that Damascus has pursued a course of balanced relations for many years.

- Exactly so, but not based on the idea of ​​balance, because balance means the presence of conflicting sides between which we balance.

We don't look at things that way.

We understand that all these countries have common interests.

The process does not need to balance relationships.

We need openness, we need good relations.

There is now a dialogue going on between several Gulf countries and Iran.

We view this dialogue positively, regardless of our relationship with these Gulf countries.

• RT

- Can we, after the normalization of relations (Syria with Arab countries. -

) witness the mediating role of Damascus between Riyadh and Tehran?

- Of course, the logic is that if there are disagreements between the parties with which you have good relations, it is natural for you to play the role of a mediator to bring these countries closer, because this serves your personal interests and the common interests of the countries of the region.

It `s naturally.

But now we do not have normal relations with all parties.

Therefore, we cannot play the role of an intermediary at the present time.

Some Arab countries have normalized relations with Israel.

How do you assess this fact?

There are even rumors that Syria will not be an exception.

Some say that Damascus will normalize relations with Israel on the condition that the occupied Golan Heights be returned to Syria.

Can it happen?

First of all, this is the wrong term.

Since the beginning of the peace process in the 1990s, we in Syria have rejected the term "normalization" because "normalization" as a linguistic term means that this process should be a natural process, and the natural process should flow smoothly like water, without obstacles, and it cannot be forced or artificial.

The word "normalization" is a fictitious word.

His goal is to force the Arabs to make concessions to Israel, despite the fact that in exchange they will receive nothing.

That's the goal ("normalization." -

).

Syria will not change its position as long as there is an occupied territory, the Golan.

When the Golan Heights return to Syria, then it will be possible to have a conversation.

But relations (with Israel. - 

) will not be restored as part of normalization, but as normal relations between any two states.

Ordinary relationships mean neither warmth nor cooling.

They mean only what the people want and what the people define.

“While we are talking, Israeli shelling continues.

One of the last ones is near the Damascus airport.

We would like to hear your comment on this.

- That's another question.

Ultimately, the shelling is aimed at forcing Syria to make concessions.

Israel's intervention from the very beginning was due to the fact that the terrorists in Syria began to lose their positions and their inevitable collapse awaited them.

The Israeli army is just as much a terrorist to us as any other terrorist, be it a Syrian or a foreigner.

And as the terrorists in Syria began to retreat and their morale began to decline, it took Israeli intervention to raise the morale of the terrorists and mobilize them again.

Therefore, what Israel is doing now fits precisely into this framework and not into any others.

- After a positive change in rhetoric in many Arab and Western countries, I would like to ask whether the image of Bashar al-Assad has changed? 

- As for the perception of the population of these countries, then yes, of course: the image has changed, but not because we turned to the West.

Still, the language is different and the information possibilities are different, but the big lie that Western officials used at the beginning and the boundless exaggerations put them in a difficult position, made them look like those who climbed a tree and climbed high, no longer knowing how to get off him.

This lie doesn't stop.

Let's look at the main Western information sites that are closely connected with political forces.

These forces continue to lie.

The sites mentioned show that the comments of citizens of Western countries indicate that citizens do not believe in these lies.

If we talk about the revolution, what kind of revolution is this, which has been going on for 11 years with the support of the most powerful and richest countries in the world ... Let's say the people support this revolution and the people are against this government.

However, power did not fall.

What happens, this is the power of supermen?

This is a very unconvincing lie, no revolution can last so long.

There were many other lies that were spread among the peoples of the Western countries.

But the lies were exposed over time.

So I can say, "Yes, the image has changed," but that doesn't mean that Westerners know what's really going on.

Western citizens know that there is a big lie.

However, it is not a fact that they know the real state of affairs in our region.

“We are waiting for Western citizens to know the big truth…

“That's the way it should be.

- Thank you very much, Mr. President, for this interview, especially considering that the RT channel is going through a difficult period and is being harassed.

Thank you very much for hosting us.

Thank you for your visit to Syria!

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Russian people on their national holiday, which falls on the twelfth of this month.

You mentioned the RT blockade.

You are part of the battle, you are one of the weapons.

Weapons today (and we are fighting a similar battle, but with different names) are not machine guns or missiles.

Our weapon is the truth.

True, today is the biggest casualty in recent decades.

I hope that this interview will become a brick in the construction of a great truth, which will take years to build.