russiainsider--2020-02-27--Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 2

This afternoon Julian ’ s Spanish lawyer , Baltasar Garzon , left court to return to Madrid .
On the way out he naturally stopped to shake hands with his client , proffering his fingers through the narrow slit in the bulletproof glass cage .
Assange half stood to take his lawyer ’ s hand .
The two security guards in the cage with Assange immediately sprang up , putting hands on Julian and forcing him to sit down , preventing the handshake .
That was not by any means the worst thing today , but it is a striking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used against a man accused of publishing documents .
That a man can not even shake his lawyer ’ s hand goodbye is against the entire spirit in which the members of the legal system like to pretend the law is practised .
I offer that startling moment as encapsulating yesterday ’ s events in court .
Day 2 proceedings had started with a statement from Edward Fitzgerald , Assange ’ s QC , that shook us rudely into life .
He stated that yesterday , on the first day of trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ searched , eleven times been handcuffed , and five times been locked up in different holding cells .
On top of this , all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities , including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself , and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today ’ s proceedings .
Magistrate Baraitser looked at Fitzgerald and stated , in a voice laced with disdain , that he had raised such matters before and she had always replied that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estate .
He should take it up with the prison authorities .
Fitzgerald remained on his feet , which drew a very definite scowl from Baraitser , and replied that of course they would do that again , but this repeated behaviour by the prison authorities threatened the ability of the defence to prepare .
He added that regardless of jurisdiction , in his experience it was common practice for magistrates and judges to pass on comments and requests to the prison service where the conduct of the trial was affected , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Baraitser flat-out denied any knowledge of such a practice , and stated that Fitzgerald should present her with written arguments setting out the case law on jurisdiction over prison conditions .
This was too much even for prosecution counsel James Lewis , who stood up to say the prosecution would also want Assange to have a fair hearing , and that he could confirm that what the defence were suggesting was normal practice .
Even then , Baraitser still refused to intervene with the prison .
She stated that if the prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very high bar of making a fair hearing impossible , the defence should bring a motion to dismiss the charges on those grounds .
Otherwise they should drop it .
Both prosecution and defence seemed surprised by Baraitser ’ s claim that she had not heard of what they both referred to as common practice .
Lewis may have been genuinely concerned at the shocking description of Assange ’ s prison treatment yesterday ; or he may have just had warning klaxons going off in his head screaming “ mistrial ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt to do nothing to prevent Julian ’ s physical and mental abuse in jail nor to try to give him the ability to participate in his defence .
The only realistic explanation that occurs to me is that Baraitser has been warned off , because this continual mistreatment and confiscation of documents is on senior government authority .
A last small incident for me to recount : having queued again from the early hours , I was at the final queue before the entrance to the public gallery , when the name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editor of Wikileaks , with whom I was talking at the time .
Kristin identified himself , and was told by the court official he was barred from the public gallery .
Now I was with Kristin throughout the entire proceedings the previous day , and he had done absolutely nothing amiss – he is rather a quiet gentleman .
When he was called for , it was by name and by job description – they were specifically banning the editor of Wikileaks from the trial .
Kristin asked why and was told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At this stage John Shipton , Julian ’ s father , announced that in this case the family members would all leave too , and they did so , walking out of the building .
They and others then started tweeting the news of the family walkout .
This appeared to cause some consternation among court officials , and fifteen minutes later Kristin was re-admitted .
We still have no idea what lay behind this .
Later in the day journalists were being briefed by officials it was simply over queue-jumping , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed by staff who called him by name and title , rather than had spotted him as a queue-jumper .
None of the above goes to the official matter of the case .
All of the above tells you more about the draconian nature of the political show-trial which is taking place than does the charade being enacted in the body of the court .
There were moments today when I got drawn in to the court process and achieved the suspension of disbelief you might do in theatre , and began thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well for Assange ” .
Then an event such as those recounted above kicks in , a coldness grips your heart , and you recall there is no jury here to be convinced .
I simply do not believe that anything said or proved in the courtroom can have an impact on the final verdict of this court .
So to the actual proceedings in the case .
For the defence , Mark Summers QC stated that the USA charges were entirely dependent on three factual accusations of Assange behviour : 1 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key to access classified material .
Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial .
2 ) Assange solicited the material from Manning Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public 3 ) Assange knowingly put lives at risk Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement of the US government .
In summary , Summers stated the US government knew that the allegations being made were false as to fact , and they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was therefore an abuse of process which should lead to dismissal of the extradition request .
He described the above three counts as “ rubbish , rubbish and rubbish ” .
Summers then walked through the facts of the case .
He said the charges from the USA divide the materials leaked by Manning to Wikileaks into three categories : a ) Diplomatic Cables b ) Guantanamo detainee assessment briefs c ) Iraq War rules of engagement d ) Afghan and Iraqi war logs Summers then methodically went through a ) , b @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relating each in turn to alleged behaviours 1 ) , 2 ) and 3 ) , making twelve counts of explanation and exposition in all .
This comprehensive account took some four hours and I shall not attempt to capture it here .
I will rather give highlights , but will relate occasionally to the alleged behaviour number and/or the alleged materials letter .
I hope you follow that – it took me some time to do so !
On 1 ) Summers at great length demonstrated conclusively that Manning had access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) d ) provided to Wikileaks without needing any code from Assange , and had that access before ever contacting Assange .
Nor had Manning needed a code to conceal her identity as the prosecution alleged – the database for intelligence analysts Manning could access – as could thousands of others – did not require a username or password to access it from a work military computer .
Summers quoted testimony of several officers from Manning ’ s court-martial to confirm this .
Nor would breaking the systems admin code on the system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ databases .
Summers quoted evidence from the Manning court-martial , where this had been accepted , that the reason Manning wanted to get in to systems admin was to allow soldiers to put their video-games and movies on their government laptops , which in fact happened frequently .
Magistrate Baraitser twice made major interruptions .
She observed that if Chelsea Manning did not know she could not be traced as the user who downloaded the databases , she might have sought Assange ’ s assistance to crack a code to conceal her identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that , and to assist would still be an offence by Assange .
Summers pointed out that Manning knew that she did not need a username and password , because she actually accessed all the materials without one .
Baraitser replied that this did not constitute proof she knew she could not be traced .
Summers said in logic it made no sense to argue that she was seeking a code to conceal her user ID and password , where there was no user ID and password .
Baraitser replied again he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point Summers became somewhat testy and short with Baraitser , and took her through the court martial evidence again .
Of which more… Baraitser also made the point that even if Assange were helping Manning to crack an admin code , even if it did not enable Manning to access any more databases , that still was unauthorised use and would constitute the crime of aiding and abetting computer misuse , even if for an innocent purpose .
After a brief break , Baraitser came back with a real zinger .
She told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the US court martial of Chelsea Manning as fact .
But she did not agree that her court had to treat evidence at a US court martial , even agreed or uncontested evidence or prosecution evidence , as fact .
Summers replied that agreed evidence or prosecution evidence at the US court martial clearly was agreed by the US government as fact , and what was at issue at the moment was whether the US government was charging contrary to the facts it knew .
Baraitser said she would return to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was no making no attempt to conceal a hostility to the defence argument , and seemed irritated they had the temerity to make it .
This burst out when discussing c ) , the Iraq war rules of engagement .
Summers argued that these had not been solicited from Manning , but had rather been provided by Manning in an accompanying file along with the Collateral Murder video that showed the murder of Reuters journalists and children .
Manning ’ s purpose , as she stated at her court martial , was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules of engagement , even though the Department of Defense claimed otherwise .
Summers stated that by not including this context , the US extradition request was deliberately misleading as it did not even mention the Collateral Murder video at all .
At this point Baraitser could not conceal her contempt .
Try to imagine Lady Bracknell saying “ A Handbag ” or “ the Brighton line ” , or if your education didn ’ t run that way try to imagine Pritti Patel spotting a disabled immigrant .
This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the affirmative and then went on to show where the Supreme Court had said so in other extradition cases .
Baraitser was showing utter confusion that anybody could claim a significant distinction between the Government and God .
The bulk of Summers ’ argument went to refuting behaviour 3 ) , putting lives at risk .
This was only claimed in relation to materials a ) and d ) .
Summers described at great length the efforts of Wikileaks with media partners over more than a year to set up a massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained that the unredacted cables only became available after Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian published the password to the cache as the heading to Chapter XI of their book Wikileaks , published in February 2011 .
Nobody had put 2 and 2 together on this password until the German publication Die Freitag had done so and announced it had the unredacted cables in August 2011 .
Summers then gave the most powerful arguments of the day .
The US government had been actively participating in the redaction exercise on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reckless publication to be untrue .
Once Die Freitag announced they had the unredacted materials , Julian Assange and Sara Harrison instantly telephoned the White House , State Department and US Embassy to warn them named sources may be put at risk .
Summers read from the transcripts of telephone conversations as Assange and Harrison attempted to convince US officials of the urgency of enabling source protection procedures – and expressed their bafflement as officials stonewalled them .
This evidence utterly undermined the US government ’ s case and proved bad faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a very striking moment .
With relation to the same behaviour 3 ) on materials d ) , Summers showed that the Manning court martial had accepted these materials contained no endangered source names , but showed that Wikileaks had activated a redaction exercise anyway as a “ belt and braces ” approach .
There was much more from the defence .
For the prosecution , James Lewis indicated he would reply in depth later in proceedings , but wished to state that the prosecution does not accept the court martial evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept any of the “ self-serving ” testimony of Chelsea Manning , whom he portrayed as a convicted criminal falsely claiming noble motives .
The prosecution generally rejected any notion that this court should consider the truth or otherwise of any of the facts ; those could only be decided at trial in the USA .
Then , to wrap up proceedings , Baraitser dropped a massive bombshell .
She stated that although Article 4.1 of the US/UK Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions , this was only in the Treaty .
That exemption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act .
On the face of it therefore political extradition is not illegal in the UK , as the Treaty has no legal force on the Court .
She invited the defence to address this argument in the morning .
It is now 06.35am and I am late to start queuing… With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible .
This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish , including in translation , and I very much hope people will do so actively .
Truth shall @ @ @ @

This afternoon Julian’s Spanish lawyer, Baltasar Garzon, left court to return to Madrid. On the way out he naturally stopped to shake hands with his client, proffering his fingers through the narrow slit in the bulletproof glass cage. Assange half stood to take his lawyer’s hand. The two security guards in the cage with Assange immediately sprang up, putting hands on Julian and forcing him to sit down, preventing the handshake.
That was not by any means the worst thing today, but it is a striking image of the senseless brute force continually used against a man accused of publishing documents. That a man cannot even shake his lawyer’s hand goodbye is against the entire spirit in which the members of the legal system like to pretend the law is practised. I offer that startling moment as encapsulating yesterday’s events in court.
Day 2 proceedings had started with a statement from Edward Fitzgerald, Assange’s QC, that shook us rudely into life. He stated that yesterday, on the first day of trial, Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.
Magistrate Baraitser looked at Fitzgerald and stated, in a voice laced with disdain, that he had raised such matters before and she had always replied that she had no jurisdiction over the prison estate. He should take it up with the prison authorities. Fitzgerald remained on his feet, which drew a very definite scowl from Baraitser, and replied that of course they would do that again, but this repeated behaviour by the prison authorities threatened the ability of the defence to prepare. He added that regardless of jurisdiction, in his experience it was common practice for magistrates and judges to pass on comments and requests to the prison service where the conduct of the trial was affected, and that jails normally listened to magistrates sympathetically.
Baraitser flat-out denied any knowledge of such a practice, and stated that Fitzgerald should present her with written arguments setting out the case law on jurisdiction over prison conditions. This was too much even for prosecution counsel James Lewis, who stood up to say the prosecution would also want Assange to have a fair hearing, and that he could confirm that what the defence were suggesting was normal practice. Even then, Baraitser still refused to intervene with the prison. She stated that if the prison conditions were so bad as to reach the very high bar of making a fair hearing impossible, the defence should bring a motion to dismiss the charges on those grounds. Otherwise they should drop it.
Both prosecution and defence seemed surprised by Baraitser’s claim that she had not heard of what they both referred to as common practice. Lewis may have been genuinely concerned at the shocking description of Assange’s prison treatment yesterday; or he may have just had warning klaxons going off in his head screaming “mistrial”. But the net result is Baraitser will attempt to do nothing to prevent Julian’s physical and mental abuse in jail nor to try to give him the ability to participate in his defence. The only realistic explanation that occurs to me is that Baraitser has been warned off, because this continual mistreatment and confiscation of documents is on senior government authority.
A last small incident for me to recount: having queued again from the early hours, I was at the final queue before the entrance to the public gallery, when the name was called out of Kristin Hrnafsson, editor of Wikileaks, with whom I was talking at the time. Kristin identified himself, and was told by the court official he was barred from the public gallery.
Now I was with Kristin throughout the entire proceedings the previous day, and he had done absolutely nothing amiss – he is rather a quiet gentleman. When he was called for, it was by name and by job description – they were specifically banning the editor of Wikileaks from the trial. Kristin asked why and was told it was a decision of the Court.
At this stage John Shipton, Julian’s father, announced that in this case the family members would all leave too, and they did so, walking out of the building. They and others then started tweeting the news of the family walkout. This appeared to cause some consternation among court officials, and fifteen minutes later Kristin was re-admitted. We still have no idea what lay behind this. Later in the day journalists were being briefed by officials it was simply over queue-jumping, but that seems improbable as he was removed by staff who called him by name and title, rather than had spotted him as a queue-jumper.
None of the above goes to the official matter of the case. All of the above tells you more about the draconian nature of the political show-trial which is taking place than does the charade being enacted in the body of the court. There were moments today when I got drawn in to the court process and achieved the suspension of disbelief you might do in theatre, and began thinking “Wow, this case is going well for Assange”. Then an event such as those recounted above kicks in, a coldness grips your heart, and you recall there is no jury here to be convinced. I simply do not believe that anything said or proved in the courtroom can have an impact on the final verdict of this court.
So to the actual proceedings in the case.
For the defence, Mark Summers QC stated that the USA charges were entirely dependent on three factual accusations of Assange behviour:
1) Assange helped Manning to decode a hash key to access classified material.
Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial.
2) Assange solicited the material from Manning
Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public
3) Assange knowingly put lives at risk
Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement of the US government.
In summary, Summers stated the US government knew that the allegations being made were false as to fact, and they were demonstrably made in bad faith. This was therefore an abuse of process which should lead to dismissal of the extradition request. He described the above three counts as “rubbish, rubbish and rubbish”.
Summers then walked through the facts of the case. He said the charges from the USA divide the materials leaked by Manning to Wikileaks into three categories:
a) Diplomatic Cables
b) Guantanamo detainee assessment briefs
c) Iraq War rules of engagement
d) Afghan and Iraqi war logs
Summers then methodically went through a), b), c) and d) relating each in turn to alleged behaviours 1), 2) and 3), making twelve counts of explanation and exposition in all. This comprehensive account took some four hours and I shall not attempt to capture it here. I will rather give highlights, but will relate occasionally to the alleged behaviour number and/or the alleged materials letter. I hope you follow that – it took me some time to do so!
On 1) Summers at great length demonstrated conclusively that Manning had access to each material a) b) c) d) provided to Wikileaks without needing any code from Assange, and had that access before ever contacting Assange. Nor had Manning needed a code to conceal her identity as the prosecution alleged – the database for intelligence analysts Manning could access – as could thousands of others – did not require a username or password to access it from a work military computer. Summers quoted testimony of several officers from Manning’s court-martial to confirm this. Nor would breaking the systems admin code on the system give Manning access to any additional classified databases. Summers quoted evidence from the Manning court-martial, where this had been accepted, that the reason Manning wanted to get in to systems admin was to allow soldiers to put their video-games and movies on their government laptops, which in fact happened frequently.
Magistrate Baraitser twice made major interruptions. She observed that if Chelsea Manning did not know she could not be traced as the user who downloaded the databases, she might have sought Assange’s assistance to crack a code to conceal her identity from ignorance she did not need to do that, and to assist would still be an offence by Assange.
Summers pointed out that Manning knew that she did not need a username and password, because she actually accessed all the materials without one. Baraitser replied that this did not constitute proof she knew she could not be traced. Summers said in logic it made no sense to argue that she was seeking a code to conceal her user ID and password, where there was no user ID and password. Baraitser replied again he could not prove that. At this point Summers became somewhat testy and short with Baraitser, and took her through the court martial evidence again. Of which more…
Baraitser also made the point that even if Assange were helping Manning to crack an admin code, even if it did not enable Manning to access any more databases, that still was unauthorised use and would constitute the crime of aiding and abetting computer misuse, even if for an innocent purpose.
After a brief break, Baraitser came back with a real zinger. She told Summers that he had presented the findings of the US court martial of Chelsea Manning as fact. But she did not agree that her court had to treat evidence at a US court martial, even agreed or uncontested evidence or prosecution evidence, as fact. Summers replied that agreed evidence or prosecution evidence at the US court martial clearly was agreed by the US government as fact, and what was at issue at the moment was whether the US government was charging contrary to the facts it knew. Baraitser said she would return to her point once witnesses were heard.
Baraitser was no making no attempt to conceal a hostility to the defence argument, and seemed irritated they had the temerity to make it. This burst out when discussing c), the Iraq war rules of engagement. Summers argued that these had not been solicited from Manning, but had rather been provided by Manning in an accompanying file along with the Collateral Murder video that showed the murder of Reuters journalists and children. Manning’s purpose, as she stated at her court martial, was to show that the Collateral Murder actions breached the rules of engagement, even though the Department of Defense claimed otherwise. Summers stated that by not including this context, the US extradition request was deliberately misleading as it did not even mention the Collateral Murder video at all.
At this point Baraitser could not conceal her contempt. Try to imagine Lady Bracknell saying “A Handbag” or “the Brighton line”, or if your education didn’t run that way try to imagine Pritti Patel spotting a disabled immigrant. This is a literal quote:
“Are you suggesting, Mr Summers, that the authorities, the Government, should have to provide context for its charges?”
An unfazed Summers replied in the affirmative and then went on to show where the Supreme Court had said so in other extradition cases. Baraitser was showing utter confusion that anybody could claim a significant distinction between the Government and God.
The bulk of Summers’ argument went to refuting behaviour 3), putting lives at risk. This was only claimed in relation to materials a) and d). Summers described at great length the efforts of Wikileaks with media partners over more than a year to set up a massive redaction campaign on the cables. He explained that the unredacted cables only became available after Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian published the password to the cache as the heading to Chapter XI of their book Wikileaks, published in February 2011.
Nobody had put 2 and 2 together on this password until the German publication Die Freitag had done so and announced it had the unredacted cables in August 2011. Summers then gave the most powerful arguments of the day.
The US government had been actively participating in the redaction exercise on the cables. They therefore knew the allegations of reckless publication to be untrue.
Once Die Freitag announced they had the unredacted materials, Julian Assange and Sara Harrison instantly telephoned the White House, State Department and US Embassy to warn them named sources may be put at risk. Summers read from the transcripts of telephone conversations as Assange and Harrison attempted to convince US officials of the urgency of enabling source protection procedures – and expressed their bafflement as officials stonewalled them. This evidence utterly undermined the US government’s case and proved bad faith in omitting extremely relevant fact. It was a very striking moment.
With relation to the same behaviour 3) on materials d), Summers showed that the Manning court martial had accepted these materials contained no endangered source names, but showed that Wikileaks had activated a redaction exercise anyway as a “belt and braces” approach.
There was much more from the defence. For the prosecution, James Lewis indicated he would reply in depth later in proceedings, but wished to state that the prosecution does not accept the court martial evidence as fact, and particularly does not accept any of the “self-serving” testimony of Chelsea Manning, whom he portrayed as a convicted criminal falsely claiming noble motives. The prosecution generally rejected any notion that this court should consider the truth or otherwise of any of the facts; those could only be decided at trial in the USA.
Then, to wrap up proceedings, Baraitser dropped a massive bombshell. She stated that although Article 4.1 of the US/UK Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions, this was only in the Treaty. That exemption does not appear in the UK Extradition Act. On the face of it therefore political extradition is not illegal in the UK, as the Treaty has no legal force on the Court. She invited the defence to address this argument in the morning.
It is now 06.35am and I am late to start queuing…
With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.
This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.


russiainsider--2020-02-27--A Russian Christian Couple with 7 Children Tell Their Inspiring Story

They have been married for twenty years .
My spouse and I first met at work .
Tatiana ’ s first profession is as an actress , so we worked at the same theater .
For a year we were just friends , we would take walks and talk .
A year later I understood that I couldn ’ t live without her .
The main thing that I treasure in my spouse is that she compliments me ideally .
We understand each other without having to spell everything out , and she foresees many things in advance .
Whenever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miss her very much .
Tatiana possesses all the good qualities that you can only imagine .
She is a very kind and responsible person , and she is able to love .
We rarely have conflicts .
But when we do have a conflict , we try to make concessions .
True , it is hard , but a family always presupposes hard work .
If you don ’ t work , there will be no family .
Even if I know that I am right , I can try and find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is right and I am wrong—but we find a compromise anyway .
Neither of the spouses should be superior to the other .
A family is when both spouses are a continuation of each other , supplement each other .
If we only abide by the principle , Let the wife fear her husband ( cf .
Eph .
5:33 ) , there will be no family .
The person I love , the weaker vessel ( cf .
1 Pet .
3:7 ) , is near me , and I should take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact my wife treats me as “ the weaker vessel ” as well and cherishes me .
We both try to protect each other .
Perhaps that is why I feel as if we have been married for a year at most , while in reality we have been for twenty years .
We recently sat down to recall the years we have spent together and agreed that the time has flown by in a flash : twenty years like one day .
When I married I couldn ’ t have imagined that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large family .
My wife and I just love and have always loved each other .
After the birth of our first child everybody told us : “ Well , now you need a second one !
” Then a daughter appeared , and everybody said : “ Well , now just enjoy your life !
” When the third baby was born we realized that our children had turned out so wonderfully that it would have been bad if we hadn ’ t had them .
And if we hadn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it would have been much worse .
A life with children can never be easy .
And it can be difficult to manage even one child—in all respects .
Everyone is interested in finance : we try to organize our family budget so we have enough money to get all we need .
And we succeed .
We spend our vacations at the seaside together .
Our friends often give us children ’ s clothes , though we buy some ourselves too : it gives our children joy to go to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taste .
I can not agree with the opinion that you need heaps of money to stand your children on their feet .
You just need to allocate your money reasonably .
Parents ’ requirements play an important role too .
At present I am very pleased with what my oldest children have grown up into .
My son Ivan did his best to study in a government-financed place at the institute ; we don ’ t pay for his tuition .
He does well in his studies ; he is a kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is his youthful enthusiasm , but we were like Ivan at his age .
Such things end .
Anyway his enthusiasm never goes over the top .
For example , we have a summer cottage in the country , and Ivan is not enthusiastic about going there .
I won ’ t force or try to persuade him ; but if I ever need help there , he will be willing to go with me .
Parents shouldn ’ t force their children to do anything .
It is an act of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can try to persuade children , speak with them , and show them how to act by your example .
Coercive methods don ’ t work .
It would be enough for parents to bring up the oldest children properly , and the youngest will follow their example .
Looking at the eldest , the babies “ soak everything up like sponges ” .
The interests of our children vary , but I can not devote my attention to each one of them separately .
Will six persons really wait , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
There are some kinds of pastimes which suit everyone : for example , we play board games together in the evening during vacations .
Our children are also very fond of preparing home performances .
They compose plays , rehearse , dress up and perform unassisted .
Sometimes they even draw invitation cards themselves too .
Then they seat us on the sofa and a performance begins .
That is very enthralling and funny when even those who have no part in the play join in .
We have our own beehives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watching the bees .
This year they had an exciting event and festive occasion when we took out honey .
Such moments remain in your memory forever .
It ’ s a pity that our grannies and one grandad ( my spouse ’ s father ) are now gone .
Only my father who is eighty is still with us .
He has as many as eleven grandchildren ( my children and those of my brother ) and he says he is the happiest grandfather in the world .
Many grandchildren make you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large family from childhood .
Whenever I was watching the Russian movie , “ Once , Twenty Years Later ” , I thought that I wanted to have as many children as they had .
I always felt the lack of a large family .
My brother is seventeen years my senior , so it can be said that I grew up alone under my parents ’ wing and suffered much because of this .
I gave birth to our first child soon after I had started integrating into the Church life ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth to all children that God sends to them was very relevant to me .
I asked my husband for his opinion and he said he would support me in this , though before the wedding he had not been very enthusiastic about having even one child .
Andrei and I dated for about a year , but it was not a romantic relationship—we were just friends .
After work we would stroll together and chat .
I felt as if Andrei was courting me , but I had different plans , mainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the acting profession back then .
It lasted from autumn till next spring .
I lived at the opposite end of town , so he would see me home every time .
Andrei would accompany me as far as the entrance of my apartment block and then walk back home .
And one evening we had an argument near my block , and I almost left .
But he just kept standing there .
I turned around , and it dawned on me that though we had been friends for a whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt me or said any hurtful word to me .
I had not seen anything bad in him but had seen only good .
And at that very instant I fell for him .
It happened in a heartbeat , in a single moment .
I realized that I wanted to marry Andrei and have children with him .
So I went up to him and said : “ Alright !
Let ’ s go to the cafe.
” And life has confirmed that Andrei is a very kind and responsive man .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ready to share his last penny and give disinterested help to everybody .
My husband doubtless treats me as “ the weaker vessel ” .
He never demands my obedience , but I have in fact gotten my own way on several occasions , and each time it turned out that my husband was right .
And I would realize that I should have obeyed him .
For some time I even thought that the Lord was showing me that I ought to obey my other half and have no other alternatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I became aware that one should not lose his or her personality , and that having and expressing your own opinion is good .
Fortunately , my husband has never been too hard on me .
We are able to reach an agreement , and Andrei often meets me halfway .
When it became unbearable for me to stay at home any longer and I wanted to go out to work , my husband supported me and took it on himself to take care of the children .
I felt that my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time for me to get back to people .
And my husband gave me the opportunity to get a new profession ( it was a special evening education ) and then to have a full-fledged job at school .
We registered our home kindergarten .
Thus my husband ( and not me ) became a kindergarten teacher .
He was with children in the day time , while I was at work ; then I would return , and Andrei would go to work in the theater .
It was convenient , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whenever Andrei had an early rehearsal or film shoot , we had a nanny to replace him .
School is a place that requires full devotion , and it is thanks to my husband that I have worked there for five years now .
On one occasion I had a maternity leave ( which lasted less than a year ) , when our youngest son appeared .
When a conflict arises ( though it rarely takes place ) , it is better to wait till you calm down and overcome the resentment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I am right and I will never forgive him , so let him come first and seek my forgiveness .
But in most cases I ask his forgiveness anyway .
It seems I do it more often than he does .
Once the feelings of resentment have abated , I understand that peace in the family is far more important than our discord ; I can “ take an insult ” and ask my husband ’ s forgiveness to restore peace in the family .
The same is with our children—though I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to bear a grudge for long .
I easily admit my faults .
I can even admit to being in the wrong when I consider myself to be right .
Hierarchy in families is important .
I don ’ t dispute that the husband is the head of the family and I forbid the children to dispute that .
Our family is not a child-centered one ; in our home the dad and mom come first , and then the children follow .
And that is correct because children feel good when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this judging by our family experience .
Parents should be happy—then the feeling of happiness will be communicated to their offspring .
We spend a lot of time with our children and find it very interesting ; but if my husband and I go out for a while to relax , leaving the older children to look after the younger ones , it won ’ t lie heavy on my conscience .
In our family , parental authority is maintained by itself , at least by virtue of the children ’ s financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a pretty bad temper because he was the only child in the family for quite a long time .
Then all of his grandparents were still alive ; for some time he knew what it means to be “ the center of the universe ” .
Everybody doted up on him , so for many years he was an egoist and having so many siblings naturally made him angry .
He was beside himself ; as he grew up he regarded himself as the one and only child and thought that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But now that Ivan is a young adult we see that our large family has molded his character in a different way .
It has happened as if by itself—he has begun to show his respect for us and our way of life .
It happens that our children argue sometimes .
Unless I am too tired , I can talk with them and give them some specific examples .
But if I am tired , I can say in a commanding voice : “ Stop immediately !
” and then show them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something .
If I have no strength ( for example , when I am sick ) , I can ignore a children ’ s conflict without interfering in it .
After all , they are little ones who need to play with each other , so they will make peace sooner or later .
In my view , punishment can be used only as an exceptional measure .
I can shut my eyes to many things , to virtually everything .
But I consider stealing to be absolutely intolerable .
Once we had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of our sons into taking his father ’ s money , after which there was a serious talking-to , and such things have never happened again .
We never make our children stand in the corner .
This makes no sense as they will walk away anyway .
Both my husband and I have a very forgiving nature , and our children understand this easily .
As a punishment we can take away some of their gadgets or forbid some kinds of entertainment for a while .
Our children don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us ; and it is impossible to do it in a large family anyway .
The more children in the family the more independent they are .
Now our youngest daughter is a second-grader and she learned how to cook at the age of five .
She is passionate about the art of cooking .
The older children look after the younger ones .
We all tidy up the house together .
We have no fixed responsibilities .
Of course , sometimes the children play up : “ I don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” We have to explain that it can not be otherwise and we simply won ’ t manage without their help .
And after playing up for a while they do their tasks anyway .
Even if they don ’ t , they will be ashamed soon and try to make amends .
A family is not a formal team .
You live not so much according to the rules as by your emotions and moods .
In the end love prevails , since we all love each other .
Selfishness can surge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then we are ashamed .
It was much later that I understood that a woman should not neglect herself no matter how many children she has .
Initially I would entirely give myself up to the children believing that bringing them up was the most important thing in my life .
But then I began to feel very bad and I couldn ’ t figure out why .
Today there is a fashion to speak about parental burn-out—that is , it ’ s like on the plane where you should put on your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s… When my mother passed away I understood that what matters is not what kind of mother you have but just having a mother .
Likewise , for my children my presence is already very good regardless of the time I devote to them .
They have a mother as a model and they have my unconditional love .
That is why I can spend as much time as I think necessary for my needs .
Now I allow myself to go to the hairdresser ’ s or meet with my friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have pangs of conscience anymore : “ How is it I am not with my children ?
” Whatever I may do for myself I do it for my children .
Because it is more important to the children to have a healthy and happy mom than a mom with a nervous breakdown .
Even if I were able to give everything to my children , it wouldn ’ t mean that they would take everything .
While with my first children I thought it should be the best possible education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school , and everything you can think of ; now I will be happy if they just grow up into good and decent people .
A long life is ahead of them ; they will have time to make up for the things that I may have not given them in their childhood .
An upright person is sure to find his place in the world .
I personally didn ’ t find my calling until thirty-five .
With four small children I went to study at the teachers ’ training institute and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person in the right place .
As for theater , it was just a hobby .
What am I expecting from life now ?
I am expecting a baby .

The Nagornov family
Parents:
Andrei Viktorovich , fifty-four, a Hermitage Theater actor;
Tatiana Ivanovna, forty-four, a primary school teacher.
They have been married for twenty years.
Their children:
Ivan , nineteen, a second-year student of Moscow State Pedagogical University (the Chemestry Department);
Maria , sixteen, an eleventh grader;
Daria , fourteen, an eighth grader;
Gabriel , eleven, a fifth grader;
Nina , eight, a second grader;
Nadezhda , six;
Viktor, three.
Andrei Viktorovich speaks :
My spouse and I first met at work. Tatiana’s first profession is as an actress, so we worked at the same theater. For a year we were just friends, we would take walks and talk. A year later I understood that I couldn’t live without her.
The main thing that I treasure in my spouse is that she compliments me ideally. We understand each other without having to spell everything out, and she foresees many things in advance. Whenever she is not with me, I miss her very much. Tatiana possesses all the good qualities that you can only imagine. She is a very kind and responsible person, and she is able to love. We rarely have conflicts. But when we do have a conflict, we try to make concessions. True, it is hard, but a family always presupposes hard work. If you don’t work, there will be no family. Even if I know that I am right, I can try and find a compromise. And sometimes my wife is right and I am wrong—but we find a compromise anyway. Neither of the spouses should be superior to the other. A family is when both spouses are a continuation of each other, supplement each other.
If we only abide by the principle, Let the wife fear her husband (cf. Eph. 5:33), there will be no family. The person I love, the weaker vessel (cf. 1 Pet. 3:7), is near me, and I should take good care of her. But in fact my wife treats me as “the weaker vessel” as well and cherishes me. We both try to protect each other. Perhaps that is why I feel as if we have been married for a year at most, while in reality we have been for twenty years. We recently sat down to recall the years we have spent together and agreed that the time has flown by in a flash: twenty years like one day.
When I married I couldn’t have imagined that I would become the father of a large family. My wife and I just love and have always loved each other. After the birth of our first child everybody told us: “Well, now you need a second one!” Then a daughter appeared, and everybody said: “Well, now just enjoy your life!” When the third baby was born we realized that our children had turned out so wonderfully that it would have been bad if we hadn’t had them. And if we hadn’t had even one of our seven children, it would have been much worse.
A life with children can never be easy. And it can be difficult to manage even one child—in all respects. Everyone is interested in finance: we try to organize our family budget so we have enough money to get all we need. And we succeed. We spend our vacations at the seaside together. Our friends often give us children’s clothes, though we buy some ourselves too: it gives our children joy to go to the shop and choose something according to their taste. I cannot agree with the opinion that you need heaps of money to stand your children on their feet. You just need to allocate your money reasonably. Parents’ requirements play an important role too.
At present I am very pleased with what my oldest children have grown up into. My son Ivan did his best to study in a government-financed place at the institute; we don’t pay for his tuition. He does well in his studies; he is a kind and sensitive young man. True, there is his youthful enthusiasm, but we were like Ivan at his age. Such things end. Anyway his enthusiasm never goes over the top. For example, we have a summer cottage in the country, and Ivan is not enthusiastic about going there. I won’t force or try to persuade him; but if I ever need help there, he will be willing to go with me.
Andrei and Tatiana Nagornov
Parents shouldn’t force their children to do anything. It is an act of violence to someone’s freewill. You can try to persuade children, speak with them, and show them how to act by your example. Coercive methods don’t work. It would be enough for parents to bring up the oldest children properly, and the youngest will follow their example. Looking at the eldest, the babies “soak everything up like sponges”.
The interests of our children vary, but I cannot devote my attention to each one of them separately. Will six persons really wait, while I am busy with the seventh one? There are some kinds of pastimes which suit everyone: for example, we play board games together in the evening during vacations. Our children are also very fond of preparing home performances. They compose plays, rehearse, dress up and perform unassisted. Sometimes they even draw invitation cards themselves too. Then they seat us on the sofa and a performance begins. That is very enthralling and funny when even those who have no part in the play join in.
We have our own beehives in the garden. The children enjoy watching the bees. This year they had an exciting event and festive occasion when we took out honey. Such moments remain in your memory forever.
It’s a pity that our grannies and one grandad (my spouse’s father) are now gone. Only my father who is eighty is still with us. He has as many as eleven grandchildren (my children and those of my brother) and he says he is the happiest grandfather in the world. Many grandchildren make you happy.
Tatiana Ivanovna speaks:
I wanted to have a large family from childhood. Whenever I was watching the Russian movie, “Once, Twenty Years Later”, I thought that I wanted to have as many children as they had. I always felt the lack of a large family. My brother is seventeen years my senior, so it can be said that I grew up alone under my parents’ wing and suffered much because of this. I gave birth to our first child soon after I had started integrating into the Church life; so the idea that women should give birth to all children that God sends to them was very relevant to me. I asked my husband for his opinion and he said he would support me in this, though before the wedding he had not been very enthusiastic about having even one child.
Andrei and I dated for about a year, but it was not a romantic relationship—we were just friends. After work we would stroll together and chat. I felt as if Andrei was courting me, but I had different plans, mainly creative ones. I was very interested in the acting profession back then. It lasted from autumn till next spring. I lived at the opposite end of town, so he would see me home every time. Andrei would accompany me as far as the entrance of my apartment block and then walk back home. And one evening we had an argument near my block, and I almost left. But he just kept standing there. I turned around, and it dawned on me that though we had been friends for a whole year, this man had not once hurt me or said any hurtful word to me. I had not seen anything bad in him but had seen only good. And at that very instant I fell for him. It happened in a heartbeat, in a single moment. I realized that I wanted to marry Andrei and have children with him. So I went up to him and said: “Alright! Let’s go to the cafe.”
And life has confirmed that Andrei is a very kind and responsive man. He is the kind of person who is ready to share his last penny and give disinterested help to everybody. My husband doubtless treats me as “the weaker vessel”. He never demands my obedience, but I have in fact gotten my own way on several occasions, and each time it turned out that my husband was right. And I would realize that I should have obeyed him. For some time I even thought that the Lord was showing me that I ought to obey my other half and have no other alternatives. But as the years went by, I became aware that one should not lose his or her personality, and that having and expressing your own opinion is good. Fortunately, my husband has never been too hard on me. We are able to reach an agreement, and Andrei often meets me halfway. When it became unbearable for me to stay at home any longer and I wanted to go out to work, my husband supported me and took it on himself to take care of the children. I felt that my development had stopped and that it was time for me to get back to people. And my husband gave me the opportunity to get a new profession (it was a special evening education) and then to have a full-fledged job at school. We registered our home kindergarten. Thus my husband (and not me) became a kindergarten teacher. He was with children in the day time, while I was at work; then I would return, and Andrei would go to work in the theater. It was convenient, as our schedules didn’t overlap. Whenever Andrei had an early rehearsal or film shoot, we had a nanny to replace him. School is a place that requires full devotion, and it is thanks to my husband that I have worked there for five years now. On one occasion I had a maternity leave (which lasted less than a year), when our youngest son appeared.
When a conflict arises (though it rarely takes place), it is better to wait till you calm down and overcome the resentment. Of course, at first I think that I am right and I will never forgive him, so let him come first and seek my forgiveness. But in most cases I ask his forgiveness anyway. It seems I do it more often than he does. Once the feelings of resentment have abated, I understand that peace in the family is far more important than our discord; I can “take an insult” and ask my husband’s forgiveness to restore peace in the family. The same is with our children—though I am an emotional person, I am unable to bear a grudge for long. I easily admit my faults. I can even admit to being in the wrong when I consider myself to be right.
Hierarchy in families is important. I don’t dispute that the husband is the head of the family and I forbid the children to dispute that. Our family is not a child-centered one; in our home the dad and mom come first, and then the children follow. And that is correct because children feel good when their parents feel good. I understood this judging by our family experience. Parents should be happy—then the feeling of happiness will be communicated to their offspring. We spend a lot of time with our children and find it very interesting; but if my husband and I go out for a while to relax, leaving the older children to look after the younger ones, it won’t lie heavy on my conscience.
In our family, parental authority is maintained by itself, at least by virtue of the children’s financial dependence on us. Our oldest son has a pretty bad temper because he was the only child in the family for quite a long time. Then all of his grandparents were still alive; for some time he knew what it means to be “the center of the universe”. Everybody doted up on him, so for many years he was an egoist and having so many siblings naturally made him angry. He was beside himself; as he grew up he regarded himself as the one and only child and thought that “the world revolved around him”. But now that Ivan is a young adult we see that our large family has molded his character in a different way. It has happened as if by itself—he has begun to show his respect for us and our way of life.
It happens that our children argue sometimes. Unless I am too tired, I can talk with them and give them some specific examples. But if I am tired, I can say in a commanding voice: “Stop immediately!” and then show them to their rooms and distract them with something. If I have no strength (for example, when I am sick), I can ignore a children’s conflict without interfering in it. After all, they are little ones who need to play with each other, so they will make peace sooner or later.
In my view, punishment can be used only as an exceptional measure. I can shut my eyes to many things, to virtually everything. But I consider stealing to be absolutely intolerable. Once we had the following incident: a boy egged one of our sons into taking his father’s money, after which there was a serious talking-to, and such things have never happened again. We never make our children stand in the corner. This makes no sense as they will walk away anyway. Both my husband and I have a very forgiving nature, and our children understand this easily. As a punishment we can take away some of their gadgets or forbid some kinds of entertainment for a while. Our children don’t try to make themselves a burden to us; and it is impossible to do it in a large family anyway.
The more children in the family the more independent they are. Now our youngest daughter is a second-grader and she learned how to cook at the age of five. She is passionate about the art of cooking. The older children look after the younger ones. We all tidy up the house together. We have no fixed responsibilities. Of course, sometimes the children play up: “I don’t want to do it! Why me?” We have to explain that it cannot be otherwise and we simply won’t manage without their help. And after playing up for a while they do their tasks anyway. Even if they don’t, they will be ashamed soon and try to make amends. A family is not a formal team. You live not so much according to the rules as by your emotions and moods. In the end love prevails, since we all love each other. Selfishness can surge up within each of us, but then we are ashamed.
It was much later that I understood that a woman should not neglect herself no matter how many children she has. Initially I would entirely give myself up to the children believing that bringing them up was the most important thing in my life. But then I began to feel very bad and I couldn’t figure out why. Today there is a fashion to speak about parental burn-out—that is, it’s like on the plane where you should put on your oxygen mask first and then the child’s… When my mother passed away I understood that what matters is not what kind of mother you have but just having a mother. Likewise, for my children my presence is already very good regardless of the time I devote to them. They have a mother as a model and they have my unconditional love. That is why I can spend as much time as I think necessary for my needs. Now I allow myself to go to the hairdresser’s or meet with my friends at the café. And I don’t have pangs of conscience anymore: “How is it I am not with my children?” Whatever I may do for myself I do it for my children. Because it is more important to the children to have a healthy and happy mom than a mom with a nervous breakdown.
Even if I were able to give everything to my children, it wouldn’t mean that they would take everything. While with my first children I thought it should be the best possible education, a music school, a sports school, and everything you can think of; now I will be happy if they just grow up into good and decent people. A long life is ahead of them; they will have time to make up for the things that I may have not given them in their childhood. An upright person is sure to find his place in the world. I personally didn’t find my calling until thirty-five. With four small children I went to study at the teachers’ training institute and I felt that I was the right person in the right place. As for theater, it was just a hobby.
What am I expecting from life now? I am expecting a baby.
Anna Berseneva-Shankevich
Translated by Dmitry Lapa
Pravoslavie.ru
10/16/2019
Link to original article in Russian


russiainsider--2020-02-27--Erdogan Calls Kremlin to Bail Him Out of Syria Fiasco, Pitiless Putin Lines Up Behind His Military

The Russian and Syrian general staffs and their men have been doing to the Turks what no one has achieved in the Middle East since 1917 .
So the Sultan has called the Tsar – three times this month so far ; in January , once by telephone , twice in face-to-face meetings ; and twice by telephone in December .
Every time the telephone rings , it is , as the Kremlin communiqué doesn ’ t fail to mention , “ at the Turkish side ’ s initiative.
” On the battlefields of northwest Syria , the initiative at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Turkish side ’ s , too .
But at the end of the day the Russians have inflicted defeat .
Not often in five hundred years of communications between the Porte and the Kremlin , has the subliminal message been so clear .
There is another subliminal message from the Kremlin .
“ We , ” Dmitry Peskov , the Turkish-speaking spokesman for the Russian President , said on Wednesday .
“ used to be satisfied with the agreements reached in Sochi more than a year ago and this satisfaction was mutual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now that militants and terrorists have begun advancing from Idlib and attacking Syrian forces and Russian military installations.
” This is a signal from the Moscow lobby for the Turks that it too is in retreat — from the Russian Defence Ministry and the General Staff .
The battle maps and operation assessments published in the Arabic media , and added to by Moon of Alabama and South Front , show the Turkish-occupied area of Syria ( green on the map ) is being steadily squeezed by Syrian and Russian forces ( red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border , clearing first the M5 national highway into western Aleppo , and then the M4 .
At the same time , further to the east as the M4 approaches the Iraqi border , small American units are being deployed without warning or agreement to deter the coming allied advance .
The tactical Russian objective is to deter Turkish-directed attacks against the Syrian advance , and if they break through Syrian lines , as occurred at Al-Nayrab , east of Idlib late last week , to repeal the thrust , and drive the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to eliminate the Turkish-backed jihadi forces and the Turkish “ observation posts ” and “ buffer zone ” created by the two agreements Erdogan arranged with Putin at Sochi in September 2018 and October last year .
For the texts of those agreements , and Putin ’ s concessions , read this and this .
What is happening now on the ground is the military implementation of the letter of the agreements , instead of the interpretation the Kremlin allowed the Turks at the time .
The Stavka , as Foreign Minister Sergei @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the General Staff , headed by Valery Gerasimov , can be called , have achieved on the ground what Erdogan thought he had taken from Putin on paper .
“ Nobody gave a promise to terrorists , ” Lavrov said on Wednesday , “ that they would be safe in the Idlib zone , just read the agreements between the Russian and Turkish presidents and everything will fall into place.
” Lavrov was referring explicitly to Points 3 , 5 and 7 of last year ’ s Sochi agreement ; they also disallow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tanks beyond the 32-km line from the Turkish frontier .
The next day , February 20 , Lavrov ’ s spokesman Maria Zakharova amplified the geography set down in Point 1 of the Sochi agreement : On Saturday February 22 , Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu discussed with Turkish Defence Minister , General Hulisi Akar , the fighting in the Idlib zone .
“ During the phone conversation , ” the state Sputnik news agency reported , “ [ the ministers ] discussed the issues [ related to the ] stabilization of the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ministry said .
According to the MoD , the two sides exchanged opinions on the situation in Syria more broadly .
No further information about the call was provided.
” Press statements from Shoigu ’ s subordinates have explicitly called Turkish claims lies , and spelled out the reinforcements Erdogan has been sending into the zone .
“ There is no confirmation to reports that ‘ about a million ’ refugees are moving from the de-escalation zone in Idlib to the Syrian-Turkish border , the head of the Russian Centre for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Rear-Admiral Oleg Zhuravlev said .
‘ The information about the alleged ‘ hundreds of thousands ’ of civilian residents of the province heading for the Syrian-Turkish border because of military clashes between terrorists and the Syrian government forces in the east of the province is not true , ’ he said .
Transport routes in Idlib have been working as usual these past few weeks , which has made it possible to move weapons and cargo transport with ammunition from Turkey into the area , he added.
” “ Earlier this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loyal to Ankara and supported by Turkish artillery had attacked the defences of the Syrian army near the villages of Qmenas and Nerab in Idlib .
Russia ’ s Su-24 aircraft fired at the militants and helped the army repel the attack .
According to the Turkish Defence Ministry , two Turkish soldiers were killed and five more injured in the attack in Idlib , while more than 50 Syrians were killed in the retaliatory fire.
” Erdogan ’ s calls to Putin have been a last resort to cover his attempted breakouts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his men to the border .
The reply of the Stavka is that if the Turks use artillery and armour in support of attacks on the Syrian Army or Russian zone patrols by Turkish proxy troops and Turkish regulars , the Russian Air Force will counter-attack and repulse them .
On February 12 the Kremlin communiqué of Erdogan ’ s call reported : “ Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan continued the discussion regarding various aspects of the Syrian peace process , primarily in the context of the recent aggravation in the Idlib @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance of the full implementation of the existing Russian-Turkish agreements , including the Sochi Memorandum of September 17 , 2018 .
Additional contacts between the relevant government agencies were planned for these purposes.
” “ Full implementation ” has meant something entirely different to Erdogan from the Russian interpretation , but Putin didn ’ t exactly say so , according to the public record .
Instead , he has allowed “ the relevant government agencies ” to do the interpreting and implementing ; that ’ s to say , boots on the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Erdogan escalated his public threats , and the Russian-Syrian forces defeated him , the Turkish president telephoned again : “ The focus of the conversation was again on the developments in the Idlib de-escalation zone , ” the Kremlin report said , emphasizing that Putin ’ s mouth was still where his Syrian boots were standing .
That message had been decided for Putin by the Stavka ; the time of the call had been pre-arranged between the two presidents ’ staffs .
In anticipation and before Erdogan telephoned , Putin met with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call was reported by the Kremlin at 2030 .
The Council met several hours earlier , and the record posted at 16:10 .
Then it was reported : “ The situation around Idlib , including in the context of a telephone conversation between the Russian and Turkish presidents scheduled for the evening of February 21 , was discussed in detail.
” Putin — the message for Erdogan was telegraphed in advance — would speak for the collective .
According to the Russian version of the telephone conversation , “ Vladimir Putin raised serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extremist groups ” – that also included Turkish artillery barrages and Turkish movement into Syria of fresh fighting vehicles , armour , ammunition , and missiles .
“ Emphasis was put on the necessity to unconditionally respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic ” – that meant the recapture of the M4 highway , consolidation of Syrian control of the M5 , and an end to Turkish “ observation posts ” working as shields for jihadi offensives .
It also meant that the Russian Air Force and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space from Turkish incursions .
“ The two presidents agreed , ” claimed the communiqué , “ to encourage bilateral interagency consultations on Idlib to ease tensions , provide for a ceasefire and neutralise the terrorist threat .
They reaffirmed that contact between military agencies would continue in a more intense manner.
” Again , this is boots on the ground doing the talking , not the Sochi paperwork , nor the pro-Turkish lobby which has been influential over Putin until now .
For that , click to read .
Putin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own retreat on February 12 .
“ The Syrian military in Idlib strikes at terrorists and not at civilians , said the Press Secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov .
Earlier , Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has accused Moscow and Damascus in the attack on the civilian population .
‘ As for the attacks on Idlib , which are carried out by the Syrian military , these are attacks on terrorists , not on civilians .
Their goal is to neutralize the terrorists and neutralize their aggressive activities that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Peskov said .
He assessed the situation as ‘ tense ’ and it continues to cause concern .
The Press Secretary recalled the Sochi agreements with Turkey , according to which Ankara was supposed to neutralize the terrorists in Idlib .
But , according to Mr. Peskov , terrorist organizations are still striking Syrian troops and Russian military targets.
” A week later on February 19 , Peskov ’ s position lost its ambiguity .
He was now talking about the Turks .
“ We used to be satisfied with the agreements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago and this satisfaction was mutual .
However , we are completely dissatisfied now that militants and terrorists have begun advancing from Idlib and attacking Syrian forces and Russian military installations.
” Erdogan ’ s application to Washington for US Patriot missiles on his side of the Syrian border left Peskov with no defence against Shoigu , Lavrov and Gerasimov ; their we-told-you-so is a high-precision guided missile .
Without US reinforcements , plus missile cover for the Turkish Air Force in Syrian airspace , it is the US and Russian assessment that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough troops to hold the Idlib buffer zone or the M4 highway line against the Syrian advance – just enough troops to risk a rout .
According to this analysis by South Front , “ in the framework of the [ Sochi ] agreements , Turkey established 12 observation posts .
As the Syrian Army was advancing into Idlib , Ankara created a plethora of additional military positions in a failed attempt to stop the collapse of militants ’ defence .
These efforts brought the total number of Turkish military installations in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from various footage , there are between one dozen and two dozen soldiers , as well as 4-6 military vehicles at every post located within the areas currently controlled by the Syrian government .
The recently created posts are much stronger and can be described as real military positions with battle tanks , howitzers , mortars and fortified structures .
The estimated total number of military equipment deployed by the Turkish Armed Forces in Idlib stands at 3,000 .
Since February 2nd , Turkey deployed 2,315 trucks and military vehicles , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has positioned approximately 30,000 troops along the Syrian border in case of an escalation .
The equipment and weapons that are being delivered include armoured trucks , MRAPs [ Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles ] armoured personnel carriers , battle tanks , ATGMs , various artillery pieces and rocket launchers .
Army troops are reinforced with a notable number of special forces.
” If this current 7,000 number is correct , South Front calculates that it compares to the Turkish force total of 8,000 in Operation Euphrates Shield ( August 2016-March 2017 ) ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 ) ; and 15,000 in Operation Peace Spring ( October-November 2019 ) .
The earlier operations were enough to defeat Kurdish and ISIS forces which lacked firepower and air support .
Not this time , though , against the Russian-Syrian combination .
“ It is unlikely , ” according to South Front , “ that the Turkish forces currently deployed in Idlib and northwestern Syria will be enough to turn into reality Erdogan ’ s threats and promises .
So , Turkey should hurry up and increase its military group in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters should start preparing for March 1 , the day when the dreams about the swift and powerful Turkish victory over ‘ Assad forces ’ will be broken by the reality.
” This is also the assessment of the Russian General Staff and its military intelligence .
Erdogan , reported Yevgeny Krutikov in Vzglyad , has miscalculated his ability to hold on to Idlib , and as the scale of his defeat has materialized , he has “ become hysterical… The restoration of government control over the M5 highway and , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just the military , but the political situation in Idlib .
The issue is not only to restore direct communication , and thus supply Aleppo from the central regions of the country , but also to return to government control a strategic position in the western part of the province of Aleppo and in the southern part of Idlib .
The city of Idlib is about 10-12 kilometers away .
More than 600 localities have come under government control as a result of the offensive , and the main jihadist group in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this victory dramatically strengthens Damascus ’ negotiating positions on the future structure of Syria.
” “ The main goal of the first stage of operation Idlib Dawn was to capture the locality of Saraqib and its surroundings , where the M5 and M4 highways converge ( Damascus – Hama – Aleppo and Latakia – Aleppo ) .
On Sunday [ February 16 ] , this goal was achieved .
Syrian government forces continued their advance against the already collapsed jihadist front and took control of the entire stretch of the strategic highway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
At the moment it is fully under control .
Combat security is not yet everywhere , and in some areas the highway remains the front line , but movement along it is already possible for military equipment…Such a successful advance of the Government army destroys Turkey ’ s plans to consolidate its positions in Idlib .
By remaining in Idlib indefinitely , Ankara could directly intervene in Syria ’ s affairs as an ‘ interested party ’ , participate in the negotiation process , and even claim physical control over part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
This explained the build-up of the Turkish military presence in the immediate combat zone.
” “ The Turkish side did everything it could to prevent the government troops from solving the important political and strategic task of regaining control of the M5 highway .
After this failed , and the militants abandoned all the strategic positions they had held for eight years , calls to Moscow and ultimatums to Damascus began… in these new conditions , the Turkish influence in Idlib will really be reduced to what is written in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ankara interpreted in its own way.
” Russian analysts in Moscow treat the Russian position towards the Turks as a unified one .
They differ on the readiness for compromise between Putin and Erdogan ; they don ’ t mention that between Putin and his advisers .
“ The Russian side does not proceed from Erdogan ’ s ‘ wish list ’ but from Ankara ’ s realistic interests , ” George Mirzayan , a professor at the Financial University under the Russian government ( FinU ) , told Vzglyad last week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the Syrian-Turkish border and protect Turkey from the flow of refugees .
That is , roughly speaking , to be able to keep refugees from Idlib in some part of the Syrian territory controlled by Turkey .
Therefore , [ the Russian side has ] assumed that Turkey retains influence in a small part of Idlib along the Turkish border and over the Kurdish territories that it already controls .
Bashar al-Assad , according to Russia ’ s proposal , liberates the rest of Idlib province .
Later , when the parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country would come under Assad ’ s control.
” Kirill Semenov , head of the Islamic Studies Center at the Innovation Development Institute of Moscow , told Vzglyad in the same publication the loss of Idlib city and most of the province would be a strategic defeat for Erdogan , but he doesn ’ t yet know where to draw a red line his army can defend .
“ It is unlikely that Turkey will be ready to expel Assad ’ s troops from their positions on a large scale , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means the Turks will react more harshly to Assad ’ s attempts to move forward .
So far , we don ’ t see any Turkish activity to prevent the Syrian Army ’ s offensive , so it ’ s hard to say how ready Turkey is for this .
”

The Russian and Syrian general staffs and their men have been doing to the Turks what no one has achieved in the Middle East since 1917.
So the Sultan has called the Tsar – three times this month so far; in January, once by telephone, twice in face-to-face meetings; and twice by telephone in December. Every time the telephone rings, it is, as the Kremlin communiqué doesn’t fail to mention, “at the Turkish side’s initiative.”
On the battlefields of northwest Syria, the initiative at the start of each day has been the Turkish side’s, too. But at the end of the day the Russians have inflicted defeat. Not often in five hundred years of communications between the Porte and the Kremlin, has the subliminal message been so clear. There is another subliminal message from the Kremlin. “We,” Dmitry Peskov, the Turkish-speaking spokesman for the Russian President, said on Wednesday. “used to be satisfied with the agreements reached in Sochi more than a year ago and this satisfaction was mutual. However, we are completely dissatisfied now that militants and terrorists have begun advancing from Idlib and attacking Syrian forces and Russian military installations.” This is a signal from the Moscow lobby for the Turks that it too is in retreat — from the Russian Defence Ministry and the General Staff.
The battle maps and operation assessments published in the Arabic media, and added to by Moon of Alabama and South Front, show the Turkish-occupied area of Syria (green on the map) is being steadily squeezed by Syrian and Russian forces (red) north and westwards to the Syrian-Turkish border, clearing first the M5 national highway into western Aleppo, and then the M4. At the same time, further to the east as the M4 approaches the Iraqi border, small American units are being deployed without warning or agreement to deter the coming allied advance.
The tactical Russian objective is to deter Turkish-directed attacks against the Syrian advance, and if they break through Syrian lines, as occurred at Al-Nayrab, east of Idlib late last week, to repeal the thrust, and drive the Turks back. The strategic objective is to eliminate the Turkish-backed jihadi forces and the Turkish “observation posts” and “buffer zone” created by the two agreements Erdogan arranged with Putin at Sochi in September 2018 and October last year. For the texts of those agreements, and Putin’s concessions, read this and this.
What is happening now on the ground is the military implementation of the letter of the agreements, instead of the interpretation the Kremlin allowed the Turks at the time. The Stavka, as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and the General Staff, headed by Valery Gerasimov, can be called, have achieved on the ground what Erdogan thought he had taken from Putin on paper.
“Nobody gave a promise to terrorists,” Lavrov said on Wednesday, “ that they would be safe in the Idlib zone, just read the agreements between the Russian and Turkish presidents and everything will fall into place.” Lavrov was referring explicitly to Points 3, 5 and 7 of last year’s Sochi agreement; they also disallow the new deployments of Turkish artillery and tanks beyond the 32-km line from the Turkish frontier.
The next day, February 20, Lavrov’s spokesman Maria Zakharova amplified the geography set down in Point 1 of the Sochi agreement:
“As for [Erdogan] demanding that the Syrian Government or Syrian forces do anything in Syria, the first thing to remember is that Syria is a sovereign state. The Syrian armed forces are operating on their own land. This must be the basic principle. Of course, the Syrian army is interacting with military personnel from Russia and other countries, yet the international community must never forget the basic principle I have mentioned. Such statements should be made through special channels, which will be more effective.”
On Saturday February 22, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu discussed with Turkish Defence Minister, General Hulisi Akar, the fighting in the Idlib zone. “During the phone conversation,” the state Sputnik news agency reported, “[the ministers] discussed the issues [related to the] stabilization of the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone,” the ministry said. According to the MoD, the two sides exchanged opinions on the situation in Syria more broadly. No further information about the call was provided.”
Press statements from Shoigu’s subordinates have explicitly called Turkish claims lies, and spelled out the reinforcements Erdogan has been sending into the zone. “There is no confirmation to reports that ‘about a million’ refugees are moving from the de-escalation zone in Idlib to the Syrian-Turkish border, the head of the Russian Centre for the Reconciliation of the warring parties in Syria, Rear-Admiral Oleg Zhuravlev said. ‘The information about the alleged ‘hundreds of thousands’ of civilian residents of the province heading for the Syrian-Turkish border because of military clashes between terrorists and the Syrian government forces in the east of the province is not true,’ he said. Transport routes in Idlib have been working as usual these past few weeks, which has made it possible to move weapons and cargo transport with ammunition from Turkey into the area, he added.”
“Earlier this week, the Russian Defence Ministry said militants loyal to Ankara and supported by Turkish artillery had attacked the defences of the Syrian army near the villages of Qmenas and Nerab in Idlib. Russia’s Su-24 aircraft fired at the militants and helped the army repel the attack. According to the Turkish Defence Ministry, two Turkish soldiers were killed and five more injured in the attack in Idlib, while more than 50 Syrians were killed in the retaliatory fire.”
Erdogan’s calls to Putin have been a last resort to cover his attempted breakouts in Idlib and prevent a rout of his men to the border.
The reply of the Stavka is that if the Turks use artillery and armour in support of attacks on the Syrian Army or Russian zone patrols by Turkish proxy troops and Turkish regulars, the Russian Air Force will counter-attack and repulse them.
On February 12 the Kremlin communiqué of Erdogan’s call reported: “Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan continued the discussion regarding various aspects of the Syrian peace process, primarily in the context of the recent aggravation in the Idlib de-escalation zone. They also noted the importance of the full implementation of the existing Russian-Turkish agreements, including the Sochi Memorandum of September 17, 2018. Additional contacts between the relevant government agencies were planned for these purposes.” “Full implementation” has meant something entirely different to Erdogan from the Russian interpretation, but Putin didn’t exactly say so, according to the public record. Instead, he has allowed “the relevant government agencies” to do the interpreting and implementing; that’s to say, boots on the ground, and in the air.
As Erdogan escalated his public threats, and the Russian-Syrian forces defeated him, the Turkish president telephoned again: “The focus of the conversation was again on the developments in the Idlib de-escalation zone,” the Kremlin report said, emphasizing that Putin’s mouth was still where his Syrian boots were standing.
That message had been decided for Putin by the Stavka; the time of the call had been pre-arranged between the two presidents’ staffs. In anticipation and before Erdogan telephoned, Putin met with the Security Council. Erdogan’s call was reported by the Kremlin at 2030. The Council met several hours earlier, and the record posted at 16:10. Then it was reported: “The situation around Idlib, including in the context of a telephone conversation between the Russian and Turkish presidents scheduled for the evening of February 21, was discussed in detail.”
Putin — the message for Erdogan was telegraphed in advance — would speak for the collective. According to the Russian version of the telephone conversation, “Vladimir Putin raised serious concerns over the continuing aggressive actions of the extremist groups” – that also included Turkish artillery barrages and Turkish movement into Syria of fresh fighting vehicles, armour, ammunition, and missiles. “Emphasis was put on the necessity to unconditionally respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic” – that meant the recapture of the M4 highway, consolidation of Syrian control of the M5, and an end to Turkish “observation posts” working as shields for jihadi offensives. It also meant that the Russian Air Force and its ground-based missile units would defend Syrian air space from Turkish incursions.
“The two presidents agreed,” claimed the communiqué, “to encourage bilateral interagency consultations on Idlib to ease tensions, provide for a ceasefire and neutralise the terrorist threat. They reaffirmed that contact between military agencies would continue in a more intense manner.” Again, this is boots on the ground doing the talking, not the Sochi paperwork, nor the pro-Turkish lobby which has been influential over Putin until now. For that, click to read.
Putin’s [sometimes pro-Turkish] spokesman Peskov signaled his own retreat on February 12. “The Syrian military in Idlib strikes at terrorists and not at civilians, said the Press Secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov. Earlier, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has accused Moscow and Damascus in the attack on the civilian population. ‘As for the attacks on Idlib, which are carried out by the Syrian military, these are attacks on terrorists, not on civilians. Their goal is to neutralize the terrorists and neutralize their aggressive activities that they carry out from there,’ Mr. Peskov said. He assessed the situation as ‘tense’ and it continues to cause concern. The Press Secretary recalled the Sochi agreements with Turkey, according to which Ankara was supposed to neutralize the terrorists in Idlib. But, according to Mr. Peskov, terrorist organizations are still striking Syrian troops and Russian military targets.”
A week later on February 19, Peskov’s position lost its ambiguity. He was now talking about the Turks. “We used to be satisfied with the agreements reached in Sochi more than a year ago and this satisfaction was mutual. However, we are completely dissatisfied now that militants and terrorists have begun advancing from Idlib and attacking Syrian forces and Russian military installations.”
Erdogan’s application to Washington for US Patriot missiles on his side of the Syrian border left Peskov with no defence against Shoigu, Lavrov and Gerasimov; their we-told-you-so is a high-precision guided missile.
Without US reinforcements, plus missile cover for the Turkish Air Force in Syrian airspace, it is the US and Russian assessment that Erdogan hasn’t sent into Syria enough troops to hold the Idlib buffer zone or the M4 highway line against the Syrian advance – just enough troops to risk a rout. According to this analysis by South Front, “in the framework of the [Sochi] agreements, Turkey established 12 observation posts. As the Syrian Army was advancing into Idlib, Ankara created a plethora of additional military positions in a failed attempt to stop the collapse of militants’ defence. These efforts brought the total number of Turkish military installations in the region up to 27.”
“Judging from various footage, there are between one dozen and two dozen soldiers, as well as 4-6 military vehicles at every post located within the areas currently controlled by the Syrian government. The recently created posts are much stronger and can be described as real military positions with battle tanks, howitzers, mortars and fortified structures. The estimated total number of military equipment deployed by the Turkish Armed Forces in Idlib stands at 3,000. Since February 2nd, Turkey deployed 2,315 trucks and military vehicles, as well as 7,000 soldiers. Meanwhile, Turkey has positioned approximately 30,000 troops along the Syrian border in case of an escalation. The equipment and weapons that are being delivered include armoured trucks, MRAPs [Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles] armoured personnel carriers, battle tanks, ATGMs , various artillery pieces and rocket launchers. Army troops are reinforced with a notable number of special forces.”
If this current 7,000 number is correct, South Front calculates that it compares to the Turkish force total of 8,000 in Operation Euphrates Shield ( August 2016-March 2017); 6,000 in Operation Olive Branch (January-March 2018); and 15,000 in Operation Peace Spring (October-November 2019). The earlier operations were enough to defeat Kurdish and ISIS forces which lacked firepower and air support.
Not this time, though, against the Russian-Syrian combination. “It is unlikely,” according to South Front, “that the Turkish forces currently deployed in Idlib and northwestern Syria will be enough to turn into reality Erdogan’s threats and promises. So, Turkey should hurry up and increase its military group in the area by several times, or Erdogan supporters should start preparing for March 1, the day when the dreams about the swift and powerful Turkish victory over ‘Assad forces’ will be broken by the reality.”
This is also the assessment of the Russian General Staff and its military intelligence. Erdogan, reported Yevgeny Krutikov in Vzglyad, has miscalculated his ability to hold on to Idlib, and as the scale of his defeat has materialized, he has “become hysterical… The restoration of government control over the M5 highway and, in the future, over the M4 radically changes not just the military, but the political situation in Idlib. The issue is not only to restore direct communication, and thus supply Aleppo from the central regions of the country, but also to return to government control a strategic position in the western part of the province of Aleppo and in the southern part of Idlib. The city of Idlib is about 10-12 kilometers away. More than 600 localities have come under government control as a result of the offensive, and the main jihadist group in this area has been almost crushed – and this victory dramatically strengthens Damascus’ negotiating positions on the future structure of Syria.”
“The main goal of the first stage of operation Idlib Dawn was to capture the locality of Saraqib and its surroundings, where the M5 and M4 highways converge (Damascus – Hama – Aleppo and Latakia – Aleppo). On Sunday [February 16], this goal was achieved. Syrian government forces continued their advance against the already collapsed jihadist front and took control of the entire stretch of the strategic highway which the bandits had held for eight years. At the moment it is fully under control. Combat security is not yet everywhere, and in some areas the highway remains the front line, but movement along it is already possible for military equipment…Such a successful advance of the Government army destroys Turkey’s plans to consolidate its positions in Idlib. By remaining in Idlib indefinitely, Ankara could directly intervene in Syria’s affairs as an ‘interested party’, participate in the negotiation process, and even claim physical control over part of Syria’s territory in the future. This explained the build-up of the Turkish military presence in the immediate combat zone.”
“The Turkish side did everything it could to prevent the government troops from solving the important political and strategic task of regaining control of the M5 highway. After this failed, and the militants abandoned all the strategic positions they had held for eight years, calls to Moscow and ultimatums to Damascus began… in these new conditions, the Turkish influence in Idlib will really be reduced to what is written in the Sochi agreements, which until this moment Ankara interpreted in its own way.”
Russian analysts in Moscow treat the Russian position towards the Turks as a unified one. They differ on the readiness for compromise between Putin and Erdogan; they don’t mention that between Putin and his advisers. “The Russian side does not proceed from Erdogan’s ‘wish list’ but from Ankara’s realistic interests,” George Mirzayan, a professor at the Financial University under the Russian government (FinU), told Vzglyad last week. “Those interests are to maintain control over the Syrian-Turkish border and protect Turkey from the flow of refugees. That is, roughly speaking, to be able to keep refugees from Idlib in some part of the Syrian territory controlled by Turkey. Therefore, [the Russian side has] assumed that Turkey retains influence in a small part of Idlib along the Turkish border and over the Kurdish territories that it already controls. Bashar al-Assad, according to Russia’s proposal, liberates the rest of Idlib province. Later, when the parties agree again, the remaining territory of the country would come under Assad’s control.”
Kirill Semenov, head of the Islamic Studies Center at the Innovation Development Institute of Moscow, told Vzglyad in the same publication the loss of Idlib city and most of the province would be a strategic defeat for Erdogan, but he doesn’t yet know where to draw a red line his army can defend. “It is unlikely that Turkey will be ready to expel Assad’s troops from their positions on a large scale, as Erdogan threatens. Most likely, this means the Turks will react more harshly to Assad’s attempts to move forward. So far, we don’t see any Turkish activity to prevent the Syrian Army’s offensive, so it’s hard to say how ready Turkey is for this.”