Written by Nasser Kandil,
The historical moment of the Russian American meeting is similar to the moment which the French people who resisted the Nazism lived, those who most of them belonged to the Socialist and the Communist parties, on the eve of the Normandy’s landings on the beaches of France before the Soviet success of entering to Berlin. Some of them said that the Americans who formed the most advanced version of the capitalism’s development were not serious about getting rid of the Nazism as a distorted version of the Capitalism, because they would make use of it as a tool to exhaust the Left, to prevent the growing of its global power, and to crush the liberation movements by dual administration that tried to make use of the Soviet force, in addition to the capacities of the resistance movement and the national armies to prevent the expansion of the Nazism, and the turning into an active pole in the international politics, in return they would try to make use of the Nazism through well considered administration to fight it but at the same time to prevent its fall or its expansion in order to be the alternative balance element which would relieve America from standing against the Soviet Union, the resistance and the liberation movements.
The former French Presidents the late Charles de Gaulle and Francois Mitterrand were sharing the leadership of the French resistance, the first was leading units of the French army that refused to cooperate with the Nazi occupation, and the second was a leader of the popular resistance which was formed from the Socialists and the Communists. The harmony between the two men was a guarantee of the unity of the resistance on the approach to benefit from the American and the Soviet positions in fighting the Nazism, and keeping the liberation of France on one hand, and its independence on the other hand. These two priorities determined the position of the resistance. Therefore De Gaulle was confident of the ability of the resistance which led by Mitterrand and of the credibility of its cooperation with the Soviet support, he accepted to be the connection bridge between the two wings of the resistance and the US forces which started to prepare for the Normandy landings. The idea which the two men formulated for the resistance fighters said that the Americans were serious that time to land on the Normandy because of two reasons; the confidence that the Nazism is able to expand and to stretch unless it is crushed, and the second reason is that the rolling Soviet victory with the cooperation of the national resistance movements in Europe will make the chance of the fall of the Nazism a complete victory for the Soviets, and thus a preparation for their uniqueness in leading the post- war world.
De Gaulle who was in London was providing Mitterrand who was leading the groups of the resistance with whatever data he got, Mitterrand was the philosopher of the resistance and its writer, he formulated in a mediation language between the Left and the sincere nationalism. So that was common thought between him and De Gaulle. the Normandy’s landings has allowed him to come as a liberation fighter to France without neglecting his independent national thinking, and what the historical novels showed of the continuous collision between him and the Americans and the British. That has been shown repeatedly in the sixtieth by announcing the determination to get out of the NATO, and after the reach of the Soviet and the American troops to the gates of Berlin, and the liberation of France from the Nazism, De Gaulle and Mitterrand have shared ten years of the common rule of France then they alternated on the rule after that nearly thirty years.
After years that are similar to the years of the Second World War in the American temper in Al-Qaeda organization and making use of it from far as a means for attrition, creating chaos, blackmailing and imposing conditions, and threatening of changing the regional maps., and after years of the bet that Turkey has to play a similar role to the role played by Britain in the Second World War, the steadfastness of Syria accompanied with Russia and Iran succeeded in creating facts that are similar to what has happened after the steadfastness of Moscow and the victories of its army and people in Stalingrad’s battles against the Nazism, and its outburst in the big rolling attack towards Berlin. While the Nazism is revenging by igniting fire in London, as the terrorism ignites the capitals of the West today. But the Turkish President Recep Erdogan is not Winston Churchill; therefore Turkey becomes a burden not a supporter. On the other bank the Syrian President is succeeding in embodying the historic combination of the figures of De Gaulle and Mitterrand, he leads the resistance of his people and army against the new Nazism which is represented by the terrorism that is coming from the confine of the extremism of the atoning thought, and Berlin which is represented today by the Northern and the Eastern of Syria has become under fire, where the Syrian, the Russian and the Iranian allies agree that August is the month of the final word in the war whether the American came or not.
Many think that the Americans are still manipulating with the options and they bet on managing the balances, the matter here is not related to the intentions but to the capacities. Those who think that, are not distinguished that they are the most skeptical of the US intentions which are not indisputable of their badness, but the matter is that the suspicion of the intentions leads many times to understand completely the exaggerated confidence of the capacities, so the weak who is doomed with options is granted the ability of the maneuver which he does not have, as the situation of the Americans on the eve of the invasion of the Normandy. So it can be said that the Americans who are represented today by John Kerry in his negotiations with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov have shared with the Russians secrets for understandings that their allies do not know and they do not want them to know. There is no secret that the Americas are afraid because they admitted finally of the inevitability of the cooperation within an equation in which the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad forms a touchstone. The ideal landing was in the French Normandy. So it must cooperate with Charles de Gaulle despite the enmity and the hatred which Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt boasted of against him, as the British Foreign documents about an understanding between Roosevelt and Churchill that reported the lack of confidence of De Gaulle but the inevitability to cooperate with him.
The coming days and weeks are critical as were the days of the Normandy landings and the entry to Berlin. The Third World War approaches of its end, it draws its balances and equations, and it writes the names of its leaders. As the war has shown the name of De Gaulle as a symbol of victory despite the roles of the Soviet and the American armies, and the roles of the leaders as Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill, the French resistance accompanied with Charles De Gaulle and despite the hatred of Roosevelt and Churchill towards him has entered the pages of the war history as a distinction for achieving the victory on the Nazism, therefore the modern history will record in the war on the new Nazism the name of the Syrian President who is similar to what the US President Barack Obama has said about him what Franklin Roosevelt has said about Charles De Gaulle; I do not like this man and I cannot imagine France under his rule.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,