Topic: The Many Colors of the Syrian Revolution (Read 24 times)
The Syrian dictator Assad has a serious problem, he has lost Aleppo, a city with an important strategic position. The Russian military contingent was powerless to resist.
Alik Bakhshi
The Many Colors of the Syrian Revolution
The Arab Revolution that reached Syria was the detonator of a mine laid by France and Great Britain after the First World War. Then, like a pack of wolves, the victorious countries tore apart the defeated body of the Ottoman Empire, dividing the territories among themselves, without taking into account the ethnic and religious composition of the population. As a result, the Middle East was divided into many Arab states, two of which, namely Syria and Iraq, found themselves in the most difficult situation. The fact is that three large, completely different ethnic groups of the population fell within the borders of these countries, artificially created by the colonial powers: Arabs, Kurds and Turks or Turkmens, which is the same thing. Naturally, and also taking into account the historical traditions and mentality of the peoples of the East, these states could function only under dictatorship. Only dictatorial regimes could exercise power and keep such a motley population in obedience. In general, this was the case until America in 2003, due to the stupidity of Bush Jr., under a far-fetched pretext, overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime, after which Iraq plunged into the bloody slaughter of an endless civil war (1). Attempts to establish Democracy in Iraq have completely failed, because it is impossible to introduce democratic values on the bayonets of marines to a people who, for objective reasons, are not ready to accept them.
A somewhat different picture is observed in Syria, where part of the most advanced population itself, without external interference, rose up against the dictator Bashar al-Assad, forming an armed opposition - the Free Syrian Army. Against the background of the civil war that began, significantly weakening the central government, new interested players emerged from various ethnic and religious groups of the population of Syria, who also began to defend their interests with the help of weapons. Soon, on the heterogeneous political field of Syria, a powerful religious movement emerged, sweeping the Middle East, which aimed to create on a vast territory, including Syria and Iraq, an Islamic Arab state similar to the Islamic state in Iran, a kind of new Caliphate - ISIS. The savage cruelty of executions of prisoners, demonstrated by ISIS members to intimidate their opponents, alarmed the world community. ISIS was outlawed, the need to fight this extremist movement became obvious. Assad did not have the strength to resist the chaos engulfing his country, cases of officer desertion in his army became more frequent and, if we take into account the fact that the democratic countries of the West are unequivocally opposed to his bloody regime, then its fall was predetermined.
However, Russia's military intervention on Assad's side saved the regime from inevitable defeat. It should be noted that Moscow has always supported totalitarian regimes as close in spirit to it. So Putin's regime hastened to come to the aid of the Syrian dictator, temporarily postponing the end of his rule. With all this, it is difficult to imagine that Russia's intervention in Syrian affairs is explained only by Putin's intention to save Bashar al-Assad from popular wrath, to prevent a repeat of the massacre of the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. In Syria, Putin is pursuing several goals. One of them is the creation of a permanent Russian naval base in the Mediterranean, not so much to counter the US Sixth Fleet, but to demonstrate a military presence and restore Russia's military power. In addition, a military base in another state is a lever for pursuing one's policy, which is well demonstrated in the case of the Baltic states, which allowed the Russians to create military bases on their territory, after which they were all immediately annexed en masse. And a very recent example is Ukraine, which leased a naval base in Sevastopol to Russia, for which it paid with the annexation of Crimea. It must be said that Moscow, even during the Soviet era, courted dictators in Damascus and Baghdad, but Saddam Hussein was unlucky enough to be hanged, while Bashar al-Assad finally fell into the Kremlin's net. Undoubtedly, by sending Russian soldiers to Syria, Putin satisfied the imperial mentality of the Russian people, who suffered somewhat after the partial collapse of the empire. It is also possible that Putin's military adventure in Syria, according to his plan, should dilute the world community's attention to the annexation of Crimea and the separation of the eastern part of Ukraine. And yet, in my opinion, the main reason for the intervention lies in the economic plane. The fact is that by violating the established post-war world order (2), and secretly setting out to recreate the Russian empire within the borders of the former USSR, the revanchist Putin, like Hitler once did, overestimated his strength.
Russia, being the world's gas station, seeks to maintain a monopoly on hydrocarbon supplies to the EU as the only source of revenue for the state budget, and in this regard, destabilization of the situation in the Middle East seems favorable to Putin. The fact is that in the future, gas pipelines are planned to be laid through countries such as Turkey, Syria and Iraq to Europe, one from Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Iran through Turkey and the second from Qatar through Syria to Turkey. The implementation of these projects, of course, and Putin understands this well, will put an end to Russia's monopoly on the European gas market. By making Assad his puppet, Putin has a chance to prevent the laying of a gas pipeline through Syria. Putin can also play the Kurdish card, because in any case, gas pipelines from Qatar will run through areas with a Kurdish population. As for the other branch of the gas pipeline from the Caspian region, Putin has the Armenian card with the smoldering Karabakh conflict in his hands and there is no doubt that Putin will not use any opportunity to prevent the implementation of these projects, which are capable of collapsing the one-sided economy of Russia and leading to an economic situation in which the Soviet Union collapsed. Thus, the presence of Russians in Syria pursues purely Russian interests, the victims of which are the Syrian people. Saving the dictator, Russian planes practically with impunity iron out first the territory under the control of the opposition Free Syrian Army, and then ISIS.
After the joint efforts of the military coalition led by America managed to defeat the ISIS militants, peace, as expected, did not come. The fact is that in order to achieve their goals, the interested parties relied on local forces, supplying them with weapons. Thus, the Americans armed not only the Iraqi government troops to fight ISIS, but also the Kurds, who, taking advantage of the civil war and weakened central government, set the goal of creating a Kurdish state. The latter caused a protest from Turkey and complicated American-Turkish relations, already strained, due to America's failure to extradite Fethullah Gulen, whom the Turks consider the ideological leader of the failed coup in 2016 (3). True, the Americans promised the Turks to stop supplying weapons to the Kurds after the victory over ISIS. Turkey, in turn, provides assistance to the Syrian opposition and the local Turkic population, oppressed by both government troops and Kurdish militants. Russia is fighting on Assad's side mainly against the opposition. Iran is sending soldiers to help Assad and Hezbollah. And the main thing is that the weapons supplied to Syria have not disappeared anywhere and no one is going to hand them over after the defeat of ISIS due to the mutual distrust of all interested parties.
A large number of opposing sides with mutually exclusive plans for the future excludes the possibility of restoring statehood in its previous form. Moscow's hope for an end to the civil war in Syria with the defeat of ISIS is illusory. The news that government troops, with the support of Russia, control almost 89% of Syria's territory turned out to be not only premature, but also very far from reality. The mortar shelling of the Russian embassy in Damascus testifies to the opposite. In fact, everything is just beginning. Thus, Assad's attempt to regain control of the left bank of the Euphrates with its oil wells failed. The forces of the Syrian opposition, with the assistance of American aviation, utterly defeated the government troops approaching this area. It is not known whether there were Russian military instructors there, but Wagner's symphony over dozens of dead Russian mercenaries sounded very convincing, and the Kremlin's silence indicates that Putin has clearly tucked his tail between his legs and it is unlikely that Assad will make another attempt to seize this oil-rich region in the future.
This military episode shows, firstly, that America has not abandoned its original policy of supporting the democratic opposition, and secondly, it highlights the fundamental disagreement between Washington and Moscow in their plans for the future structure of Syria as a state. The constant threat of a direct military clash of aircraft with serious consequences undoubtedly causes Putin's concerns. Moscow is keeping a low profile, avoiding confrontation. As in the case when American Tomahawks blew to shreds the airfield from which Assad's aircraft struck the opposition with chemical weapons, the Kremlin has also received the Americans' latest military action without a note of protest. Here it is necessary to highlight the fact that the Russians did not dare to use the deployed S-300. The question arises, why are the vaunted S-300 needed in Syria in such a case, if not for this case, since the opposition has neither Tomahawks nor aircraft to use such a high-precision air defense system.
Another active player in the region, Erdogan, assessing the current situation, undoubtedly understands the danger posed by the militants of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), who control almost half of the territory bordering Turkey. And now, after the problem with ISIS has been solved, nothing prevents the Kurds from pursuing their main goal - the creation of Kurdistan. Assad will not dare to attack the Kurds because they have no goal of overthrowing his government, unlike the democratic opposition supported by America and Turkey. Erdogan wanted to overthrow Assad from the very beginning of the revolution. Most likely, Assad will come to terms with the loss of part of the territory in favor of the Kurds, who can serve as a shield from a more dangerous neighbor from the North - Turkey. Before creating their own state, the Kurds need to clear the territory of 2.5 million Turkmens (10% of the total population) living mainly in northwestern Syria in the provinces of Idlib and Aleppo, who suffered the most in the civil war. Russian aviation mercilessly bombed and continues to bomb these provinces. Incidentally, Russian planes were shot down in those areas. Today, the situation around Afrin in the province of Aleppo is particularly difficult, where PKK units are essentially exterminating local Turks, and this is despite the fact that a Russian monitoring mission is in Afrin. Erdogan has repeatedly raised the issue of the situation in Afrin, but it seems he did not find understanding. In connection with this, on January 20, Erdogan was forced to announce the start of the military operation "Olifka Branch". As a result, the Turkish army is in Aleppo and Idlib. I would like to note that the famous Russian political scientist Satanovsky considered Turkey's intervention in Syria unlikely (4) and was wrong.
The emergence of a new player in Syria makes the situation so confusing that one can expect peace soon for as long as one wants. It is absolutely clear that Syria as a single state can no longer function. The only outcome is seen in the disintegration of Syria into several independent countries, taking into account ethnic and religious differences. The Arab revolution in Syria turned out to be multicolored, but, unfortunately, in the absence of pink.
1. A camel for the president. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/5271.html
2. Putin and his new world disorder. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/35844.html
3. To the failed military coup in Turkey. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/29886.html
4. https://vpk-news.ru/articles/40255
02/13/18
The Many Colors of the Syrian Revolution
The Arab Revolution that reached Syria was the detonator of a mine laid by France and Great Britain after the First World War. Then, like a pack of wolves, the victorious countries tore apart the defeated body of the Ottoman Empire, dividing the territories among themselves, without taking into account the ethnic and religious composition of the population. As a result, the Middle East was divided into many Arab states, two of which, namely Syria and Iraq, found themselves in the most difficult situation. The fact is that three large, completely different ethnic groups of the population fell within the borders of these countries, artificially created by the colonial powers: Arabs, Kurds and Turks or Turkmens, which is the same thing. Naturally, and also taking into account the historical traditions and mentality of the peoples of the East, these states could function only under dictatorship. Only dictatorial regimes could exercise power and keep such a motley population in obedience. In general, this was the case until America in 2003, due to the stupidity of Bush Jr., under a far-fetched pretext, overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime, after which Iraq plunged into the bloody slaughter of an endless civil war (1). Attempts to establish Democracy in Iraq have completely failed, because it is impossible to introduce democratic values on the bayonets of marines to a people who, for objective reasons, are not ready to accept them.
A somewhat different picture is observed in Syria, where part of the most advanced population itself, without external interference, rose up against the dictator Bashar al-Assad, forming an armed opposition - the Free Syrian Army. Against the background of the civil war that began, significantly weakening the central government, new interested players emerged from various ethnic and religious groups of the population of Syria, who also began to defend their interests with the help of weapons. Soon, on the heterogeneous political field of Syria, a powerful religious movement emerged, sweeping the Middle East, which aimed to create on a vast territory, including Syria and Iraq, an Islamic Arab state similar to the Islamic state in Iran, a kind of new Caliphate - ISIS. The savage cruelty of executions of prisoners, demonstrated by ISIS members to intimidate their opponents, alarmed the world community. ISIS was outlawed, the need to fight this extremist movement became obvious. Assad did not have the strength to resist the chaos engulfing his country, cases of officer desertion in his army became more frequent and, if we take into account the fact that the democratic countries of the West are unequivocally opposed to his bloody regime, then its fall was predetermined.
However, Russia's military intervention on Assad's side saved the regime from inevitable defeat. It should be noted that Moscow has always supported totalitarian regimes as close in spirit to it. So Putin's regime hastened to come to the aid of the Syrian dictator, temporarily postponing the end of his rule. With all this, it is difficult to imagine that Russia's intervention in Syrian affairs is explained only by Putin's intention to save Bashar al-Assad from popular wrath, to prevent a repeat of the massacre of the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. In Syria, Putin is pursuing several goals. One of them is the creation of a permanent Russian naval base in the Mediterranean, not so much to counter the US Sixth Fleet, but to demonstrate a military presence and restore Russia's military power. In addition, a military base in another state is a lever for pursuing one's policy, which is well demonstrated in the case of the Baltic states, which allowed the Russians to create military bases on their territory, after which they were all immediately annexed en masse. And a very recent example is Ukraine, which leased a naval base in Sevastopol to Russia, for which it paid with the annexation of Crimea. It must be said that Moscow, even during the Soviet era, courted dictators in Damascus and Baghdad, but Saddam Hussein was unlucky enough to be hanged, while Bashar al-Assad finally fell into the Kremlin's net. Undoubtedly, by sending Russian soldiers to Syria, Putin satisfied the imperial mentality of the Russian people, who suffered somewhat after the partial collapse of the empire. It is also possible that Putin's military adventure in Syria, according to his plan, should dilute the world community's attention to the annexation of Crimea and the separation of the eastern part of Ukraine. And yet, in my opinion, the main reason for the intervention lies in the economic plane. The fact is that by violating the established post-war world order (2), and secretly setting out to recreate the Russian empire within the borders of the former USSR, the revanchist Putin, like Hitler once did, overestimated his strength.
Russia, being the world's gas station, seeks to maintain a monopoly on hydrocarbon supplies to the EU as the only source of revenue for the state budget, and in this regard, destabilization of the situation in the Middle East seems favorable to Putin. The fact is that in the future, gas pipelines are planned to be laid through countries such as Turkey, Syria and Iraq to Europe, one from Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Iran through Turkey and the second from Qatar through Syria to Turkey. The implementation of these projects, of course, and Putin understands this well, will put an end to Russia's monopoly on the European gas market. By making Assad his puppet, Putin has a chance to prevent the laying of a gas pipeline through Syria. Putin can also play the Kurdish card, because in any case, gas pipelines from Qatar will run through areas with a Kurdish population. As for the other branch of the gas pipeline from the Caspian region, Putin has the Armenian card with the smoldering Karabakh conflict in his hands and there is no doubt that Putin will not use any opportunity to prevent the implementation of these projects, which are capable of collapsing the one-sided economy of Russia and leading to an economic situation in which the Soviet Union collapsed. Thus, the presence of Russians in Syria pursues purely Russian interests, the victims of which are the Syrian people. Saving the dictator, Russian planes practically with impunity iron out first the territory under the control of the opposition Free Syrian Army, and then ISIS.
After the joint efforts of the military coalition led by America managed to defeat the ISIS militants, peace, as expected, did not come. The fact is that in order to achieve their goals, the interested parties relied on local forces, supplying them with weapons. Thus, the Americans armed not only the Iraqi government troops to fight ISIS, but also the Kurds, who, taking advantage of the civil war and weakened central government, set the goal of creating a Kurdish state. The latter caused a protest from Turkey and complicated American-Turkish relations, already strained, due to America's failure to extradite Fethullah Gulen, whom the Turks consider the ideological leader of the failed coup in 2016 (3). True, the Americans promised the Turks to stop supplying weapons to the Kurds after the victory over ISIS. Turkey, in turn, provides assistance to the Syrian opposition and the local Turkic population, oppressed by both government troops and Kurdish militants. Russia is fighting on Assad's side mainly against the opposition. Iran is sending soldiers to help Assad and Hezbollah. And the main thing is that the weapons supplied to Syria have not disappeared anywhere and no one is going to hand them over after the defeat of ISIS due to the mutual distrust of all interested parties.
A large number of opposing sides with mutually exclusive plans for the future excludes the possibility of restoring statehood in its previous form. Moscow's hope for an end to the civil war in Syria with the defeat of ISIS is illusory. The news that government troops, with the support of Russia, control almost 89% of Syria's territory turned out to be not only premature, but also very far from reality. The mortar shelling of the Russian embassy in Damascus testifies to the opposite. In fact, everything is just beginning. Thus, Assad's attempt to regain control of the left bank of the Euphrates with its oil wells failed. The forces of the Syrian opposition, with the assistance of American aviation, utterly defeated the government troops approaching this area. It is not known whether there were Russian military instructors there, but Wagner's symphony over dozens of dead Russian mercenaries sounded very convincing, and the Kremlin's silence indicates that Putin has clearly tucked his tail between his legs and it is unlikely that Assad will make another attempt to seize this oil-rich region in the future.
This military episode shows, firstly, that America has not abandoned its original policy of supporting the democratic opposition, and secondly, it highlights the fundamental disagreement between Washington and Moscow in their plans for the future structure of Syria as a state. The constant threat of a direct military clash of aircraft with serious consequences undoubtedly causes Putin's concerns. Moscow is keeping a low profile, avoiding confrontation. As in the case when American Tomahawks blew to shreds the airfield from which Assad's aircraft struck the opposition with chemical weapons, the Kremlin has also received the Americans' latest military action without a note of protest. Here it is necessary to highlight the fact that the Russians did not dare to use the deployed S-300. The question arises, why are the vaunted S-300 needed in Syria in such a case, if not for this case, since the opposition has neither Tomahawks nor aircraft to use such a high-precision air defense system.
Another active player in the region, Erdogan, assessing the current situation, undoubtedly understands the danger posed by the militants of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), who control almost half of the territory bordering Turkey. And now, after the problem with ISIS has been solved, nothing prevents the Kurds from pursuing their main goal - the creation of Kurdistan. Assad will not dare to attack the Kurds because they have no goal of overthrowing his government, unlike the democratic opposition supported by America and Turkey. Erdogan wanted to overthrow Assad from the very beginning of the revolution. Most likely, Assad will come to terms with the loss of part of the territory in favor of the Kurds, who can serve as a shield from a more dangerous neighbor from the North - Turkey. Before creating their own state, the Kurds need to clear the territory of 2.5 million Turkmens (10% of the total population) living mainly in northwestern Syria in the provinces of Idlib and Aleppo, who suffered the most in the civil war. Russian aviation mercilessly bombed and continues to bomb these provinces. Incidentally, Russian planes were shot down in those areas. Today, the situation around Afrin in the province of Aleppo is particularly difficult, where PKK units are essentially exterminating local Turks, and this is despite the fact that a Russian monitoring mission is in Afrin. Erdogan has repeatedly raised the issue of the situation in Afrin, but it seems he did not find understanding. In connection with this, on January 20, Erdogan was forced to announce the start of the military operation "Olifka Branch". As a result, the Turkish army is in Aleppo and Idlib. I would like to note that the famous Russian political scientist Satanovsky considered Turkey's intervention in Syria unlikely (4) and was wrong.
The emergence of a new player in Syria makes the situation so confusing that one can expect peace soon for as long as one wants. It is absolutely clear that Syria as a single state can no longer function. The only outcome is seen in the disintegration of Syria into several independent countries, taking into account ethnic and religious differences. The Arab revolution in Syria turned out to be multicolored, but, unfortunately, in the absence of pink.
1. A camel for the president. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/5271.html
2. Putin and his new world disorder. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/35844.html
3. To the failed military coup in Turkey. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/29886.html
4. https://vpk-news.ru/articles/40255
02/13/18
Jump to: