In the West — or, rather, not quite the Western front. On Monday in first half of the day from Syria were no sensational or even particularly high-profile news. And this lack of news is not necessarily good news.
After in March this year, Vladimir Putin unexpectedly announced the withdrawal from Syria most of the “limited contingent of Russian”, the war in this Arab country in our public consciousness has gone into the background. Gone are the fears that we’d get caught in the new Afghanistan. There was a feeling that we “did the deed and now can walk safely.” Unfortunately, I can’t.
According to the Central election Commission of the Russian Federation, the number of Russian voters voted in Syria during the recent Duma elections exceeded 4,500. It is unlikely most of these people are tourists, civilians or diplomats. We had the opportunity to make at least a rough idea about the total number of our military in Syria. And this number is impressive, isn’t it?
Of course, until the spring of this year, our soldiers and officers in Syria was even more. That number has dropped, can not but rejoice. But it is not the quantity of our military. The thing is, in what direction events develop in Syria. Last week, the official Moscow has become the object of an unprecedented heavy pressure from the West — an unprecedented tough even in the background of the annexation of Crimea, war in Donbas and the death of Malaysian “Boeing” over Ukraine.
The state Department spokesman have threatened the Kremlin with attacks in Russian cities. The Minister of foreign Affairs of great Britain declared that if you continue to support Assad, Russia risks becoming a “pariah state”.
None of these statements should not be taken at face value. It is an attempt of psychological intimidation, the desire of the West to take Moscow by fear. The statement by one of the subordinates of Secretary of state Kerry is nothing more than speculation on an extremely painful to our country the subject of terrorist attacks. The threat of the British Minister, Boris Johnson and even belongs rather to the sphere of humor and show business, not to the sphere of real politics.
If Russia can turn into a pariah”, now it is — so it turns out according to the logic of Boris Johnson? But then how about the fact that British officials have repeatedly stated that Russia is an “international pariah”? London was announced this after the beginning of the Crimean crisis, after the death of Malaysian “Boeing”, after the outbreak of civil war in the Donbass. It seems that British Ministers are entangled in their own rhetoric.
Not a mystery why it happened: why is the West suddenly so wanted to yeast in the knees to frighten Moscow. In the capitals of key NATO countries fear that Assad’s troops with the support of the Russian military will be able to take full control of Syria’s largest city Aleppo (even in the capital Damascus lives less people) and thereby radically change the course of the civil war in the country.
If this is from Assad’s forces really are, then the current Russian course in Syria with a very high probability is correct. Success on the battlefield usually leads to success at the negotiating table. But whether Assad’s forces the opportunity to win a decisive military victory? I have no confidence for this reason. It may well be that the battle of Aleppo will not lead to unconditional victory of Syrian government troops.
And then what should Russia do? How else are we supposed to act as “babysitters” of President Assad? It is important to understand that the civil war in the third world can last indefinitely. The civil war in Lebanon, a country which borders Syria and has long been under the influence of Damascus lasted 15 years from 1975 to 1990. The civil war in Somalia began in 1988 and did not end until now. Civil war in Sudan started in 1955, stopped in 1972, but in 1983 flared up again and conditionally came to nothing until 2005.
Russia can not “subscribe” to their endless involvement in the conflict with an open date. But until its date of closure is not even calculated theoretically. And I was very worried — and not only that. Over the past year Russia’s active participation in razrulivaniya the Syrian crisis gave us a free hand in the international arena. In the language of casino goers, thanks to Syria, we suddenly had more chips, more opportunities for exchange, greater freedom of maneuver.
But now a new trend: the Syrian crisis could turn into another “the weight” at the feet of Russia. The only way I can interpret the implication that the West can enter our country against new sanctions over Syria. It is possible that this is nothing more than a bluff. But if it’s not a bluff, it is at least very unfortunate. Crimea is definitely “mass” is to endure for the sake of it caused by the sanctions of deprivation. But whether the “mass” Bashar al-Assad? Personally, I’m not sure.
But sanctions are worse. “Berries” is the possibility of a direct military confrontation between Russia and the United States by type Cuban missile crisis of 1962. U.S. Secretary of state John Kerry recently stated that he “outwitted Russian”. I think that Kerry is wrong — no one outsmarted except, perhaps, his own. But it’s not what it seems to me. The important thing is that it seems the people who make decisions in Washington. If America decides that its in Syria, humiliated and cornered, who knows what she’ll do?
Let’s say that America will do what she always wanted: begin to apply direct military strikes against Assad’s troops have “accidentally” but on purpose and openly. Then what should Russia do to protect its ally with retaliatory attacks on Americans? But it is certainly the path to Third world war. And, by the way, calling Assad our “ally”, from my point of view, it is only possible with a very high degree of conditionality. Assad definitely own political agenda — an agenda which does not necessarily coincide with the Russian.
I, for example, very interesting here’s a question: who interrupted the implementation of the recent agreement between Lavrov and Kerry about a truce in Syria? Part of the answer is known: the first strike of the agreement struck by the us military, have killed “by mistake” soldiers of Assad. But who struck the second blow at the Covenant Lavrov-Kerry: who bombed a convoy of the UN? Not having absolutely no evidence, I would not want anyone to point the finger.
But the “difference in opinions” on further action in Syria clearly is present not only between the state Department, the U.S. Department of defense and the White house. “Difference of opinion”, I think, is there and in our — or conventionally “our” camp. And the struggle is also going on the principle “the end justifies the means”. Someone in Syria, not very fond of the agreement Lavrov-Kerry. Someone wanted to make war, to develop its military success. Someone managed to achieve — but not on whether his trouble?
Everything written above in any case should not be considered a detailed analysis of the situation in Syria and around Syria. It is, rather, a “catalog” of my fears, fears which may be or may not be implemented. A geopolitical struggle is not a science. It is a kind of art, a gamble with very high stakes, and completely clear result. Russia may be in Syria very much to win and very much to lose. Do not forget that we still are in Syria this dizzying risky game. The fact that “on the Western front without changes”, does not mean that there is no threat.