Leaving Syria, Russia leaves the conviction that a return to previous script written by the West will not.
The recent events around Syria have been so rapid and unexpected that many natural question arises: "what was that"? First, Moscow is ready to accept any choice of the Syrian people, including the federalization, then suddenly declares the termination of the military operation. And yesterday the Kurds, as if encouraged by this, declare autonomy, i.e. actually announce the federalization of Syria with a fait accompli.
Here, of course, you first need to emphasize that the Kurds deserve autonomy — they won, being in fact the only ethnically-administrative unit of the Syrian society that led a full-fledged military action against ISIL. At least autonomy. Suffered.
The same autonomy after the defeat of the Hussein regime in Iraq has been the Iraqi Kurds. For the latter it is the result of years of struggle for their rights, against the forced arabization and to this genocide, when the whole Kurdish settlements were leveled by bulldozers, and their populations were etched by the gas.
Of course, if it were not for the Americans, any autonomy they would have. But history knows no subjunctive mood, and Iraqi Kurdistan, in fact, for several years there as a state within a state with its own laws and with his army, he leads an independent war with the jihadists without the help of the official Baghdad and even claims to be expanding the area that is causing the authorities of Iraq sharp, but at the same time powerless in the civil war discontent. In fact, the Kurds don't care who runs the country: the Sunnis or the Shiites. They have learned to survive independently of Baghdad.
It is this factor that today scares the opponents of federalization of Syria. They point to Iraq as an example of what the actual federalization of the country leads to its fragmentation and collapse, which can already be considered a fait accompli, not legislated. And, of course, you can draw a direct analogy — it is the Kurds first gained real autonomy.
Those who are trying to the Iraqi example to warn against federalization of Syria, somehow forget about the main point: the war in Iraq was the result of federalization, as in Syria — on the contrary: the war has actually destroyed the state, making the federalization seems to be the only exit.
It all began in Iraq? Yes, Yes, Yes, this! First, the authorities suspended the Baathists (read Sunnis), then to power actually came from Shia Islam (what the Americans allowed it, knowing full well where this will lead, does not speak in their favor, regardless of whether it is done intentionally or "so it happened"). Then resentful of Saddam Hussein's generals rallied around at that time still just one of the many radical Islamist groups that are created by means of the USA.
Then this "one and" suddenly "the best", having successfully started to conquer new territories, the benefit in the Sunni regions it has got almost absolute support of the population, plus the supra-national ideology has made it attractive for fighters all over the world, in the end, the organization has become a brand that is already effortlessly, the very fact of its existence is self-employed.
Perhaps if ISIS was able to complete his plan – i.e. to create a Caliphate at least within the borders of Iraq and the Levant, the issue of fragmentation of the country once again would cease to be relevant for decades, as under Saddam Hussein. Iraq, Syria, Libya can be unified only when there is strong Central power, an iron hand suppresses any stray thoughts anyone on at least some independence. And no matter whose hand it was: Sunni, Shiite, or Alawite.
By the way, when was created unshakable until recently, state construction in the middle East, still strong was the idea of pan-Arab unity. Even earlier, when the region was under the protectorate of England and France, he was held back by the Europeans, which, by the way, and held the now existing, but crumbling borders. Prior to this the region with an iron fist kept the Ottoman Empire, which undoubtedly held a more balanced and sensible policy than the current great powers.
It all collapsed with the advent of the "Arab spring". As soon as the iron hand is weakening (as we saw earlier with the example of Iraq, by the way, this example might help cool some hot heads in late 2010 — early 2011, but no), everything starts to crumble. The example of Iraq learned nothing from the operators of the "Arab spring" (unless, of course, to prevent the possibility that they just wanted to create chaos, and uncontrollable), followed by Libya, Syria, Yemen. In Egypt only the coming to power of the military has prevented further development of an already running script.
Bashar Assad was the most persistent among middle East leaders. Partly, because of any personal qualities, perhaps he was just well studied what is happening in neighbouring countries. Partly because in 2011. when started the war in Syria, the world's attention was diverted to events in Egypt and Libya. And because the Syrian opposition has simply been unable to unite is too colorful "blanket" is an ethno-religious map of this country, the most colorful in the entire region.
In the end, that, as in Egypt and Libya initially looked like a broad civil movement against the undemocratic regime in Syria quickly turned not even in civil, and in most that on is the ethno-religious war, and even brought together a international extremist element from all over the world. In fact, the civil war in Syria has turned into a mini-world, which was attended by people from several dozen countries in Asia, Europe and America, and which came together the interests of almost all the world's great powers.
It is this factor that largely has allowed Assad to hold out longer than others, waging war not with its own citizens, and international terrorism. The emergence of ISIL in that sense it actually became a gift for all parties to the conflict, bringing the war to another level. But the same factor has buried hopes that Syria in the foreseeable future will be revived in its original form.
Now obviously, to return to your starting point and make everything as it was before the war, it is impossible. Just leaving Assad or stay, do come to his place Alawite, Shiite, Sunni, Christian or Kurd. Boundaries of future units indicated by the war — well they can be seen on the map of hostilities. Moreover, the revival of Syria categorically does not need anyone of its neighbors.
Does this mean that Russia has realized the impracticability of the tasks and just ran away from Syria, giving the West an opportunity uncontrolledly to solve their problems, according to some of our "guard-patriots"?
The withdrawal of our troops from Syria, as before the signing of the peace agreement was dictated by many reasons, which I have already wrote. We achieved the main thing — was able to change the course of history, could supply almost knocked out the power this country on its feet, able if not criminal to break the umbilical cord that connects international terrorism with its sponsors and buyers of petroleum, then, at least, damage it.
Yes, we are unable to do something that demanded our "couch patriots" — to destroy all terrorists, Assad to regain control over all of Syria — to return to the state March of 2011. But, I repeat: this was not, because only a madman would put such purpose.
Yes, the reality was much more complicated than many, including senior military leadership of the country expected. Note that in fact last fall we just went to Syria, but were invited there by the West, which until then was the only moderator of the process. The West could not cope with this role, everything was going not only to defeat Assad, which the West initially sought, but also to the emergence of uncontrolled chaos and conflict to the entire middle East. The West needs to draw us into this war. It was a risky game with the Sharpie, but Moscow has played it quite well. We did the most important work that wouldn't nobody but us — bred all the corners, showed who is who.
Don't know whether the withdrawal of Russia from the war (I stress from war but not from the game) as a surprise for Washington, but somehow the West was once again left alone with the problems of the region. Only now his situation is complicated by the fact that Russia has placed all points over "i", proposing to deal with specific terrorism and not with Assad, who remains a legitimate ruler for the West even though he has to admit it, gritting his teeth.
Now the honor of fighting with ISIL goes to America, but who told you that it would be easy? But they wanted it! They caused this problem — so let them be disentangled, but not at the expense of our soldiers.
And, of course, out in the cold were Turkey. Especially now that Erdogan should begin to understand the trap into which it had lured. Remember, at the time, talked a lot about so-called "plan juppé", according to which Ankara was invited to take an active part in the destabilization of Syria in order to anticipate the emergence of an independent Kurdistan and, in fact, to lead him, pointing in the right direction and protect yourself? If so, then Turkey with his own hands planted the bomb under their own statehood. Today Ankara louder Damascus outraged Kurdish autonomy. Damascus, in fact, have nothing to lose, but Ankara...
Nightmare of the Turks is beginning to come true. Civil war in Turkey erupted like a flame of fire in a dry forest, another area of Diyarbakir has been recently tank cleanup, Kurdish militias, as promised, moved the war into the cities, the violence is approaching a critical point. And then there's the autonomy of Rojava close. Soft sideways. Autonomy with very sharp needles. Only here is a chance to solve the problem by military means has already been lost — today, if you want to be a fighter against terrorism, and not the aggressor, will have seriously to fight with ISIL, and not to imitate. With ISIL, "an-Nusra" and other uncompromising, and not with Assad or the Kurds, who, thanks to the actions of Russia actually received immunity from external interference.
Russia could get involved and stuck in this war, as the USSR mired in Afghanistan, both in Afghanistan and then in Iraq bogged down the United States. We were lured into the same trap, which caught a Turkey. But we came out of it virtually unscathed. As abruptly and unexpectedly as he came. Leaving a new map of the area and the belief that a return to previous script written by the West on their own initiative without coordination with the legal authorities, will not.
Unfortunately, or not — and will not return to Syria, but, again, it's a long time no one believed. Syria will be Federal and unified. There's no other way to save the unity of the country. The same story is repeated in Ukraine. Any attempts of Kyiv to prevent the federalization even more undermine statehood. The war in Syria is, again, outlined the new boundaries, the war changed the fate of Nations. You just need to accept objective reality. That's about it, now there are negotiations — how to look like a future reality.
And only after adopting her, you can participate in the political process. In fact, no one but played with fire Erdogan, there is no reason not to accept it.