Americans surrender and leave Syria to Assad

The Pentagon has reconciled with the Kremlin’s protege and is ready for dialogue

Barack Obama gave the go-ahead to bring the American military into Syria under the pretext of the need to fight the Islamic state. Then such a need really was.

The Islamic state controlled most of Syria – the whole east, almost the whole north, the center, and at one point the fanatics were completely ready for a full-blown assault on Damascus. Their large forces were nearby and without foreign intervention there were high risks that the capital would fall, which would mean the complete destruction of Syria as a state. Well, everyone who wanted to intervened. And in a very short time several dozens of states intervened in the Syrian war.

Whoever did not bomb it – here is Israel, and half of the European Union, and Australia. However, the most interesting thing here is that the United States and Russia sent their military personnel to the SAR on an ongoing basis. These countries were pursuing opposite goals, causing the Syrian civil conflict to slowly become a mediated war. The States, despite assurances from Obama and his team about the war against ISIS, did more to destroy or at least remove Bashar Assad from power.

By the way, Washington demonstrated its desire to deprive him of his presidency before the war – during the period of mass anti-government demonstrations in Syria, US leaders repeatedly insulted Assad, and urged him to voluntarily give up power. At the same time, the West actively financed various groups leading the protests.

And literally in the summer of 2015, the States were very close to achieving their goal – Assad was on the verge, on the verge of, rather, of death than of resignation, because of ISIS. Terrorists remained very little in order to organize an effective assault on Damascus. Thanks to Russia, Assad saved himself. Moscow saved not only his life, but also secured him the right to be virtually indefinite president. By the way, who does not know, Bashar Asad is already president for more than eighteen years, and this despite the fact that he is only 53 years old. And something tells us that in the next ten years hardly anyone will replace him. Of course, now he is in charge of a completely different Syria, which was eight years ago; nevertheless, he is officially the president, and in fact considerable power is concentrated in his hands. Yes, now the United States can hardly threaten it somehow.

Incidentally, this is also noticeable in the way American policy toward Syria is changing. So, lately, from across the ocean, we have often heard information that the States are supposedly ready to accept the power of Assad in Syria. And it comes from very high-ranking officials.

For example, on Monday, a similar statement was made by the US Special Representative for Syria, James Jeffrey. He said that no one else seeks to get rid of Assad, including the States. However, the United States will be ready to go on a dialogue with the Syrian president if the regime becomes “fundamentally different”, and for this, Assad needs to make a “compromise”. And then Geoffrey explained that the dialogue implies the possibility of allocating money to restore the SAR. According to the official, the United States will not invest anything unless the Syrian president changes his approach to the opposition, and indeed to Syria as a whole. True, no specifics anymore, only such an obscure expression of discontent, but without direct threats.

Russian military expert Alexei Leonkov believes that such statements do not just sound that way. It really looks like the US has accepted the restoration of Assad’s rights. However, this could lead to a reduction in the American presence in the SAR.


– Let’s look at the news feed. How long have Americans covered the events in Syria?  The passions caused by the Syrian events, are not observed in US recently. Previously, they regularly reported that the Coalition did it, the Coalition did that, and now for some reason they stopped talking about it so often. And, maybe, it is connected with the general rhetoric – Syria now interests them less. Yes, they are far from smooth in Syria.

In the Federation Council they are not in a hurry to rejoice at Trump’s statement on the withdrawal of troops from Syria. The Russian Foreign Ministry commented on the decision of the United States to withdraw troops from Syria.

If you look at the map, then most of the territories are controlled by Damascus with the help of the Russian military, while Al-Tanf and all that is on the eastern bank of the Euphrates remained for the Americans. Well, they still have influence over some kind of idlib case. Based on this, I would not say that they have.

Therefore, it is necessary to find a reason to leave Syria and fulfill the promises that Barack Obama has given, and to save face. Right now, I think we are seeing this.


– So you think that this is a kind of preparation for the withdrawal of forces?

  • I think that the public are beginning to prepare for the fact that, yes, the way is most likely being prepared. But this is unlikely for the eastern coast of the Euphrates. Kurdish topic remains. They will develop it. That is, even if they do not come out completely, they are likely to drastically reduce their strength. This option is possible.