Washington’s policy on Syria in recent years is very confusing. Donald Trump, after becoming president, at first continued to adhere to the line he had outlined during the pre-election race – the destruction of ISIS together with all the parties concerned, including Russia. But over time, it became clear that the president has little influence on the US Middle East policy. As a result, when Trump was still talking about some kind of cooperation, the conflict between the Russian Federation and the States on the spot only worsened. Then the division of spheres of influence began, and here it became pointless to declare a joint solution of problems, and in the case of Trump it was even dangerous, dangerous for his political career. As a result, Syria was divided into three parts, behind the scenes, of course, but the situation is such that it is perfectly clear to everyone.
Russia, relying on Assad, conquered the central and southern parts of the country for it, the north departed to the Kurds, led by the Americans, and Idlib and northern Aleppo, with the exception of Manbij and a couple of settlements, are controlled by the Turks. In addition, there are other forces that keep even smaller, but still the territories of a sovereign state. For example, Iraqis, namely, the forces of popular mobilization, due to the breakthrough of the Islamic state to their borders, decided to go to Syria and take control of the border Syrian regions. And Hezbollah controls almost the entire border with Lebanon.
Where does the tradition come from to depict the symbols of aerial victories on fighters and attack aircraft?
So far, unfortunately, no one has taken at least some serious action to overcome this situation. And this means that the actual collapse of Syria has long occurred, but now it is only getting worse. The parties move away from each other, stimulating the Syrian population to perceive their fellow citizens living under the control of other forces, as strangers or even hostile strangers. So the arrival of foreigners in Syria, of course, led to the victory over the bloodthirsty sectarians of the Islamic state, but this also excluded the possibility of unification of the entire territory of the republic under the authority of any one local force.
It is in connection with this that there are occasional conversations about the need for the withdrawal of foreigners. Everybody was talking about that, from our military and politicians to even Australians, who are not politically present in the SAR, but they threw off so many bombs on the Syrians that only the Russian Federation and the United States are ahead of them in this indicator.
But as the Americans did the other day, no one has yet allowed himself to reflect on the future of Syria, perhaps even in Moscow itself. Thus, the special representative of the US Secretary of State for Cooperation in Syria, James Jeffrey, said that foreigners should leave Syria. Iran should be the first to do this, and all the rest of it will follow, including the United States itself.
But at the same time, Jeffrey believes that there is no reason to demand this from Russia. In his opinion, she has all the rights to continue to be present in Syria, since she had a military base there before the war. And in general, according to the American official, the States do not intend to put Russian sticks in the wheel – they say, if they want to have a friendly Assad in Damascus, then he will rule, only Moscow needs to put a little pressure on him and make him change his internal policy. And in general, with the arrival of Trump, Washington has changed its priorities, and now the fight against Assad prefers opposition to Iran in the Middle East, including in Syria.
Somehow it is unexpected to hear such things from US officials, who usually criticize the Russian Federation more than others. What caused such a speech? Did Washington recognize the exclusive rights of the Russian Federation to Syria? Or will these words, as often happens, lead to nothing?
Our source in the military leadership of the Russian Federation reports that about six months ago, representatives of the United States, including from the intelligence community, were actively disseminating information about the allegedly imminent termination of the American campaign in Syria. They transported ISIS militants by country of origin and requested additional information about those who are still engaged in terrorist activities. With the Russian Federation, by the way, they also tried to establish such a contact, but they could not agree. In this regard, by the way, there were some confusions – for example, several Russian citizens who fought on the side of the IS and other radical groups were taken to third countries and imprisoned there. The states decided to entrust extradition issues to these states.
They began active contacts with the Syrian government through the mediation of the Russians and with the participation of the Kurds. The states offered several options under which their withdrawal is possible and even the dissolution of political structures in the Kurdish north. But the conditions put forward were unacceptable.
Jeffrey’s statement is a continuation of this story. In fact, it is a manipulation. Another attempt to bring discord between Iran and Russia. They are betting that the tired of the many difficulties of the Russian Federation will finally give up the slack, make concessions and squeeze out the Iranians. But that makes no sense. Firstly, Iran itself does not want this, secondly, Damascus does not want this, thirdly, the Persians ’departure does not guarantee the Americans’ departure; fourthly, the reduction of the foreign presence will most likely lead to a civil war transition from a frozen state to active. In addition, the United States has no influence on a part of opposition groups, for example, in the case of Idlib, they are practically powerless to do anything. On the whole, the proposal is very dubious – Washington will surely find new reasons not to leave Syria, even if the Iranians suddenly leave. Particularly noteworthy in this case, a comment on the pressure on Assad – you can always find something to be dissatisfied. So such statements should not be taken seriously.