In Syria new scenarios are developing with tests of equilibrium never experienced before. The influx of Russian forces and Israel's approval of Putin's action suggest a pragmatic turnaround from fast times. Russian revanchism, able to grasp American weakness and the security needs of the Jewish state, sets out on an isolated road, devoid of US coordination, apparently willing to do anything but consider Moscow in a role other than that of enemy that has been assigned to you.
From a geopolitical point of view, it does not matter if Russia will fight ISIS and with what results. Putin has already achieved a double objective:
- to lay bare the US attitudes and the ambiguous role of their Arab allies whose position towards Sunni jihadists beyond the official alignments is yet to be evaluated
- return to the limelight in global scenarios far from one's natural sphere of influence. http://www.difesaonline.it/geopolitica/tempi-venturi/russia-e-israele-sintendono-scacco-agli-usa-di-obama
It must be said that the race for the declaration against the so-called Caliphate is a widespread and understandable fashion. Any stand against ISIS is politically correct so as to unite very different orientations and leaders under the same umbrella.
But every country has its weight and its constitutional constraints so that politicians and helmsmen say and do things based on the actual power they have. The latest developments in Syria for example speak French. Hollande's France, after waiting a long time, decides to intervene with air raids alongside the anti-ISIS coalition. In the face of pacifism, the socialist-led France is at the second major military intervention in just 3 years
http://www.difesaonline.it/geopolitica/tempi-venturi/reportage-dal-sahel-cap1-mali-estremi
Italy, on the other hand, says war at most, but does not. It will be for the art. 11 of the Constitution that occasionally comes to the surface, will be because "Italiani brava gente" but when it comes to armed intervention it turns up its nose.
Not by chance Odissey Dawn e Unified Protector, the coalitions that brought us to the Libyan quagmire of 2011, were harbingers of statements on the verge of balancing.
http://www.difesaonline.it/geopolitica/tempi-venturi/libia-e-dintorni-ca...
The approach to the Libyan experience always comes back for obvious reasons. On the one hand, it concerns the last Italian participation in a cartel set up to wage war. On the other hand, it has to do with a choice that is, to say the least, questionable in terms of strategic utility and is therefore useful for fear of catastrophic implications.
Here then is the President of the Council Renzi in his statements in New York argued the need to avoid repeating the mistake made in Libya in Syria.
The parallelism that could pass in the collective imagination as a synthesis of balance and moderation, to a minimally more careful analysis is inadmissible.
The military operations in Libya were targeted against Gaddafi's government forces with the declared purpose of overthrowing his government. The next chaos was born for the support given to the rebels and for the subsequent exit of Gaddafi himself.
The opposite is taking shape in Syria. International intervention is aimed at the Caliphate and not against Syrian government forces. The Caliphate is a virtual State, non-existent on a legal and institutional level.
The Russian intervention with the clearance of Israel served to dispel this doubt. The goal (at least on paper) is to hit the ISIS to avoid seamless chaos between the Persian Gulf and the Turkish border. That to achieve this goal it is necessary to maintain the integrity and sovereignty of Damascus is an assumption that everyone is slowly understanding. The alternative is to deliver Syrian arsenals into uncontrollable hands with disturbing implications, just like what happened in Libya.
On the basis of behaviors and declarations, even if for different reasons, only the governments of the United States and Italy on this issue have ideas that are still nebulous.
