Many analysts compressed into Atlantic constraints insist on the dubious usefulness of the Russian intervention in Syria, fearing a worsening of the conflict. Some of them hypothesize suggestive scenarios, such as reading in the Russian attack a desperate attempt to re-emerge in global perspectives.
On the other hand, progressive newspapers often conditioned by Third World automatisms end up defending the politics of Putin, until yesterday considered the reactionary homophobe enemy of human rights. Not even the African-American charm of the American administration could prevent a (partial) stance in favor of Russian raids.
Let's go by degrees.
The only thing that Russian politics seems to have destabilized so far are the analysts. Beginning with Luttwack, a champion of purist America, who in March 2015 foresaw the end of the political parable of the "tsar" and in June he asked to fight ISIS with a real army.Confusion upon confusion, the Syrian hodgepodge does not seem linked only to the precariousness of the military balance, but to the actual intentions of the subjects in the field.
This is not the place to discuss ISIS, on which the Defense online defense has returned several times. Rather, we would like to emphasize that a united and pacified Syria is incompatible with the presence of forces on the ground in armed contrast.
Officially the Russian raids hit jihadist forces. 
This was reported by Konashenkov, a spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Defense, and confirmed it Al Jazeera which quotes bombing on Qaryatain, a city occupied by Isis. The Kremlin, very attentive to communication, never misses a chance to recall that the incursions were requested by the government of Damascus, until proven otherwise legitimized by elections and recognized internationally.
It is not difficult to understand that Moscow, far from having sacrificed itself in a moral crusade, is pursuing its geopolitical interests in the Middle East. It is equally easy, however, to consider that his interests coincide with him status quo prior to the war in Syria, when the ESL (Free Syrian Army) did not exist and US funding still did not feed the plethora of militias aimed at overthrowing the Damascus government.
The fact that the United States rejects coordination with Moscow and warns it not to attack rebel militias other than Isis but enemies of Assad, says a lot.
It is clear that if you do not play uncovered cards by linking actions to your goals, getting to the bottom of the crisis becomes impossible. In this regard, the United Nations itself made the self-criticism of the Secretary General, expressing all the embarrassment for four years of civil war managed without order. The implicit exhortation of Ban Ki-moon is obvious: to identify the current priorities to come to terms with the Syrian issue.
The work of the US, in effect endorsed by Obama's latest statements, has so far been resolved in the supply of weapons and training to rebel groups of dubious political reliability, whose only mandate (when it is not global jihad) is to overturn the Assad presidency. The same thing is done by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, gods of Jaish Al Fatah, the Sunni militia active in the northwest against the government army.
If as confirmed by Hollande, the socialist is ready to send theArmée de l'air in the Middle East (not even Chirac had done in 2003 in Iraq), the problem is really Assad, then it is necessary to ask some questions.
Assad should be eliminated due to internal repression, unacceptable for Western stomachs? If so, it should be remembered that Assad has been in charge since 2000. Why right now?
If the aim was to satisfy the Sunni Islam (Gulf monarchies above all) to put the pro-Iranian Shiites at the corner, it would be different. The humanitarian issue, as often happens, would be just an umbrella.
In any case, who or what establishes the beginning and the end of a political system? Who has the thermometer of his democracy?
To intervene militarily in a sovereign country that has not requested help if it is legitimate to stop a genocide, is it also to oust a president?
The ethical principles that the Obama administration intends to represent in the shadow of a preventive Nobel, add to the moralizing function played by the US since the end of the Second World War but which perhaps should be updated.
That arming and defending the rebels ruling Damascus is the best way to pacify Syria, as has been repeatedly stated, remains to be demonstrated. The balkanization of Syria, illustrated as irreversible by analysts of the caliber, is probably not resolved by continuing to flank subjects in open war with each other. History has already shown this to the detriment of the Americans in Afghanistan, in the former Yugoslavia and recently in Libya.
Containing the growing instability between Syria, Iraq and the Arab side of the Mediterranean concerns everyone. The Assad question is mostly a matter for the Syrians and in any case, in the face of the horror of nothingness, it seems the least urgent matter.
