Syria: evidence of US-Russia agreement as the war continues

(To Giampiero Venturi)
23/02/16

From Saturday 27 February could start the first true ceasefire in Syria, as a result of a preliminary agreement between Russia and the USA. Damascus, from a few minutes, would have given its availability.

Excluded from the agreement would be the terrorist groups of Al Nusra and the militias of the Islamic State, against which the crossfire, with all the distinctions and doubts of the case, should continue without respite.

The news arrives on the same day as President Assad's announcement of holding legislative elections for April and the renewed support of Europe (Italy first) to Erdogan's Turkey.

What will be the next developments of the Syrian crisis?

The most important issue to solve is to understand which future project is planned for Syria and its sovereignty.

For about three weeks there have been insistent rumors about a land intervention that could contemplate both the interest of Turkey and of the Arab countries of the Gulf. As often advocated by Defense Online, the intervention is to be considered pure science fiction without direct US involvement. THE boots on the ground However, the USA is possible, subject to an agreement with Russia, the big brother of the Syrian government and shown on the front line since September 2015.

In bedlam general information on war, however, we often forget to indicate first of all what is the purpose of a possible land intervention. If the goal was sic et simpliciter the defeat of the Islamic State and of Islamist terrorism comes by itself that the war takes on tragicomic nuances at least for two reasons:

  1. there is evidence of direct support from Turkey and Saudi Arabia for groups related to fundamentalist terrorism
  2. why is the ground intervention planned after 5 years of war and right now that the military Caliphate trudges?

With regard to the first point, it should be emphasized that if the US, NATO and the European Union have chosen to bland or tolerate the geopolitical ambitions of Ankara, it is all too obvious that the general interest of Western powers is not to bring Syria back to a status quo of absolute sovereignty.

The medium-long term objective could be an "extended pacification" that foresees the end of the clashes, the recovery and reclamation of the territories in the hands of the Islamist gangs, the distribution of humanitarian aid but also a segmented administration of the territory, the whose sovereignty could be articulated based on the countries involved in military operations. In this sense, the initiative of Saudi Arabia, a leader of those Arab countries that aspire to occupy Sunni areas of the Syrian territory, would have a logic. The papocchio would make sense with the endorsement of the United Nations in which, however, Russia, a permanent member, has the right of veto.

The hypothesis between the other does not come to terms with the opposition of the Assad government that considers foreign interventions not requested as a declaration of war. Above all, it does not come to terms with the political and military help of Russia that in the face of a high-risk investment, it is logical that it envisages a return.

As long as Moscow decides to stay on the Damascus cart and protect its institutional integrity, the idea of ​​an unconventional intervention and a "soft division" of Syria disguised as a war against terrorism therefore appears to be difficult to sustain.

A concerted intervention, as outlined yesterday in Ankara by the Italian and Turkish foreign ministers, opens instead a second scenario, consistent with the broad agreement between Putin and Obama for the ceasefire. Now that a military defeat of the Islamic State seems possible, it is likely that we will hasten to participate in that "victory against terrorism" which would cover the mistakes and responsibilities of many.

An intervention by several countries in ways and scenarios to be evaluated that does not provide for long-term employment, could be useful in Damascus, to the test of flexibility and availability towards the international community. Giving up rigid positions (perhaps under Moscow's pressure) to save the barrack would not be a dishonorable solution for Assad.

It could be useful in Moscow, incensing its international role beyond its military and diplomatic merits.

It could be used by the USA to obscure its inertia and the faults of the last 5 years. It would serve Europe, thirsting for such good humanitarian participation to remove its conscience and hide its political dwarfism. It would be useful to the geopolitical ravings of Riad and to the return in the "jetset of the normals" of its rival Tehrean. Finally, it would be a panacea for Turkey, perhaps the most compromised of the powers involved and potentially capable of maintaining pressure at the northern border, keeping the Kurdish plug at bay.

The Islamist terrorism that so far has had so many fathers, would find itself so suddenly an orphan. Everyone would be worthy, nobody would be defeated.

All this is theory. We are always waiting for military developments on the ground, which on balance are the only ones to have really indicated up to now what are the prospects and possibilities for Syria and its tormented people.

(Photo: القوات المسلحه السورية)