The outcome was already announced. After the brief experience of the "ceasefire", in Syria the word remains at arms. The latest news in chronological order comes from the statements of the White House spokesman Earnest "The US has run out of patience" with reference to Moscow's decision not to suspend aid to the Syrian Armed Forces engaged in these hours in Aleppo.
Moscow's response through Foreign spokeswoman Zakharova was not long in coming
"The US tries to discharge their responsibilities to Syria over others ..."
The break was in the air. The conditions for an agreement were not there for two elementary reasons:
1) the US, indirect advocates of the uprising against Assad and arrived on the verge of bombing Syria in the 2013, are unwilling to accept compromises that still see it in power. The political defeat would be bitter;
2) Russia, called to its aid by Assad, has arrived in its first year of war in Syria and has no intention of giving anyone discounts.
These simple truths remain veiled by the quibbles that in different ways and moments end up on the diplomatic table, theoretically aimed at the solution of the Syrian crisis. Despite the good intentions of the facade the two great actors of the war in Syria are light years away. Two data are indisputable in light of what happens on the ground:
- the US finances the so-called "moderate" rebels, whose distinction from jihadists is a mystery to many;
- Russia supports the forces that fight them.
As already mentioned in these pages, the Islamic State in the current context is absolutely incidental. Born on the ashes of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and tolerated (or fed) by the West for a decade, today it has reason to exist only to justify the war that everyone claims to do against him. It is destined to disappear, but it still remains useful today to make sense of the tons of weapons that continue to reach the galaxy of northern rebels through Turkey. If there were no ISIS, today it would be more difficult to find a moral reason for the support given to the militiamen of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (Eg Al Nusra, namely Al Qaeda) or even only to the Kurds of Rojava. In the first case, it would be a clear aid to international terrorism that claims to fight; in the second, a mere interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country.
The rupture declared between the US and Russia on the Syrian crisis is none other than the remake of another moment of frost, which occurred in the spring. In March the Russians tried to loosen up with Assad also declaring a partial withdrawal from Syria; in exchange they would have had to stop the American aid to the rebel militiamen. The aid did not cease and Moscow's support for Damascus picked up with more momentum than before.
What will happen then? Will everything be resolved on the military level?
Not exactly.
First of all, let us remember that the Obama administration is running out. Although the new President will take office after mid-January, in a month's time we will know his name and with him that of the possible State Department staff. In all likelihood the month of October will see a resurgence of military activities in Syria. The government army, supported by the Russian air raids, will try with every effort to free all of the city of Aleppo which would have an enormous symbolic value and an emotional impact on an international scale. The offensive of these hours is proof of this.
If Trump wins, chances are that the cards on the table will change and that the dialogue with Moscow will quickly reopen to the detriment of the Islamist militias who have made a profit in the wake of Obama's support for anti-Assad rebels. If Clinton wins, the clash with Russia will continue and at that point it is likely that the results will count on the field. The stronger Assad, the harder it will be to send him away.
Not everyone, however, understood the hint. Western agencies and media continue to line up in a Manichaean way, pushing their hand against Damascus. Just bring a few lines of the ANSA from 4 October to get an idea. Speaking of Aleppo, it is written
"... in the city battered by Russians and government"
The information as well as objectively incorrect (the jihadist forces and not the government, which were committed to re-conquering it, were brought to Aleppo in the war), the way in which we face the Syrian crisis seems short-sighted. It would be interesting, in the event that Trump won, to see the clumsy reverse that many Western chancelleries would be forced with their press, flattened for years without discussing Obama's policies ...
There is a good chance, however, that Hillary will arrive at the White House. In the case there are all the conditions for a revival of the clash with Moscow. Likely that the situation gets worse.
Would we then be facing a Cold War again?
The answer is, of course, no.
The definition that has accompanied us for half a century, for a pure question of symmetry, must be left to the archives of history.
Today there are not two opposing blocks, two ideological and economic areas that compete for global space with spheres of influence. The 1991 in addition to liquidating the Soviet world marked the beginning of the end of the great ideological debates. With them all the possible reference institutional realities were buried.
If before the USA oversaw a liberal democratic and liberal world, as opposed to a hemisphere oriented to real socialism, today the clash between Washington and Moscow is only for macro-regional interests. The United States are heirs of the last decade of the 900th century in which they enjoyed a free hand on a planetary scale; Russia is the heir to an empire whose strength it has slowly rebuilt but not the range of action. If the former are forced to impose themselves to maintain global hegemony, the latter is forced not to give up ground for a logic of survival.
There are no other actors: on the one hand there is a Superpower riding the economic and cultural globalization; on the other hand those who try to resist them. However, the plan remains asymmetrical.
The Cold War implied a whole series of cultural and social reflexes that ended up influencing the life of entire peoples, according to the ideological area of belonging. The clash was global by definition. Today, however aggressive Russia's foreign policy may be, the long-term objective remains identity.
Especially if the States will return to a sort of Monroe doctrine, favoring domestic business over planetary business, speaking in terms of the Cold War will be increasingly out of place.
(photo: ВСРФ-SAA)
