The Syrian collapse: the view from Moscow

The Syrian collapse: the view from Moscow

 

By Vestnik Kavkaza



See also "The Syrian collapse: the view from Israel" and "The Syrian collapse: the view from Europe"

Last night, the global media reported that the Russian and Chinese representatives left the meeting of the UN Security Council discussing the draft resolution on Syria proposed by UK, providing for the use of force. About midnight, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied these reports, but the situation around Syria continues to heat up.


Today was named as the start of a proposed military operation, but it seems that the situation around Syria will be discussed more in London and Brussels. Moscow is accusing the West of trying to create an artificial pretext for military intervention in the affairs of Damascus. Moscow is sceptical over references to the "proof" of the involvement of the Government of Syria to the incident last week in East Huta related to alleged use of chemical weapons.


“Let's see: how could the chemical weapons that were used appear?” Vladimir Yevseyev, director of the Center for Public Policy Research, asks. “Theoretically, what can we assume? It can be assumed, for example, that there was stealing from a plant producing chemical weapons in Syria. I believe that this is virtually impossible because, apparently, these plants do not work. According to Western estimates, there are about 5 plants for the production of chemical weapons in Syria. Apparently, all the chemical weapons that they have are stored in stockpiles. There was not a single case of theft there. Accordingly, it is more likely that if they used, for example, the sarin nerve gas, it could either be home-made, and not necessarily on the territory of Syria, for example, in Iraq, and secondly, this gas existed in significant amounts in Libya, and it is unclear where it is now. Therefore, from this point of view, we cannot clearly say that, if chemical weapons were used, this was done by the side of Bashar al-Assad - for this there is no reason”.

Speaking on why the U.S. so actively promoted this issue, Yevseyev spoke about the dubious moral leadership of the United States in the world. “There are some factors that suggest a positive trend. What are they? This is the fact that Barack Obama has agreed to meet with Vladimir Putin at the summit of the G20 in St. Petersburg - I think this is a very big positive, and, apparently, for the U.S. striking before the summit is not quite right. I do not believe this. I believe that the United States does not realize that if it can strike one or even several times, there is a state that, from my personal point of view, can just help Syria. And it will restore what the U.S. will do. This state is called the Islamic Republic of Iran. And in this case it turns out that the U.S. will create an additional problem: they promote the active involvement of Iran in the Syrian crisis. And from this point of view, the conflict ceases to be a conflict between the coalition and Syria. It turns out that the list of participants in the conflict expands”.


Meanwhile, according to Yevseyev, for ground operations it is necessary to have a significant grouping of troops. “As the size of the armed forces of Syria is now about 280 thousand soldiers, it turns out that this group should be around 100 thousand. Where can this force be deployed? It can be deployed only on the territory of Turkey. Therefore, so long as ground troops will not be deployed on the territory of Turkey, talking about a ground operation makes no sense. Is it possible to "close" Syria, to create a no-fly zone? This is also possible, but first, this still needs relocation of aviation. Secondly, it's expensive, because the U.S. itself felt that this needed about $1 billion. It's too expensive”.


It turns out that to maintain its moral leadership the United States can launch a single or a few strikes on Syria, and the Syrian army cannot stop it. “You see, "Tomahawk" missiles can shoot from anywhere outside the range of fire. Because those missiles that the Syrian side has, such as the "Yakhont", have a firing range of 300 km. You can shoot with "Tomahawks" out of the zone. Therefore, in this respect, it will be an unpunished strike at a defenceless Syria”, Yevseyev says.


In this case, according to him, there is no moral leadership: “The U.S. will not strengthen but, on the contrary, undermine its moral leadership. In fact, even within the senior management of the United States there is no uniqueness about whether they want to inflict such a blow, because the consequences of such a strike, from a military point of view – it is not clear that this will be necessary. I do not see its high efficiency. But from a political point of view, problems will arise because the zone of instability can be expanded. I see that the main problem that the United States can get, especially considering the ever greater involvement of Jordan in the war against Syria - is the destabilization of Jordan. If this happens, this will be a pain in the neck for the close ally of the United States – Israel”.


Political scientist, orientalist Vyacheslav Matuzov is also dissatisfied with the U.S. actions: "Russia today has influence on the world stage several times less than the United States. Following democratic way, this country can, using the mechanism of the UN, achieve any results. Only one principle - the veto - prevents them from doing this". As for proofs of American dominance in world affairs, the expert mentioned the incident with Edward Snowden: "Even China, a great power, did not dare to challenge the United States and give shelter to Snowden, though he was in Singapore. The only country in the world that was able to withstand the pressure of the United States is Russia... And this will not be a blow on Syria; it will be a blow to the foreign policy of Russia, which tried to protect Syria. They will not destroy Syria and will not overthrow the government, they will not remove President Assad, but they will deliberately inflict blows on the territory of Syria, showing Russia and the entire world who's the boss here".

4755 views
Поделиться:
Print: