Syria: A geopolitical dossier
The situation in the region, connected with political actions years before and developed through the interests of different actors
The Greater Middle East and the Arab Spring
From the point of view of classical geopolitics, the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean are considered part of the Rimland zone, which is characterized by its ambivalent nature. The inner crescent of Eurasia was traditionally utilized by external powers, such as Britain and the United States, to establish their influence. However, under the proper conditions, the states located in this zone can act in the interests of the Eurasian Heartland - Russia.
During the Cold War, the region was divided between US satellites and partners of the Soviet Union. After 1991, the situation changed and each country has been trying to strike a balance between the interests of the major players.
At the same time, there is an active process of orientalization (i.e., the assignment of certain labels and definitions) of the region, directed by the United States and global Atlanticism.
In the first decade of the 21st century, the Bush administration developed the political term "Greater Middle East" to connote a wider view of the region that would include various additional countries in the Muslim world, specifically Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Later, this imaginative plan was extended and became "The Great Middle East Project". During the preparatory work for the 2004 G8 summit, it was proposed as a policy for the Middle East. The greater Middle East is not only the agenda of US neo-conservatives; it is still used in official documents under the Obama administration.
Actually, the development of this project was influenced by the ideas of Anglo-American historian Bernard Lewis to change the map of the region. Imperative for the new reality were ethnic and religious criteria for the peoples, including places of compact residence. Since the entire territory of the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Central Asia is a legacy of the colonial era, the change concerned the political boundaries of almost every state.
In 1992, Lewis published an article in the magazine Foreign Affairs, the official organ of the Council of Foreign Relations: "Rethinking the Middle East." Lewis proposed that the boundaries of the Middle East region should be redrawn. The idea of these new states was later popularized in an article Ralph Peters wrote later, in 2006, for Armed Forces magazine, which put forth a new map of the region.
According to the strategists’ plans for the redistribution of the Middle East, Iraq would be divided into three states: Kurdish, Shiite (a mini-state around Basra) and Sunni (a mini-state around Baghdad), Syria would be divided into a Shiite state along the coast, the Sunni state of Aleppo, the Sunni state of Damascus, and a Druze state (which will include the Golan Heights, the eastern part of Jordan and Lebanon). Lebanon is divided into eight cantons – a Sunni mini-state in Tripoli, a Maronite state in Dzhunieh, a Syrian satellite in the Bekaa Valley, an international zone comprising Beirut, the Palestinian Canton near the Litani River and the city of Sidon, a Shiite mini-state and a state for Christians, which would be under Israeli influence.
It should be noted that all this happened during the occupation of Iraq by US troops; Washington therefore considered the possibility of parallel military solutions to support this project, although it initially hoped to accomplish this through the involvement of the UN and various countries in the management, reconstruction and development of the region.
Local elites managed to maintain their power before the upheaval and riots, but new communication technology yielded successful examples of the dismantling of regimes (most revealing was the flight of Tunisian President Ben Ali, and subsequent overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt), significantly influenced both the mass mobilization and the role of external powers. Bahrain’s external powers (primarily by Saudi accident) were on the side of the regime and assisted in suppressing protests.
The new model, to destabilize the region through a series of "color revolutions", dubbed the "Arab Spring" partly reflects US interests. However, Washington was not ready to develop some scenarios and the State Department did not adequately perceive the information of US intelligence (the killing of the US Ambassador in Libyan Benghazi can be considered one of the failures of US foreign policy in the region).
However, the United States supported regime change in various ways - through its European partners, local NGOs, the tools of e-democracy, and via diplomatic pressure.
The network-centric operations had a significant effect in the Middle East, especially in Syria, where the groups targeted by external actors were different - ethnic minorities, religious communities, small business, marginal political groups, and Muslim fundamentalists. It was possible to cause the people to gather en masse in order to destabilize and overturn legitimate governments.
In the case of Libya and Syria, the question was raised about the use of military force. In Syria, terrorist organizations had officially been recognized, and Washington does not deny its participation in the support of the “moderate opposition” and attempts to dislodge the incumbent President Bashar al-Assad. However, in Syria (as in Iraq) the traditional military methods of the United States proved to be ineffective when measured against ISIS.
The failure of the US strategy against ISIS
The United States was quite conservative in choosing its military strategies and, until recently, as a rule, relied on air strikes, and was inclined to apply the methodology described in the Five Strategic Rings by John Warden. It was first used in Iraq in 1991, then modified to suit new conditions, particularly during the war in Yugoslavia in 1993 and 1999.
When the US planned air strikes on Syrian territory, little had changed in its approach. This was justified because of its successful application of air strike tactics used in previous campaigns. However, the identification rings (Leadership, System Essentials, Infrastructure, Population, and Fielded Military) had been amended. The second ring involved the establishment of training camps for militants and attacks on refineries. The description of the fourth ring, which must represent the original population, has been amended: strikes on ISIS militants were designed to prevent cooperation with the public and the delivery of humanitarian aid.
But it is obvious that in the case of ISIS this strategy does not work. The leaders of the non-state enemy are constantly in motion, and don't reside in palaces or other fixed objects. Social processes are immature, and the infrastructure incomplete or non-existent. The fighters mixed with the civilian population. Under such circumstances,
However, it's more likely that the US hasn't applied the tactic of launching precise attacks on targets in Syria. Rather, Washington is satisfied that the objectives are both terrorists and government troops.
Since 2014, a coalition led by the United States has been conducting airstrikes against ISIS militants without approval from Damascus, as the West does not recognize Assad as the legitimate leader of Syria. The coalition has also been training the so-called moderate opposition, which uses violence against the legitimate authorities in Syria.
A recent US use of combat drones in Syria confirms that Washington's intentions are unclear.
On September 1, the Washington Post published an article, "US launches secret drone campaign to hunt Islamic State leaders in Syria", which stated that CIA and US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) operatives "are flying drones over Syria", conducting targeted air strikes. The Post lied in its assertion that the strikes were against "senior Islamic State operatives," citing official US sources.
However, on September 13, on Russia's Channel 1 Sunday Times program, Lavrov said "Russia has information that the US knows the position of the IS, but does not bomb them."
Lavrov explained Russia will continue fulfilling its contractual obligations to Syria - supplying arms, munitions and training, as well as humanitarian aid. "These are no mysteries or secrets," he explained. "Our military-technical cooperation seeks to" defeat ISIS.
Russia's role in the Syrian conflict
From the start, Russia has supported the government of Bashar Assad, and has played a prominent role in the management and resolution of the crisis after the use of chemical weapons by terrorists. Lately, Moscow's role in helping Syria has changed.
In late August, Alligator-class and Ropucha-class Russian landing ships were sighted moving south through Turkey's Bosphorous Strait and heading toward the Syrian coast. Photographs appeared to show armored ground vehicles on board the vessels.
White House officials said that 7 Russian-made T-90 tanks have already been stationed at the airfield near Latakia. A number of think tanks and magazines in the United States published satellite images proving activity in the region of Latakia and a Russian presence.
Lattakia is politically loyal to the current leadership of the country; a large number of Alawites remain in the region. It was assumed that this city could become the temporary capital of Syria, which would house the legitimate government, if Damascus fall into the hands of militants.
Lattakia is located 60 km north of Tartus, the port city where Russian maintains a small base for its Navy in the Mediterranean.
The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on September 9 that "Russia has never made a secret of the theme of military-technical cooperation with the Syrian Arab Republic. Our country has long been supplying Syria with arms and military equipment in accordance with existing bilateral contracts. There are Russian military experts in Syria who have helped develop the technique of providing the Syrian army with weapons designed to counter the terrorist threat which has reached unprecedented levels in the SAR and in neighboring Iraq. The terrorist challenge is one which faces the entire international community, including Russia. We, in particular, have repeatedly mentioned that the ranks of extremist groups in Syria and Iraq include about two thousand people from the Russian Federation. Today, the Syrian and the Iraqi regular army are the main forces opposing the "on the ground" crimes of the so-called "Islamic State" in the territories of these countries.
We believe that coordination with the Syrian armed forces should be an important element in the consolidation of efforts in the fight against terrorism within the framework of a broad coalition, which Russian President Vladimir Putin has called for. These efforts should involve Syrian troops from the "moderate" opposition, Kurdish militias, and the main regional and international players who realize the seriousness of the danger posed by the "Islamic State" and other terrorist groups.
If additional measures are required of us which would increase support for the fight against terrorism, the issue will be properly considered, but in any case - based on international law and Russian legislation. "
It is likely that with the help of Russia, a series of military operations against terrorists will be carried out in the near future.
On Wednesday Sept. 16, Syria's UN ambassador said Russia had every right to carry out airstrikes against Islamic State militants in his country.
Presently, Russia has sent the employees of private military companies (mostly specialists with training in the special units of the armed forces of Russia) to Syria, who will deal with the protection of strategic sites such as airports, oil refineries, and infrastructure.
Note that Russian companies have operated successfully in the global market for private military companies; these include Feraks, SCR Group, Rent Top Tiger Security, Redoute Anti-Terror and Anti-Terror Eagle. Employees of the company have served in Iraq (including Kurdistan), Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and in other regions.
Russia used its marines and special operation forces in the shipment of cargo, as well as the Russian Naval air base in Novorossiysk.
In actuality, there is already a Russian presence on Syrian soil, because the Syrian military and friendly armed forces such as Hezbollah have been reorganized. SANA reported that army has killed 80 terrorists in Lattakia, and continues to advance in al-Zabadani.
Russia's more active participation in the Syrian conflict comes amid changes in the country's relationship with Egypt (which is a major importer of Russian weapons), as well as Iraq. Saudi Arabia has tried to intervene in the process of negotiations with Moscow but has had no luck changing Russia’s position on Syria. In the medium term, this can serve to strengthen Russian interests in the Arab countries in the region, as well as improve the overall image of Russia.
Another important aspect is the dead end which has resulted from Russia's attempts to resolve the conflict in Ukraine via the Minsk agreements. The agreements effectively only exist on paper. The unrecognized republics of Donetsk and Lugansk continue to be shelled by Kiev and have been forced to respond in kind.
Statements issued by the representatives of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics about the inevitability of the region joining Russia have urged Kiev to escalate military activity in the region. However, Russia is able to take a more active role in Syria via intervention; taking action in Syria looks more appealing to the Kremlin, as the plan fit into the overall paradigm of the consensus of the "the international community", regarding the need to combat terrorism.
According to insiders, the Russian leadership has reached some agreements with a number of European countries as well as with representatives of the US Republican Party, which maintains a more rational approach to its agenda in the Middle East. This is grounded in the theory of political realism, that is, respect for the interests of other states. Also the German and Russian media reported that CIA agents were in Moscow and promised to provide sensitive information about ISIS that may be useful during operations. Such a turn of events in Russian-US relations could lead to changes in Near East policy. From the other side, it is signal of US impotence around the decision-making process in dealing with Syria, because the Pentagon and US intelligence agencies cannot take action there.
This allows Russia to begin work more actively in Syria. Russia's military presence will also receive more detailed intelligence on the entire region, including the activity of NATO in Turkey. Another important factor is the situation in Lebanon, which has struck a deep political crisis.
|