One of the main claims made by Putin against the Russian operation in Syria is that it is unclear how to get out of the Syrian crisis and what is the realistic goal of the Russian presence in the region. An additional claim that the operation in Syria can lead to a war with the United States, and simply mortally offend our Western partners, who can not be offended. In general, it was not difficult to respond to these claims, but in the last few days a rather clear picture of the way out of the Syrian crisis, which the Kremlin seeks, appears. In the classical Putin style, all parties (except IGIL) are offered an acceptable compromise acceptable to them. If they refuse from it again, the situation will continue to develop according to the force option, and the next offer will be less acceptable for them and even more profitable for us. And so it will be repeated until either one of Putin's proposals is accepted, or until the last Syrian rebel.
The essence of the proposals that are currently being discussed at the talks in Astana, and which Putin previously discussed with Trump, is to establish a real truce between the army of Assad and the pro-American forces by creating four special demarcation zones or so-called buffer zones. In these zones, there must be mixed troops of other countries, which in fact will ensure the presence of a truce by their presence. In the ideal case, at least where it is physically possible, the Syrian military and pro-American rebels will try to move away from each other for a distance that, in principle, will not allow fire. Vladimir Putin noted that Donald Trump supported the idea and this is already good. It is clear that still many times can change, but at least the first step is made.
If you look at this proposal from the point of view of our interests, then the opportunity to stop fighting against the so-called moderate oppositionists and concentrate on the destruction of IGIL is a good idea. In addition, it is an opportunity to force the Americans once and for all to decide on who is their moderate rebel, and who is a real terrorist, since otherwise they will not be able to disengage the parties. Also, the division of the belligerents will cement the correlation of forces that is now observed in Syria and which is beneficial for us, because under the control of the Syrian army there is a large part of the economically active territory of the country and most of the large cities.
I recall that not so long ago it seemed that Damascus was on the verge of surrender, but now it turns out that most of Syria will be under the control of official Damascus, and international peacekeeping forces will defend this territory. In addition, if the agreement on delimitation is signed by Assad, it means that the West will accept that in the foreseeable future it will be he who will lead Syria. This will be the official end and failure of the "Arab spring", which was launched by the Hillary Clinton group, and which went through a bloody tsunami in the Arab world and the Middle East in general. Russia in this case will be just the force that broke the American plans in this key region, and this will bring us quite tangible bonuses in global political and economic issues. Our Middle Eastern partners will be much more accommodating on the widest range of issues.
For the US administration, it is possible to close the Syrian question, or, more precisely, simply leave it in limbo until better times. It's not everyone who wants to risk a military confrontation with Russia for the intervention in Syria in Washington, but there is a real opportunity to accept a compromise that can be presented to the American public as a decisive victory. If the Trump administration agrees on the cultivation of the belligerent parties in Syria, it is likely that the American public will be told something like "Putin was so frightened of Trump and his tomahawks that he instantly surrendered and refused an offensive against moderate oppositionists, and the great Trump organized security zones for them, in which no Assad will pass. "Trump is a hero, not like Obama, who was a weakling." It's rude, of course, but it can work, especially if American TV will show viewers how American planes violently bombard the positions of IGIL, to which no armistice certainly does not apply.
Such a deal on Syria may break because the Washington radicals, including those present in the Trump administration, may find that they can do more in Syria and that they can not leave Assad alive, because with the live Assad, America no one in the East will not be respected. Such a scenario is possible, but this is far from a disaster. Again, it will be difficult for Washington to decide on a direct military conflict with Russia, and while the Americans will look for a less dangerous way out of the situation, their people in Syria will die under Russian bombs, and the territory under Assad's control will constantly grow. It is not excluded that we will come to the same proposals for delimitation of the parties, but with a different distribution of the territory. So if the negotiations in Astana finally fail, it does not matter.
But for whom the situation turns in a completely unpleasant direction, this is for Erdogan. He had the opportunity in the winter to resolve the Syrian question in a bilateral format with Putin, while the Americans were in an incompetent state after the election. He missed this chance. Now he has only the hope that Trump and Putin will take his interests into account. In general, of all this Syrian history, one global conclusion can be drawn. When Putin offers something, one must agree to this, for then the conditions will be guaranteed worse. This is a subtle hint at the thick circumstances that apply to our Ukrainian neighbors on the globe.