Go to Publicity
«Back to news

News

04.05.2017 - 18: 11

Russia, Turkey and Iran will do what failed to make the US

On Thursday, representatives of the Russian Federation, Iran and Turkey as a country - the guarantors of the truce in Syria was signed in Astana a memorandum on the establishment of the SAR, "de-escalation areas". While we are talking about the four areas that could be fly like that and like Americans. However, what is happening does not look a concession to Washington, as part of a more complex strategy that is not available for the United States.


According to the results of signing the memorandum in Astana, Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran Hossein Ansari Jaberi said that preparations for the full implementation of the agreement on the establishment of four security zones will take a month - only after this memorandum will take effect. A day earlier, a spokesman for the Russian president, Dmitry Peskov, commenting on the results of the talks the leaders of Russia and Turkey, said that if the de-escalation of the zones in Syria will not be carried out if there is a fire and will operate a truce, they would fly.

For its part, the Syrian armed opposition was ready to discuss the establishment of security zones, which in itself is a breakthrough. Now all traditionally rests in the details - the geography of these regions, the composition of the population and, most importantly, who and what forces will monitor compliance with the ceasefire agreements and loyalty to those who will live in these areas.

Many have seen this idea almost a direct agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States on the liability section in Syria, or at least a prototype of such an agreement. The fact is that the original idea of ​​"security zones" came from Washington, and even under President Obama. He also proposed to introduce a "no-fly zones" for the scheme, which at one time used the United States and NATO in Iraq simply "slicing" the country horizontally. Donald Trump took up this idea, almost making it nothing new, except that his diplomacy did not exclude Russia from this process.

In general, the principle "after this does not mean because of this" goes back to Roman law, and it would be short-sighted to forget about it. The assumption that the one who first said "meow", as a result, will control the sky and the land of Syria, does not stand up to criticism. The United States does not have any access to much of the territory of the Arab Republic, with the exception of a few Kurdish areas, and are sent to airspace only with the permission of the Russian contingent. In that short period, when the work of the "hot line" on the prevention of air incidents was stopped (this was the response to a missile attack on the Syrian air base), they did not fly into the UAR at all. To place the same American ground contingents somewhere in Idlib is not ready, and Washington itself.

Now the talks are just beginning, the parameters offer several times vary, but it is clear that the most promising is not so much the idea of ​​"drone zone" as the creation of some peacekeeping forces on the basis of the armies of the third countries not previously involved in the conflict. Mentioned "some Arab countries" and the BRICS.

In the Arab world can be counted on the fingers of the country, not involved in the civil war in Syria at the national level - it is Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. There are, of course, the United Arab Emirates, which in defiance of Saudi Arabia take on the Syrian issue is much more flexible and, importantly, do not climb into the internal affairs of Damascus.

As far as the BRICS, it is unlikely that a single Chinese soldier will be located somewhere on the east of Inner Mongolia. Beijing for ideological reasons will not go into conflicts that are directly (ie, looking from the battlements of the Great Wall) does not fall within its sphere of interest. Squeeze something in Africa from minerals dumping, investments or bribes - a Chinese tactics and strategy in one bottle, and risk something more than a pack of RMB, they will not.

Not suitable and India. For radical Islamists, Hindus and Sikhs - no people, and polytheists. Not even the heretics as the Alawites, and lesser beings much worse Christians (that is, somewhere on the level of the Yezidis to be destroyed). The emergence in the Indian troops of Syria not only turn them into a helpless target, but also to give a new impetus to the development of the conflict. "World champions Satan has imposed the presence of true faith curse of Allah polytheists" - what do you need for the revival undermined over the last year the spirit of jihad?

About the same story with the army of South Africa, which for a long time there is no "white" units, despite the abundance of officer-Boers. Here it is worth forgetting about political correctness and admitting that the Arab Muslims as a whole negatively regard the Negroid race. Of course, Muslim Africans or, say, African American Muslims are already part of the world ummah, but suspicious attitude towards them persists. In South Africa, virtually no Muslims: according to the latest census, about 1,3% of the population - descendants of immigrants dating back to the times of the British Empire, roughly speaking, the Pakistanis; and from them it will not be possible to collect even a company.

What is the army of Brazil is a mystery. Yes, the army is, and rather big - up to 200 thousand personnel. Of course, they can be sent somewhere, given the pro-American orientation of the current leadership of the country, but Brazil has its own problems in bulk, and it is unlikely. about. President Michel Temer will want to further irritate the country already outraged by his shock reforms. The fact that Temer is an ethnic Arab, a descendant of Orthodox refugees from Lebanon, does not play a role. In the history of Brazil, he is not the first vice-president (he held such a position before the impeachment of Dilma Russef) of Arab origin, in Brazil and Colombia it is an influential stratum of the population, completely formed of refugee Christians from the same Lebanon and Palestine after the proclamation of Israel and the radicalization of the local Islamic of the population. In this case, he and personal problems in bulk (for example, he is married to a photomodel at 43 year of his younger, which is strange even for Brazil). It's time to think about the soul, not about the peacekeeping mission in Syria.

Nevertheless, the potential internationalization of the conflict through peace nailing international forces (let's call them "protection") - a very promising idea. And she did not particularly like the "secret deal" between Moscow and Washington, and the frequent references to it is the "no-fly mode" looks like a curtsy have not really articulated the position of the new US administration on Syria.

The next question - where will be located such zones. Let's start with the fact that their size for today's Air Force will not exceed mathematical errors, with the exception of the same Idlib, if understood by the entire province of Idlib. Responsibility for the unmanned mode of Idlib may be on a parity basis is transferred to Turkey, which has never happened to develop the offensive in the Kurdish areas and on Al-Bab. Also mentioned in the memorandum of the territory of the city of Homs in Eastern Guta and in the south of Syria, but more clear boundaries - is the subject of heated debate further.

It must be understood that the first shot from any "de-escalation zone" will immediately lead to a retaliatory strike. So far, the most important work has not been done, without which it is impossible to create an effective mechanism for monitoring the compliance with the ceasefire. Namely - there is no clear and definitive separation between those armed detachments that are ready for a truce, and jihadists, whose conversation is useless in principle. Even among those who came to the talks in Astana, there is no unity and understanding of who is who, and it's all the more premature to talk about such a mechanism directly on Syrian soil.

At the same time, Bashar Assad, according to some data, now agrees to create "de-escalation zones", if they do not violate the territorial integrity of Syria and do not threaten him personally and his clan. And in Moscow they emphasize that it should be precisely the preservation of the integrity of Syria as a state, which, however, does not hinder a few adjust its internal structure in favor of greater decentralization and the provision of a number of constitutional guarantees to national and religious minorities. But the proposed options for the new constitution of Syria do not suit the opposition in the first place, which requires greater liberalization (not in the sense of greater freedoms but more liberal economy and state structure in the Western sense), and specific geographic and ethnic ties inevitably become the subject of trade.

From the point of view of international diplomatic practice introduction of peacekeeping forces of third countries will require some general plan approved by the United Nations, or at least a semblance of the mandate. Now the UN peacekeeping force "shift change" - it was replaced by the bosses, perhaps that will change and the concept of their formation. But in the narrow sense of the UN operation can not be carried out in Syria, but a kind of surgery that will still require a legal reinforcement.

In any case, it is premature to talk about a "collusion" between Moscow and Washington, or at least about preparing for it. Even in Astana, the American delegation has observer status, albeit a close one. And it is not entirely clear to which groups the Americans now have influence. The option is possible, which is no longer any. In the end, Washington does not participate in the development of plans for a way out of the crisis, but only inflates the cheeks. But the right of a person or a country to maintain its image is as inalienable as the right to freedom of speech. Sometimes it is necessary and support that the complexes do not develop.

A source: LOOK

Author: Eugene Kroutikov

Tags: Russia, Turkey, Iran, Syria, the USA, China, Middle East, war in the Middle East, Politics, Research, International Relations, Terrorism, an IG