Russia’s intervention in the Syrian conflict has changed the balance of power in the region. This development has brought a new dimension to an already internationalised conflict, in which the interests of foreign players have influenced the dynamics of a war that has lasted for too long.
“Slowly but surely, the Russian plan in Syria comes to light,” Ghassan Al Imam wrote in the pan-Arab daily Asharq Al Awsat.
“The intervention aims to target all opposition groups, including ISIL, to rescue the Syrian regime.”
Should Mr Putin wish to establish a secular regime in Syria, then he is heading towards friction with Iran, as the latter tries to mark victories on the field under the Russian umbrella, the writer said. Arabs and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan have called upon Europe and the US to face the Russian/Iranian plan that threatens to divide Syria.
Al Imam pondered what results could be expected from Russia’s intervention in the crisis, saying the answer lay in keeping Syria the victim of a bloody and continuous war, at least for the foreseeable future.
“Who would come out victor? In such disorganised conflicts, there is no victory nor victor. Syria will remain subject to instability, as Russia’s intervention will be unable to achieve any solution through air strikes,” he added.
He also asked what type of regime would emerge from a political solution. Russians say they want a secular “non-religious” regime in Syria. This would explain the haste of the Iranians to reinforce the ranks of Hizbollah. The objective is to mark victories in the field and thwart any attempt to establish an independent or secular state.
In the art of diplomacy, gaffes reach their peak when the participants speak on behalf of those affected by the conflict, Al Imam wrote.
“Khamenei, Rouhani, Hizbollah, Abadi and Suleimani are all a band chanting after Putin, repeating that only Syrians can decide their fate. Are 300,000 martyrs not enough? What about the millions of displaced and the 4 million refugees? Are those not enough to convince Putin, [Russian foreign minister Sergei] Lavrov and Khamenei that the Syrians have expressed with their souls and blood their rejection of a regime that only persists through Putin’s protection?”
In the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, Jihad Al Khazen wrote that despite the large number of analyses about Russia’s military intervention in Syria, no news report had so much as mentioned that the Russian president is seeking revenge for the US position against his intervention in Ukraine and its perceived deception in Libya.
“Revenge is the chief reason behind the intervention and so long as the Americans are not covertly or overtly negotiating with the Russians about lifting the sanctions that followed the confrontation in Ukraine, the confrontation in Syria will persist,” he noted.
A joint statement issued by the US, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar predicted that Russia’s military operations would increase radicalism and terrorism, and warned against the results of that. This was done in the knowledge that the air strikes by the US-led coalition preceded Russia’s intervention and nobody declared that those would aggravate extremism.
“If the Americans and the Russians will agree, they will do so at our expense and should they disagree, we will be paying the price. Asserting otherwise would be lying to people and to oneself,” the writer added.
The solution is not necessarily based on a choice between terrorists or the regime, but rather on helping the people establish a democratic regime that would serve all Syrians.
Translated by Carla Mirza
CMirza@thenational.ae
