Competing interests in Syria
Military historian Martin van Creveld's guest analyst considers the current situation in Syria from four different perspectives and arrives at some surprising conclusions:
The situation around Russia in Syria is up for debate. No doubt, Russia would like to lead a reconstruction effort in Syria, in harmony with all relevant partners, including the UN, the EU, the USA, China, India, Turkey, Iran, Israel, the Sunni Arab states including the Golf Council Countries (GCC-states), Egypt and Morocco. However, many of the parties on the list of wished-for partners are strongly hostile to each other, and it might therefore perhaps not be possible for Russia to make all these ends come together, or to cut through the proverbial “Gordian Knot”. If Russia cannot create a reconstruction for all of Syria, which is what Russia wants most of all, then Russia will have to think about a “second option” for Russia’s future presence in Syria.I don't think Russia is going to be overly concerned about reconstruction. Their priority will remain stopping the neocon-inspired imperialist offensives around the world. My take on Israel is that a re-elected and newly empowered Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to prioritize the annexations of the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank and try to dial down the conflict in Syria in the meantime. In light of the failure to unseat Assad or establish ISIS as a proxy army to replace the US military in the Middle East, further securing the Golan Heights and seeking diplomatic approval for its annexation is probably the primary Israeli objective concerning Syria.
What might be a “second option” for Russia in Syria?
It would not make sense at any rate for Russia to leave Syria completely. After all, Russia has spent a lot of blood and treasure to achieve the stabilization now achieved, it does not want a resurgence of Sunni extremism by groups like ISIS and similar, and it has strategic interests in Syria, including an air base and a naval base.
However, as a “second option”, if the preferred cooperation for reconstruction of all of Syria should not be achievable, would be for Russia to concentrate and reduce her presence to a part of Syria. Russia can entrench itself in north-west Syria, creating its own zone of exclusive Russian military control and administration together with Syrian forces which are sympathetic to Russia as well as to Syria’s current government. Such a “Russian” zone could consist of a square of Syria consisting of Latakia, Tartus, Homs, and Ma’arat-Al-Numan.
The area mentioned above is already mainly controlled by Russia (incl. Russia-friendly units). Good. The area contains the air and naval bases pivotal for Russian military power. Good. The area will enable Russia to keep naval and air supplies possible from outside. Good. The area is strategically located to enable Russia to reenter all other parts of Syria, north, east and south. Good. The region mentioned contains a great deal of Syria’s population, including many of the Alawites, of which a large part support the existing Syrian government under President Bashar Al-Assad. Russia can thus expect to achieve social stability, without having to allocate a lot of military resources to constantly handle large-scale hostile actions inside this zone. The area holds a great part of Syria’s economic and reconstruction-potential. Good. The ports are open for imports of food, medicine, and raw materials—and being the only ports of Syria, they even control import-export of goods to the rest of Syria. Excellent. The ports will facilitate a reconstructed economy in this area. Great.
Labels: war
14 Comments:
Martin is great. What a sober, realistic evaluation of the conflict.
I agree with your assessment.
While Russia would like to see a cooperative effort at reconstruction, I don't think they have any illusions as to its likelihood.
Thanks to the bumbling Kemalist coup attempt there is the possibility of getting at least minimal cooperation between Turkey and Iran. Neither of these countries want to see the Israeli/Saudi axis any more powerful than it already is. Russia will have to act as a broker between them, I think, since they have competing interests as well.
I do see Russia expanding its naval base at Tartus as that is currently little more than the modern equivalent of a 'coaling station'. She will also do what is necessary, short of war with the West, to ensure the Assad government's survival.
Now that our beloved GE's position is stronger domestically, I would not be surprised if he makes moves to further disentangle us from Middle Eastern debacles. This will be met by howling from the 'usual suspects'.
Now that Trump has replaced MAGA with MIGA, I expect that Netanyahu will feel he can pretty much do what he wants to, including continuing to use ISIS to destabilize Syria.
Something odd about the article. It keeps referring to Hamas in Lebanon and Syria. The group in Lebanon and Syria is Hezbollah. They are the ones that bested the IDF in Lebanon. Hamas is in Gaza.
It might be a translation problem.
Tartus lies at the bottom left of the square
In the article creveld lists three options for the Israelis.
A fourth option, engineering a false flag that gets Americans to fight and die for them , goes unmentioned.
His piece substituted "Hamas" for Hezbollah, I must be missing something there. Off the top of my head that is about the only piece I have ever read that I would consider deep strategic thinking from a Jewish person, which really makes it stand out compared to the pieces we read in the FUSA collapsing empire which amount to sophist cover stories for extractive looting.
Is Van Crevald using ``reconstruction'' to mean ``maintain a friendly regime,'' or is he assuming the Russian leadership are Globalist, Neocon fools like the fools in DC?
The US is one of the very few (assuming there are any others - Israel has few friends around the world) that may recognize any of the annexations that Netanyahu might desire. The Golan Heights, despite low population density, still seems least likely to me. I can't see any government over a unified Syria accepting it being possessed by Israel. While Syria is divided the occupation can continue but outright annexation is one of those issues that nearly all factions in Syria would oppose. With it giving Israel effective control over the Jordan river watershed, it would be an ongoing casus belli.
I suspect Russia might be more interested in reconstruction, at least limited, at first, than one might think. Though, it might well be in the area of major interest mentioned. Putin does not seem the idiot, so, watching this unfold will be instructive.
Jack Ward wrote:I suspect Russia might be more interested in reconstruction, at least limited, at first, than one might think.
Maintaining a friendly regime to safeguard your warm water port makes sense. Spending a few rubles on it could be in the Russian nation's interest. Going beyond that only makes sense if you are a neocon ``nation-builder'' bent on destroying the nations.
It's a guest post, Miguel, not Creveld himself. But still, a very worthwhile read. What's missing from the article is how the other Arab states would regard Syrian reconstruction: which is ironic considering their role in founding ISIS when America refused to play ball with them. This also leads to another possible solution for Israel: either take additional Syrian territory in the south, or render it uninhabitable using sabotage. Destroy water sources, blame it on ISIS. Unleash a lethal epidemic, blame it on ISIS. They don't have to conquer Syria, but they may be able to get Saudi money in exchange for keeping their mutual enemy down. Or flood northern Syria with more Kurds and give them more funding. There is no shortage of solutions, plus the best one for Israel: do nothing.
On the other hand, the danger posed -to- Israel is also overblown: Hamas has sent rockets into Israel for years, and will do so for the foreseeable future. Those attacks, more than any other factor, have empowered Netanyahu and Israeli nationalism. They won't change much without some sort of diplomatic or military objective.
Trump has kept us out so far. I am still waiting for an overarching strategy in the ME that actually take into account our interests and the actual fighting/factions that exist on the ground. We have been merely tactical, not even operation for too long.
Of course if we ever get to view things as a clash of civilizations, then maybe we could start-- but that is not allowed. Samuel who?
I know, I know what people are going to argue; but I seem to remember an old saying about "possession is 9/10 of the law." Last I checked, Israel has had possession of the Golan Heights since about 1973 and they have a military that can keep control of it. If Prime Minister Netanyahu is re-elected then I imagine he will make it a priority.
Being there last summer was quite an education, you could see all of the old Syrian bases on the Golan Heights and how easy it was for them to basically overlook and shoot at Tiberias and launch an assault into the Jordan Valley; they almost succeeded in 1973. I would stay out of the rest of Syria and concentrate on that. The Valley of Tears would probably become a literal Valley of Tears again if Israel were to give up the Golan Heights.
Post a Comment
Rules of the blog