BC stands for NEO’s Banned Classic. This article was originally published by our journal on 29.08.13   For some reason, this article is missing from Google search results. Since this article remains pretty relevant to those geopolitical events that are taking place on the geopolitical stage today, we deem it possible to present it to our readers once again. Should it go missing again, you may be confident that you will see it republished by NEO once more, should it still remain relevant by that time.

At present we are witnessing an escalation of tension around the Syrian conflict, but Syria itself hasn’t got much to do with it. The Western powers don’t seem to care all that much about Syria and the fate of its people. The Syrian fate is of utmost importance to its regional neighbors who have to deal with the refugees flows. Those are Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. Iran is looking curiously in the direction of Syria but for a completely different reason.

But one thing is sure, Syria has become a target for cold blooded manipulations aimed at showing the World who is in charge. The revival of the Bush formula: “Shoot first, consult UN later” can do nobody any good. After his first electional success Barak Obama opposed this practice, but today yet once again NATO believes that it has an unilateral right to attack any country without consulting anyone. The only thing missing is an excuse, but the United States is using the same excuse it have devised to attack Iraq – weapons of mass destruction or WMD. After the military intervention in Iraq Pentagon failed to provide any evidence of WMDs being stored on the Iraqi soil. Yet the international agenda is not formulated properly since it’s not all about who has shot a nerve agent containing shell first. To discuss this matter we should wait for the results presented by the UN Commission that was sent to Syria to investigate this case. One cannot insist that it’s already too late, since they are going to present the facts all the same…

As for the possibilities of a US military intervention in Syria that could have started, according to certain news reports, today, one must ask himself what’s the use of missile bombardments if they’re not a secret anymore? What the United States can possibly achieve with these? Do they want to bomb the hell out of this country or to enhance even a more harsh civil war? First of all, an unilateral military aggression cannot be justified by the international law. No country in the world can make such a decision without consulting other parties. As we have recently learnt from media sources, certain European powers like Italy and Dania are not willing to take any part in this intervention without an UN approval.

If we are to believe Cameron the West doesn’t want to topple Assad. If the United States and its satellites are willing to lower the military might of the Syrian army, this will change the distribution of power in the militants favor. But in this case the Assad’s regime won’t go anywhere, all they are going to get is more fighting, more violence, more blood.

Yet it’s a mystery why would the Western elite share a banner with the jihadist forces that assume that the United States and Israel are their archenemies. And Israel, by the way, remains silent in the Syrian crisis. But why would Washington want to support groups like Jabat Al Nusra that have promised to extinguish alawites by villages. Do they really want to invest their money and their trust in such barbarians?

If the United States have a different aim, say they want to destroy all the chemical charges of the Syrian army. Even if they knew for sure where this charges were stored how are they going to destroy them? If they are to bomb them,  the number of casualties among the civilian will overshadow the casualties of the attacks that Assad is blamed for. Some experts believe that one has to use the so-called mini nukes to get rid of the chemical charges without a gas attack in the aftermath. But how can you possibly use a mini nuke in a populated area? The Western powers claim that the only targets they are willing to attack are the military headquarters, centers of command, but there’s always some civilians nearby.

I believe that the military intervention in Syria is going to be one of the most crucial mistakes of the United States. This claim is supported by the numerous observers that have voiced their concerns over the present situation over and over again. But the officers in the United State say that there’s no good or bad in a civil war, there’s only winners. If they want the rebels to be the winners there’s gonna be a hell to pay. If they are willing to destroy the country, well any country can be destroy and the Unites States is not an exception. But is the destruction is a higher purpose, why would anyone intervene in an internal conflict where everyone’s to blame?

The civil war in Syria is a harsh and brutal war but these are the attributes of such wars. We in Russia have undergone a civil war as well and we know that there’s no telling who’s right and who’s wrong in this type of conflicts. There were some really violent groups that operated in Siberia where my ancestors lived at the time of the Russian civil war. One of these group was led by Alexander Kolchak who’s remaints have been recently reburied with all the due military honors. For some of us Kolchak is a hero, for others he’s a felon. The American civil war has taken a lot of lives, and still there are debates who were the heroes of this war. All this is true in the Syrian conflict, but no matter who appeals to you, you cannot use uncontrolled violence to help them win.

I believe that the position taken by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the most balanced approach towards this question. We should wait for the results of the investigation, share information, discuss these matter on the international level, settling the crisis within the jurisdiction of the bodies that are empowered with all the corresponding credentials. The UN Security Council is the safest bet in this situation. I’m assured that the military intervention is the last resort, despite the fact that a number of the regional forces can’t wait to see the Assad’s regime fall. Their voices affect the West in its decision making process, but I believe that the former ones have grown to obsessed with the idea of “settling the matter quick”. But some powers, like Turkey for instance are not prepared to provide its territory for the U.S. Armed Forces in the capacity of a launching pad, if the intervention is really inevitable. So they will have to operate from their carriers.

Vitaly Naumkin, Ph.D. in historical sciences, professor, correspondent member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies, member of the Russian International Affairs Council, exclusively for online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Мы представляем вам сегодня материал из серии «Забаненные публикации» (ЗП) НВО. Данный материал впервые был опубликован на сайте издания 29.08.13 и по какой-то «странной» причине отсутствует в поисковой выдаче Google. Учитывая тот факт, что данная статья остается актуальной и сегодня, позволяя читателю лучше понять главные тренды мировой геополитики, редакция посчитала возможным опубликовать её повторно. В случае если и этот материал пропадет из поисковой выдачи, не стоит сомневаться в том, что редакция вновь повторит публикацию данного материала, если же тот все еще будет актуальным на момент публикации.

В настоящий момент мы наблюдаем резкое обострение ситуации в Сирии и вокруг неё. И дело тут не в самой Сирии, потому что нашим западным партнерам и многим региональным игрокам безразлична судьба этой страны, как, впрочем, и судьба сирийского народа. Судьба Сирии заботит страны, которые непосредственно с ней соседствуют, ведь именно они испытывают давление потока беженцев. Это, прежде всего, Ливан, Иордания, Ирак, Турция. В какой-то степени судьбой Сирии озабочен Иран, но уже по другим соображением.

Но, по большому счету, сегодня Сирией безжалостно и цинично манипулируют, используя её для навязывания своих моделей международного порядка. Наблюдается возвращение к старой «бушевской» парадигме одностороннего вмешательства во внутренние дела других государств. В начале своего президентства Барак Обама выступал против этой модели, но сегодня речь опять идет о том, что НАТО присваивает себе право самостоятельно принимать решения по Сирии, используя тот же самый аргумент, который был использован при вторжении в Ирак. Тогда говорили, что у Садама Хуссейна ядерное оружие, которого там в последствии не оказалось. Вопрос даже не в том, кто применил химическое оружие. Cовершенно очевидно, что нужно подождать окончания результатов работы международных инспекторов — они же туда поехали. Говорить о том, поздно они туда поехали или нет, бессмысленно, нужно дождаться результатов их работы.

Что касается угрозы военного вторжения Соединенных Штатов в Сирию, сообщения о которой приходят к нам с Запада, то были версии, что данное вторжение может начаться уже сегодня. Какой смысл в ракетно-бомбовом военном ударе (вроде бы о наземной операции речь не идет)? Какова его цель? Если говорить о законности такого удара, то он банально противоречит элементарным нормам международного права. Никакая организация, никакая страна не имеет право самостоятельно принимать подобное решение. Мы знаем, кстати, что некоторые государства Европы, к примеру Италия и Дания, не хотят участвовать в подобной операции без соответствующей санкции Совета Безопасности ООН.

Если отвлечься от данной темы, то закономерно задаться вопросом о цели возможного ракетно-бомбового удара. Так в чем же эта цель? Если Запад устами Кэмерона заявляет, что не ставит перед собой в качестве цели свержение режима Асада, тогда чего же он хочет? Разбомбить страну или спровоцировать еще бóльшую гражданскую войну? Если США и их союзники хотят ослабить военный потенциал действующего режима, изменив тем самым баланс в гражданской войне в пользу боевиков, то это лишь сделает гражданскую войну еще более кровопролитной. Режим все равно не сдастся, он сохранится. Что мы получим? Ожесточенное противостояние, в ходе которого экстремисты-джихадисты, составляющие костяк оппозиционных сил, получат больше шансов достичь каких-то военных успехов.

Тем не менее, остается загадкой, зачем западным силам нужно становиться под одни знамена с джихадистами, для которых именно Соединенные Штаты и Израиль являются главными врагами. Израиль, кстати, в этой ситуации сидит тихо и не вмешивается. Если Соединенные Штаты заботятся о своих интересах и интересах своего союзника, то какой смысл им обеспечивать победу организациям, подобным «Джабхат аль-Нусра», которые уже говорят о том, что они готовы уничтожать алавитские деревни целиком. И вот этих людоедов они хотят поддержать военными ударами?

Если задача ставится другая: допустим, уничтожение запасов химического оружия, то как они собираются это сделать? Я не думаю, что у Соединенных Штатов есть 100% проверенная информация о том, где находятся эти запасы. Допустим, они узнали, где находятся эти запасы, что дальше? Точечные удары крылатыми ракетами приведут лишь к подрыву этих запасов, за чем последует гибель куда большего количества граждан Сирии, чем в ходе тех атак, в которых сегодня обвиняют режим Асада.

Некоторые американские эксперты заявляют о том, что, чтобы выжечь полностью запасы химического оружия, нужно применить чуть ли не тактические ядерные заряды. Чтобы было лишь «выжженное поле» и вокруг ничего бы не осталось. А как в таком случае они собираются избежать потерь среди мирного населения? Они ведь утверждают, что точечные удары будут наноситься по целям, в непосредственной близости от которых не будет сосредоточения мирного гражданского населения. Такими целями должны стать: президентский дворец, пункты управления войсками и страной, центры коммуникаций, военные базы, аэродромы. Но там же тоже находятся люди, причем не только военные. А что они собираются делать с иностранным персоналом? Они ведь должны как-то его эвакуировать! Это не только сотрудники в дипломатических и торговых миссиях, а еще и многочисленные специалисты, в том числе и российские. Российскую сторону ведь никто официально не предупреждал, что они собираются наносить какие-либо удары, как это было в ситуации с Ираком.

Мне кажется, что если американцы все-таки нападут на Сирию, то они совершат величающую глупость, прежде всего по отношению к собственным интересам. Это подтверждают многочисленные выступления противников вмешательства американцев в гражданскую войну в Сирии. Один американский военный эксперт недавно отметил, что в «гражданской войне не бывает хороших парней и плохих парней, а бывают только побежденные и победители». Если американцы хотят сделать победителями экстремистов — они могут этого добиться. Если они хотят уничтожить страну, то любую страну можно уничтожить при подобном военном превосходстве. Можно и режим Асада уничтожить, стерев Дамаск с лица земли. Можно и другие страны уничтожить ядерным ударом, как мы знаем, но разве в уничтожении состоят ценности Запада? Зачем же вмешиваться во внутренний конфликт, в котором нет правых и виноватых.

В Сирии идет жестокая гражданская война, и мы знаем по своему опыту (потому что в России тоже была гражданская война), что в ней невозможно определить, кто прав, кто виноват. Как я уже говорил, в нашей гражданской войне не было более жестоких отрядов, чем каппелевцы и колачковцы. Я это знаю по рассказам своих предков, которые жили в Сибири и были свидетелями зверств этих отрядов. А совсем недавно прах адмирала Колчака был с почестями перезахоронен. Для одних он герой, для других — военный преступник. Так и в Сирии, для одних правы одни, а для других — совсем другие. Но вмешиваться в этот конфликт военным путем и обеспечивать победу того, кто тебе нравится, попутно уничтожая тех, кто тебе не нравится, я считаю грубой ошибкой. Кстати, и гражданской войне Юга с Севером в США тоже полегло немало людей.

Я думаю, что сегодня призывы российской дипломатии о том, что надо подождать результаты расследования, обмениваться информацией, выносить вопрос на обсуждение тех международных органов, которые имеют полномочия решать данные вопросы, прежде всего на повестку дня Совета Безопасности ООН – наиболее верный путь. Я уверен, что военное вмешательство должно быть исключено, несмотря на то, что есть ряд региональных игроков, которые подталкивают Запад к вмешательству, потирая при этом руки. Они, к сожалению, сегодня зациклились на идее уничтожения режима Асада. Хотя Турция, по имеющейся у нас информации, не готова предоставлять свою территорию для нанесения ударов по Сирии, а потому, если нападение все-таки произойдет, то основным плацдармом для нанесения удара будет американский флот, который находится в Средиземном море.

Виталий Вячеславович Наумкин, доктор исторических наук, профессор, член-корреспондент РАН, научный руководитель института, председатель, член научного совета Российского совета по международным делам, специально для Интернет-журнала «Новое Восточное Обозрение»

Particularly, on February 28 in Turkey the People’s Democratic Party (HDP), during a joint press conference with the government, made an appeal to the leader of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) Abdullah Ocalan to convene this spring for deliberation of a complete end to armed conflicts. The well-known British diplomat, and former advisor to Tony Blair, Jonathan Powell, expressed optimism regarding the Turkish-Kurdish peace process, saying that the granting of permission to forces of Iraqi Kurds for passage through Turkish territory on their way to Rojava (Kurdish territory in North-eastern Syria) by Turkish authorities, strengthens trust between the two sides. Moscow generally shares this view, since for Russia which maintains friendly relations with both Turkey and the Kurds (including in the not-so-distant past with even the PKK) there is much to gain from reconciliation between the Kurds and Ankara. According to Russian experts on the region, the successful participation of the Iraqi Peshmerga in the Siege of Kobanî is evidence of the growing consolidation of the Kurds, with whom they are united today by the common threat from ISIS. In no small measure as a result of this fact the Peshmerga forces in general showed themselves to be more a combat-ready force than the Iraqi army. Of course, the structure of the Peshmerga takes into consideration the difficult relations which historically developed between various Kurdish parties that ended in open confrontations at times. This is why, for example, the Peshmerga in Iraqi Kurdistan is made up of two groups: Democratic Party of Kurdistan (DPK) supporters and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) supporters.

Concurrently, with the emergence of ISIS in Iraq many Kurdish politicians have accused each other of a lack of solidarity with the Kurdish minority victims of the jihadists, primarily Yazidis, but also Shabak, Yarsanis and Syrian Kurds. Certain Western writers have also expressed criticism at the Peshmerga. Prominent British journalist Patrick Cockburn notes that these armed forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) “fled from the ISIS attack in August even faster than the Iraqi army in June. Yazidi villagers from Sinjar and Christians from the Nineveh Plain complained bitterly that they were abandoned by Peshmerga units who only hours earlier had sworn to defend them to the last drop of their blood.”

Russian analysts do not share the harsh criticism of the British journalist. According to unconfirmed reports from their sources, the government of Iraqi Kurdistan, based on the progress made through the brokering of certain agreements with the jihadists, allegedly expected that their region would not be subject to attacks, but ISIS launched military operations in Kurdistan, prompting KRG to switch to active resistance. Perhaps the Kurds needed more time to better prepare for heavy fights with the jihadists. And those were bloody indeed. Speaking to me on March 12 of this year, in Suleymaniye, PUK executive secretary Hikmat Kareem said that the Peshmerga have already lost about 1,100 men with 5,000 injured. The heroic actions of Kurdish troops in Iraq, as well as in Syria, are highly valued by the population, including the minority groups that are under Peshmerga protection today. Incidentally, according the BBC, there are 200 foreign volunteers fighting in Syria with the Kurdish forces against ISIS, including US and British citizens. In Iraqi Kurdistan, Peshmerga units are formed within an ethno-religious framework designed to further the formation of the just-created separate Christian units (the Arab BBC reported about this in particular on March 13). It is good that the Christian population of the region will be directly involved in the war with ISIS but what if this step will have a boomerang effect: strengthening of ethno-religious and sectarian Iraqi militias? We have seen the consequences this might have, for example, with the battle of Tikrit: representatives of the local Sunni population have already started accusing the Shiite volunteer militia al-Hashd al-Shaabi of reprisals on the peaceful Sunni population after ousting jihadists of the Islamic State. Will this not cause an influx of new jihadists into ISIS? Note that on February 13, Ayatollah Sistani advised the Shiite volunteer forces not to avenge the population of liberated settlements.

Iraqi Kurdistan has welcomed a huge number of refugees and internally displaced persons, including Syrian Kurds. According to international organizations, the total number has reached about 1.5 million and according to local authorities, more than 1.8 million (the exact number is unknown). Some of them live in specifically-organized camps and others live with relatives, friends and acquaintances. Clearly, receiving and accommodating refugees and internally-displaced persons places a heavy burden on local budgets. Most difficult is providing these people with electricity, food, medical care, drinking water, and so on.

The problem of joint armed confrontations with the jihadists also draws leaders of the Kurdish autonomy in Iraq and the federal government closer. Nevertheless, even in these difficult circumstances, existing antagonisms between them do not simply vanish and sometimes spill over. I recently witnessed an open debate flare up between the Republic of Iraq’s Oil Minister Adil Abdelmahdi and the Minister of Natural Resources of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Ashti Hawrami, during a highly representative forum held recently at the American University in Suleymaniye, which was brilliantly organized and assembled prominent representatives of local and international political and scientific elites, civil society representatives and journalists. The representative of the regional government accused the federal government of delaying the transfer of expected oil quota funds to Erbil, of which the autonomy is badly in need. In turn, the representative of the federal government, referencing information obtained from the Turkish side, which receives oil from North Iraq, cited figures saying that part of the oil was not delivered, or delivered in such a way that the central government has not received payment for it. Given the complex financial and economic situation in Iraq due to low prices for energy products, this creates additional budget difficulties. While such quarrels are usually held behind closed doors, the openness and constructive spirit of the participants in this situation left a good impression on the audience but aggravated the ongoing debate on government transparency on the sidelines.

Of course the main issue facing all the Fertile Crescent states, including Iraq, is the question of whether they can do away with the Islamic State, which strategy is best to achieve this and which future awaits the country in a post-ISIS era. But another important issue which concerns the citizens of Iraqi and friends of its people is which one of the two trends will prevail in the development of the North Iraq: the further deepening of the Kurdish autonomy and its subsequent alienation from the rest of the country or its further integration into a democratic, multinational, and multi-religious state which will constructively resolve all disputes between its groups. In this context, the worrying evidence that the younger generation of Kurds are speaking less and less Arabic causes a certain alarm with integration supporters. However, the situation is not as simple as language.

Vitaly Naumkin, Ph.D. in historical sciences, professor, correspondent member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies, member of the Russian International Affairs Council, exclusively for online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Today in Iraq a number of different axes of confrontation meet, those axes that can easily be observed both in the Middle East and in the world. The first axis is the confrontation between the jihadist Sunni forces and the moderate Shiites and Sunnis, the latter favor a modernized society and peaceful coexistence with other religions. They do not impose their viewpoint on others around them, as opposed to the bloody terrorist of ISIL that make people live under a rigid set of rules that was unimaginable even in the Middle Ages.

Medieval Islam was by far more tolerant than the one acquired by the militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, since the Middle East has never witnessed such an unprecedented level of violence against both the Muslims and the followers of other religions before. ISIL militants use a set of religious misconceptions of Islam and the nature of an Islamic state. These views are in a sharp conflict with the national priorities of the Arabs.

These priorities are more in tune with Arab nationalism, patriotism and moderate Islam. The main concern among them – is to provide support to the Palestinian people. When events in Gaza took a bloody turn ISIL militants were not seen going to support the Palestinians, instead they were burning Palestinian flags. This situation occurred due to the fact that the Palestinians are planning to create a nation-state, instead of fighting for the establishment of a universal caliphate. Hence the supporters of the caliphate concept consider them traitors of the faith, that is why ISIL is acting against the national Palestinian struggle. It is ironic that such a force as ISIL, which is fighting against the West and, therefore, would have to join the movement against the Israeli occupation of Palestine, in fact helps this occupation.

The second axis of confrontation in Iraq – is the renewed military confrontation between the United States and the Islamists. Obama based his policy on the concept that the US was going to leave the region, he was going to abandon the policy of military activism so the United States wouldn’t intervene in Middle Eastern affairs any longer. But today Obama is presented with a number of attractive and humanistic pretexts for assisting minorities, such as the Yezidi Kurds who have suffered from the persecution of ISIL militants, and saving the Christian minorities, that is why he is interfering in the affairs of Iraq again. And although he promises that there will be no boots on the ground, the bombing is still a military intervention, even if he obtained official consent from Baghdad.

On the one hand, this may seem acceptable, since the fight against a common enemy is beneficial for all the parties involved. On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that there are some geopolitical interests behind these actions and that these interests are somehow related to oil production. A renowned British journalist Robert Fisk that has been living in Beirut for a quarter of a century stated that the level of oil production in Kurdistan, if ISIL militants don’t affect it, will reach 250 thousand barrels per day next year. Consequently, Kurdistan, whether is is independent or as a part of Iraq, will enter the top ten richest oil states in the world. It seems that this piece of cake is worth defending.

Fisk asks a rhetorical question:  has anybody told Barack Obama that this military operation is based on oil interests and why the United States has ultimately failed in protecting Iraqi Christians? Until 2003, just before the NATO invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi Christian community was as large as 1.4 million people. On the eve of the ISIL invasion there were only 350 Christians left in Iraq. During this decade the NATO coalition and the United States did nothing to protect the Christians who were fleeing Iraq in large numbers. Therefore if American politicians are going to pretend that humanitarian considerations are put at the forefront, this won’t actually be true. Of course, if the forces of ISIL are going to suffer a serious blow, this would be beneficial for everyone. However, Washington recognizes that the fight against ISIL will take time. And it is clear that aerial bombardment  alone cannot destroy a movement like ISIL , and the National Army of Iraq and the Kurdish units of Peshmerga are not prepared for such a fight. At the same time, the primary weakness of ISIL is the absence of aerial support.

Now there is information that the citizens of certain Middle Eastern states have been sympathizing with ISIL. Yet Saudi Arabia official authorities oppose ISIL, there can be no second opinion about that. Moreover, the ruling elite of Saudi Arabia is fairly afraid of these militants. However, among the Saudi population there’s strong public support for the ISIL movement. The are no fools among the leaders of ISIL, they know how to manipulate national feelings of certain Muslims, when there’s a religious basis underneath. In particular, the Muslim minority of Rohingya that has been has been persecuted by the majority in Burma was mentioned in one sermon of the ISIL leaders.  It’s not surprising that Rohingya are now sympathizing with ISIL since they now have a power that supports and protects them.

What is not really confusing in this situation is that the US forces that are now waging war on ISIL are refusing to notice the obvious. Why is the leader of the ISIL Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was pronouncing a sermon for an hour and a half in the biggest mosque of Mosul, not targeted by the US Air Force? We all know how other militants were killed, whether bin Laden or Dudayev, every step of which is carefully tracked. Did Western intelligence fail to provide the report or was there was no way of striking the target? Hence, a question arises: can ISIL be be beneficial to someone’s forces that are pretending to fight against it?

The third axis of confrontation – a confrontation between a number of states in the Middle East and Syria. What would happen if the Americans or any other force decided to strike ISIL in Syria? It’s a cross-border organization, hence such attacks on this pseudo-caliphate will be merely a continuation of the military operation in Iraq. However, it is worth noting that the Iraqi officials are supporting these strikes, and the Syrian ones would hardly agree to do so – no. You can ask yet another logical question, given the pathological desire of the White House to see the government of Bashar al-Assad go: Will the US officials be tempted to strike the positions of the Syrian army instead of those of the ISIL? This would be a direct intervention in the Syrian conflict and an open attempt at a regime change.

The Iraqi government has been changed, Nouri al-Maliki was forced to leave under strong pressure from the West and the Sunni regimes in the Arab world. The new government, according to the plan of those who had forced Maliki to step down, must unite Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to create preconditions for the unification of all patriotic forces in Iraq. Regional Sunni Arabs would like the new Iraqi government to change the official Iraqi position on Syria. Russia strongly favors Iraq as a unified state and, of course, it will support all steps to preserve the unity of Iraq. Will these steps be successful, and to what extent will Iraq go to change its position on Syria – those are the big questions.

In this regard, the Kurds can be a unifying force. However, it should be remembered that above all they care about their own interests. Kurds live in a region that has already been enjoying broad rights, but the Kurds will seek even greater autonomy. They can get more representation in the central executive government in Iraq (by the way, most of them are Sunni Muslim), which provide them an additional reason to defend the unity of Iraq. Besides, the war with ISIL is the unifying factor, because Kurds alone will have a hard time resisting this enemy. Kurds – are a force that will both in Iraq and in Syria be fighting consistently against jihadists, but they need external support.

I think that Russia will continue to support the unity of Iraq, but it has long-standing connections with the Kurdish movement, since the days of Mustafa Barzani. Russia, as one might expect, will continue to work in these two fields, supporting the official Iraqi government, including military contracts,  and on the other hand – promoting its relations with the Kurds.

Vitaly Naumkin, Ph.D. in historical sciences, professor, correspondent member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies, member of the Russian International Affairs Council, exclusively for online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Can ideology and pragmatism walk hand in hand, as was at one time claimed by the Muslim Brotherhood, or would this inevitably result in a conflict of interest that could lead to an eruption the likes of which we witnessed in Egypt? Everything that is currently taking place in Egypt is not only reshaping the internal disposition of this country, but it also changes the very architecture of mutual relations between the main political forces and nations in the region.

One need only look at the Islamist circles themselves, which are usually divided by analysts into three groups. The first, as was previously thought, are the “moderates”, focused on adopting democratic norms, electoral democracy, patience, respect for minority rights, of which they were trying to convince the international community and in which they were relatively successful. It was possible to include Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood in particular into this grouping. We know that the United States have long worked very closely with the Muslim Brotherhood, seeing them as a force that would be able to ascertain the “democratic transformation” of a country like Egypt. The second sphere are the Salafists, a more conservative force, more orthodox, dragging, as is believed, the governments of this region into the past towards the Sharia Law and the Islamic way of government. The third force are the jihadists – groups fighting against the system – who do not recognize the electoral paradigm as such and are acting against the existing systems.

Today, everything is once again turning upside down. Egypt has declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be an illegal organization. The Salafists, which were considered radical in our understanding, are supporting the new Egyptian administration and they are ready to participate both in the building of a new nation and in the electoral process, which was not so until just recently. Saudi Arabia, who is seen by the layman as the main proponent of the interests of all Islamic forces, supported the military and practically acted against the main force that was carrying out a Muslim transformation in Egypt. Whereas Turkey, who is presently staring across the Syrian front lines directly at Iran, is presently strongly condemning the new administration in Egypt together with that same Iran. They are essentially opposing Saudi Arabia. As for Qatar, it still remains in an alliance with Turkey, yet at the same time it is forced to show solidarity towards the decisions of the Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf.

This turn of events, this alignment of the regional forces and of the regional balance of power is the consequence of the conflict between ideology and pragmatism. We were witness to how keenly representatives of various Islamic organisations argue with each other. Russia has previously received representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists and many other organizations, including representatives from Hezbollah and Hamas, which is currently in a dire situation. Recently, to the surprise of many analysts, the new Egyptian administration accused representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood in plotting a conspiracy with Hamas. It was not too long ago that Fatah and Hamasalmost finished negotiating the creation of the Government of National Unity. What will the future hold for Egypt? Will the present story continue in Tunisia, how will it affect the Middle Eastern conflict, what will be the consequences for the population in Gaza, and, finally, for the global powers, primarily for the United States, who has fallen into this trap numerous times before. At first, they were rather quick to surrender Mubarak, and now they have surrendered the Muslim Brotherhood, whom they have indulged for quite some time. However, one does not want to gloat over this turn of events, since they have invested enormous resources into this region, into searching for allies and into ensuring the safety of their regional allies and, above all, Israel. Today, this system puts the Americans in a fairly tight spot because the anti-American sentiment is only growing, regardless of who comes to power in any given Middle Eastern nation. How will this situation influence what is happening in Syria, where Russia is expending huge resources to solve the present conflict peacefully?

Today, Russian politics in the region are especially sound, as they are based on restraint, on a certain level of scepticism with regards to those transformational shifts in the region that have been quickly lauded by our western partners, who are possessed with the democratization of the region. Furthermore, this stance appears rather attractive, which is why many western observers emphasize that Russian positions in the Middle East are presently only expanding.

One should not forget that Qatar is the main sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood. After all, it was precisely Qatar who was actively pursuing a policy of supporting and promoting this group to the positions which they currently hold. It just so happened that Saudi Arabia and Qatar supported two opposing forces in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is one of the oldest movements in the Middle East, having been created in 1928, and this movement has amassed many long-standing traditions. With an aura of prosecuted “martyrs”, through their kindred party of Ennahda they were able to win during the revolution in Tunisia, while also appearing on the wave of those rebellious sentiments in Egypt that are now being called the revolution of January 25. The Muslim Brotherhood was able to win with a slight lead. However, they were expected to completely change things for the better, which they were unable to accomplish and thus failed to live up to the expectations of the people. Another question is which other force could have fundamentally changed something in that situation?

No matter what the fate of the Muslim Brotherhood will be in Egypt, political Islam as a force continues to exist in the Middle East. This is why it is necessary to maintain contacts with representatives of this movement; otherwise it would be impossible to lead the region towards any kind of a peaceful solution. The Arab society of today is severely fragmented, which is why a balanced and moderate stance is necessary, as is a dialogue with all participant sides. 

Vitaly Vyacheslavovich Naumkin, Ph.D. in historical sciences, professor, correspondent member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies, member of the Russian International Affairs Council, exclusively for online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

But one thing is sure, Syria has become a target for cold blooded manipulations aimed at showing the World who is in charge. The revival of the Bush formula: “Shoot first, consult UN later” can do nobody any good. After his first electional success Barak Obama opposed this practice, but today yet once again NATO believes that it has an unilateral right to attack any country without consulting anyone. The only thing missing is an excuse, but the United States is using the same excuse it have devised to attack Iraq – weapons of mass destruction or WMD. After the military intervention in Iraq Pentagon failed to provide any evidence of WMDs being stored on the Iraqi soil. Yet the international agenda is not formulated properly since it’s not all about who has shot a nerve agent containing shell first. To discuss this matter we should wait for the results presented by the UN Commission that was sent to Syria to investigate this case. One cannot insist that it’s already too late, since they are going to present the facts all the same…

As for the possibilities of a US military intervention in Syria that could have started, according to certain news reports, today, one must ask himself what’s the use of missile bombardments if they’re not a secret anymore? What the United States can possibly achieve with these? Do they want to bomb the hell out of this country or to enhance even a more harsh civil war? First of all, an unilateral military aggression cannot be justified by the international law. No country in the world can make such a decision without consulting other parties. As we have recently learnt from media sources, certain European powers like Italy and Dania are not willing to take any part in this intervention without an UN approval.

If we are to believe Cameron the West doesn’t want to topple Assad. If the United States and its satellites are willing to lower the military might of the Syrian army, this will change the distribution of power in the militants favor. But in this case the Assad’s regime won’t go anywhere, all they are going to get is more fighting, more violence, more blood.

Yet it’s a mystery why would the Western elite share a banner with the jihadist forces that assume that the United States and Israel are their archenemies. And Israel, by the way, remains silent in the Syrian crisis. But why would Washington want to support groups like Jabat Al Nusra that have promised to extinguish alawites by villages. Do they really want to invest their money and their trust in such barbarians?

If the United States have a different aim, say they want to destroy all the chemical charges of the Syrian army. Even if they knew for sure where this charges were stored how are they going to destroy them? If they are to bomb them,  the number of casualties among the civilian will overshadow the casualties of the attacks that Assad is blamed for. Some experts believe that one has to use the so-called mini nukes to get rid of the chemical charges without a gas attack in the aftermath. But how can you possibly use a mini nuke in a populated area? The Western powers claim that the only targets they are willing to attack are the military headquarters, centers of command, but there’s always some civilians nearby.

I believe that the military intervention in Syria is going to be one of the most crucial mistake of the United States. This claim is supported by the numerous observers that have voiced their concerns over the present situation over and over again. But the officers in the United State say that there’s no good or bad in a civil war, there’s only winners. If they want the rebels to be the winners there’s gonna be a hell to pay. If they are willing to destroy the country, well any country can be destroy and the Unites States is not an exception. But is the destruction is a higher purpose, why would anyone intervene in an internal conflict where everyone’s to blame?

The civil war in Syria is a harsh and brutal war but these are the attributes of such wars. We in Russia have undergone a civil war as well and we know that there’s no telling who’s right and who’s wrong in this type of conflicts. There were some really violent groups that operated in Siberia where my ancestors lived at the time of the Russian civil war. One of these group was led by Alexander Kolchak who’s remaints have been recently reburied with all the due military honors. For some of us Kolchak is a hero, for others he’s a felon. The American civil war has taken a lot of lives, and still there are debates who were the heroes of this war. All this is true in the Syrian conflict, but no matter who appeals to you, you cannot use uncontrolled violence to help them win.

I believe that the position taken by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the most balanced approach towards this question. We should wait for the results of the investigation, share information, discuss these matter on the international level, settling the crisis within the jurisdiction of the bodies that are empowered with all the corresponding credentials. The UN Security Council is the safest bet in this situation. I’m assured that the military intervention is the last resort, despite the fact that a number of the regional forces can’t wait to see the Assad’s regime fall. Their voices affect the West in its decision making process, but I believe that the former ones have grown to obsessed with the idea of “settling the matter quick”. But some powers, like Turkey for instance are not prepared to provide its territory for the U.S. Armed Forces in the capacity of a launching pad, if the intervention is really inevitable. So they will have to operate from their carriers.

Professor Vitaly Naumkin, history Ph.D, correspondent member of the RAS, Director for the Institute of Oriental Studies, member of the Russian International Affairs Council, exclusively for New Eastern Outlook.

]]> https://journal-neo.org/2013/08/29/syria-difficult-choices/feed/ 0