The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
Bringing War to International Level Helping to Hold Syria's Ceasefire
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria strengthens the current ceasefire, de-escalates the violence and brings in view the distant prospect of an end to five years of war. The extent of the Russian pull-out remains uncertain as some of its bombers flew home on 15 March, while others attacked Isis fighters holding the ancient city of Palmyra.

Russia has succeeded in achieving most of its war aims since it started air strikes in support of President Bashar al-Assad and against his opponents on 30 September last year. At that time the Syrian army was retreating after a series of defeats, while today it is advancing on all fronts, though it is unlikely to win a total victory.

Russian military success means that it has re-established itself as a great power in the core region of the Middle East for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. By pulling out most of Russia’s forces at this stage, President Vladimir Putin avoids overplaying his hand and being sucked into the Syrian quagmire as his critics had predicted.

Russia never sent great forces to Syria and its intervention primarily involved launching air strikes in support of the Syrian army, which were carried out by 35 fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and long-distance missiles. But this was enough to multiply vastly the firepower of the Syrian army and change the balance of power on the ground. At the same time, it has become clear over the past month that Russia does not want to give Mr Assad a blank cheque enabling him to fight on until final victory.

This was the mistake made by the US and its allies, including Britain, in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Taliban in 2001 and again in Iraq after the invasion in 2003. In both cases, a US-led coalition failed to turn military victory into political success because it was propping up a weak local partner seeking to use foreign backing to monopolise power locally. Mr Putin is evidently trying to avoid this trap and maximise political gains without being dragged into a long conflict. He pursued a similar strategy in the 2008 war in Georgia when Russia won a quick victory and brought the conflict to a close.

Russian intervention five months ago undoubtedly changed the military balance of power in favour of Mr Assad, so withdrawal could help the armed opposition. But the Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu clearly believes that the tide has turned permanently, telling Mr Putin that “the terrorists have been cleared out of Latakia, communications have been restored with Aleppo …and we have cleared most of the provinces of Hama and Homs.” Supported by 9,000 Russian air missions, the Syrian army has ended Isis’s long siege of Kweires air base east of Aleppo and retaken three large oil and gas fields near Palmyra.

Important though these gains are, they do not entirely reverse the opposition successes last May when fighters captured Idlib City and Palmyra. Overall, Russia has enabled the Syrian government to expand its heartlands in Latakia province, move to try to seal off the Turkish border and defend the main north-south route linking Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo. The Syrian opposition is weaker than it was and Isis suffered heavy casualties because it has been squeezed between the Syrian army and the Syrian Kurds backed by US air power.

Maps showing control by one side or the other in Syria are misleading because half the country is desert or semi-desert. A more meaningful comparison is the size of the populations controlled by different parties in the conflict. Around five million Syrians are refugees, mostly in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, leaving about 16 million Syrians inside the country, of whom about 10 million are in government-held areas and two million each in the Kurdish-held, Isis and non-Isis opposition zones. In other words, Mr Assad is in a strong but not overwhelmingly powerful position.

But it is a long time since the balance of power within Syria was determined by local players. This was briefly true in 2011 at the start of the uprising against Mr Assad and his Baathist government, but these purely Syrian forces were soon outweighed by regional powers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran. From 2012 to the capture of Mosul by Isis in June 2014, these countries fought an inconclusive proxy war in Syria. But with the rise of Isis, Syria entered a third or international phase in the war in which the US and Russia became the real political and military decision-makers. Even so, it will not be easy for Syria to escape being the chosen battleground for confrontations being fought out between Shia and Sunni, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Arab and Kurd.

A fruit of US and Russian dominance is the unexpected success of the “cessation of hostilities”, declared on 27 February after negotiations between Moscow and Washington, and the delivery of supplies to besieged communities. The secret of the surprise success of the ceasefire so far is the degree to which the fighters on the ground in Syria are the proxies of outside powers and cannot really act without their support. The US and Russia may not be able to give direct instructions to these regional sponsors, but it is difficult for states such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia to oppose US and Russian policy directly when these two powers act together.

ORDER IT NOW

Thanks to the “internationalisation” of the Syrian crisis, the ceasefire is holding for the first time since the war began. Relations between Russia and the US involve rivalry as well as co-operation and it is never certain which relationship will determine policy. Moreover, the ceasefire does not apply to all the combatants, above all it does not cover Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the two movements that dominate the Syrian armed opposition. Isis may be battered and unable to hold fixed positions in the face of concentrated air strikes, but its blend of guerrilla tactics and terrorism directed against civilian targets is still murderously effective.

A weakness of Western policy is to pretend that there is a “moderate” armed opposition holding territory, though sponsors of this belief can never explain where this territory is to be found or make any attempt to go there. David Cameron famously claimed that there are 70,000 armed moderates, but they appear to be disparate groups of gunmen fighting for a tribe, clan, a village or for whoever will pay them. They are not capable of fighting a well-organised fanatical movement such as Nusra, shown on 13 March when Nusra overran bases of the largest “moderate” force known as Division 13.

The Russian withdrawal and the ceasefire may both be messy, but these are serious and effective steps towards reducing the killing. But with the armed opposition dominated by Nusra and Isis, neither of which are in the business of compromising with anybody, it will be far more difficult to end the war.

Chaos and Caliphate: Jihadis and the West in the Struggle for the Middle East, by Patrick Cockburn, will be published in April by OR Books

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Syria 
Hide 6 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rehmat says:

    “The withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria strengthens the current ceasefire, de-escalates the violence and brings in view the distant prospect of an end to five years of war.”

    How stupid one could be? How many ceasefires were broken by the US-Israel supported rebels before the Russian started airstrikes? In fact, the latest “ceasefire” between the US and Russia has already been broken by anti-Assad rebels who were not invited in Geneva.

    Israel’s military propaganda outlet, DEBKAfile, reported on March 14 that Putin is pulling his forces out of Syria due to his differences with Iran and Syria. If that’s true – who else would benefit from this withdrawal except the Zionist entity.

    Cockburn answer my question by saying, “the ceasefire does not apply to all the combatants, above all it does not cover Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria.”

    One doesn’t need a PhD to figure out that Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda were all created by the US to maintain Israel’s military superiority in the region.

    “Al-Qaeda itself doesn’t exist, except in the fevered imagination of neocon and Likudnicks (Israeli Jew fascists), some of whom, I suspect, it’s a myth, but find it extremely useful as a bogeyman to spook the public and the politicians to acquiesce in otherwise unacceptable policy initiatives at home and abroad….. R. T. Naylor, June 21, 2003.

    https://rehmat1.com/2010/01/06/whose-al-qaeda/

  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Actually Rehmat, Patrick Cockburn is the most intelligen commentator on Syria there is.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  3. Rehmat says:
    @Anonymous

    So is Gilad Atzmon on Israel – the most truthful and honest reporter.

    Israeli-born UK’s writer, author and musician, Gilad Atzmon, on September 14, 2013, once again urged Tehran to acquire a nuclear deterrent. He said that’s the only way to bring Israeli aggression to an end. This is not the first time, Atzmon has made such suggestion. He did on several occasions during the last ten years I happen to know him….

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/09/15/gilad-atzmon-iran-must-have-nuclear-deterrent/

    • Replies: @biz
  4. biz says:
    @Rehmat

    Rehmat, let me just say on behalf of many commenters here that I really appreciate the effort you put into constantly spamming this site with links to your personal blog.

    We really appreciate the sacrifice you make several times a day to pull your penis out of your goat, get a rickshaw down to the internet cafe in Peshwar, and then deal with the spotty power outages and rats chewing through the bootleg T1 lines to invariably post your blog links here.

    Also the effort that you make to tie literally everything in the world, up to and including when your goat’s anus gets too loose, to nefarious actions of tha Jews is definitely above and beyond the dedication that most people who are distracted by wives, jobs, and the like can muster. Kudos to you my friend.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  5. Rehmat says:
    @biz

    Thank you on behalf of Henry Kissinger who like you get your diapers and run to your Polish or Russian ancestral lands as the Zionist experiment in Palestine is DOOMED very soon.

    On September 17, 2012, Cindy Adams in her column at the New York Post, quoted Henry Kissinger predicting that if the current isolation of the Zionist entity continues – the Zionist entity will be gone within next 10 years.

    “Reported to me, Henry Kissinger has stated – and I quote the statement word for word: “In 10 years, there will be no more Israel”. I repeat: “In 10 years, there will be no more Israel”, wrote Cindy Adams.

    “Do not argue with Mr. Kissinger’s know-how. He already knows how,” added Adams to emphasized her point.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/09/26/henry-kissinger-no-israel-in-10-years/

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr