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
Syria Crisis: Let's Welcome Russia's Entry Into This War
Vladimir Putin’s military intervention could hasten the war’s end
🔊 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
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

Russia’s military intervention in Syria, although further internationalising the conflict, does however present opportunities, as well as complications. There are no simple solutions to this terrible war which has destroyed Syria. Out of a population of 22 million, four million Syrians are refugees abroad and seven million have been displaced inside the country.

I was recently in Kurdish-controlled north-east Syria, where the bomb-shattered ruins of Kobani look like pictures of Stalingrad after the battle. But equally significant is the fact that even in towns and villages from which Islamic State (Isis) has been driven, and where houses are largely undamaged, people are too terrified to return.

Syrians are right to be afraid. They know that what happens on the battlefield today may be reversed tomorrow. At this stage, the war is a toxic mix of half a dozen different confrontations and crises, involving players inside and outside the country. Intertwined struggles for power pit Assad against a popular uprising, Shia against Sunni, Kurd against Arab and Turk, Isis against everybody, Iran against Saudi Arabia and Russia against the US.

One of the many problems in ending, or even de-escalating these crises, is that these self-interested players are strong enough to fight their own corners, but too weak to ever checkmate their opponents. This is why the involvement of Moscow could have a positive impact: Russia is at least a heavy hitter, capable of shaping events by its own actions and strongly influencing the behaviour of its allies and proxies.

Barack Obama said at a news conference after the Russian airstrikes that “we’re not going to make Syria into a proxy war between the United States and Russia”. But the US-Soviet Cold War, and the global competition that went with it, had benefits for much of the world. Both superpowers sought to support their own allies and prevent political vacuums from developing which its opposite number might exploit. Crises did not fester in the way they do today, and Russians and Americans could see the dangers of them slipping wholly out of control and provoking an international crisis.

This global balance of power ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and for the Middle East and North Africa this has meant more wars. There are currently eight armed conflicts raging, including Pakistan and Nigeria (the figure jumps to nine if one includes South Sudan, where the renewal of fighting since 2013 has produced 1.5 million displaced people). Without a superpower rival, the US, and its allies such as the UK and France, largely ceased to care what happened in these places and, when they did intervene, as in Libya and Iraq, it was to instal feeble client regimes. The enthusiasm which David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy showed in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi contrasts with their indifference as Libya collapsed into criminalised anarchy.

Overall, it is better to have Russia fully involved in Syria than on the sidelines so it has the opportunity to help regain control over a situation that long ago spun out of control. It can keep Assad in power in Damascus, but the power to do so means that it can also modify his behaviour and force movement towards reducing violence, local ceasefires and sharing power regionally. It was always absurd for Washington and its allies to frame the problem as one of “Assad in or Assad out”, when an end to the Assad leadership would lead either to the disintegration of the Syrian state, as in Iraq and Libya, or would have limited impact because participants in the Syrian civil war would simply go on fighting.

The intervention of Russia could be positive in de-escalating the war in Syria and Iraq, but reading the text of President Obama’s press conference suggests only limited understanding of what is happening there. Syria is only one part of a general struggle between Shia and Sunni and, though there are far more Sunni than Shia in the world, this is not so in this region. Between Afghanistan and the Mediterranean – Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – there are more than 100 million Shia and 30 million Sunni.

In political terms, the disparity is even greater because the militarily powerful Kurdish minorities in Iraq and Syria, though Sunni by religion, are more frightened of Isis and extreme Sunni Arab jihadis than they are of anybody else. Western powers thought Assad would go in 2011-12, and when he didn’t they failed to devise a new policy.

Peace cannot return to Syria and Iraq until Isis is defeated, and this is not happening. The US-led air campaign against Isis has not worked. The Islamic militants have not collapsed under the weight of airstrikes, but, across the Syrian and Iraqi Kurdish regions, either hold the same ground or are expanding. There is something ludicrous about the debate in Britain about whether or not to join in an air campaign in Syria without mentioning that it has so far demonstrably failed in its objectives.

Going into combat against Isis means supporting, or at least talking to, those powers already fighting the extreme jihadis. For instance, the most effective opponents of Isis in Syria are the Syrian Kurds. They want to advance west across the Euphrates and capture Isis’s last border crossing with Turkey at Jarabulus. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, said last week he would never accept such a “fait accompli”, but it remains unclear if the US will give air support to its Kurdish allies and put pressure on Turkey not to invade northern Syria.


The Russians and Iranians should be integrated as far as possible into any talks about the future of Syria. But there should be an immediate price for this: such as insisting that if Assad is going to stay for the moment, then his forces must stop shelling and using barrel bombs against opposition-held civilian areas. Local ceasefires have usually only happened in Syria because one side or the other is on the edge of defeat. But wider ceasefires could be arranged if local proxies are pressured by their outside backers.

All these things more or less have to happen together. A problem is that the crises listed above have cross-infected each other. Regional powers such as Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies do have a strong measure of control over their local proxies. But these regional actors, caring nothing for the destruction of Syria and still dreaming of final victory, will only be forced into compromises by Washington and Moscow.

Russia and America need to be more fully engaged in Syria because, if they are not, the vacuum they leave will be filled by these regional powers with their sectarian and ethnic agendas. Britain could play a positive role here, but only if it stops taking part in “let’s pretend” games whereby hard-line jihadis are re-labelled as moderates. As with the Northern Ireland peace negotiations in the 1990s, an end to the wars in Syria depends on persuading those involved that they cannot win, but they can survive and get part of what they want. The US and Russia may not be the superpowers they once were, but only they have the power to pursue such agreements.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: ISIS, Russia, Syria 
Hide 15 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    Western powers thought Assad would go in 2011-12, and when he didn’t they failed to devise a new policy.

    Why the hell do we keep pretending like we’re not following an agenda and that our policy wasn’t being carried out until Putin stepped in and put a stop to it. We keep acting like all of these occurrences are missteps when they are obviously exactly what we want to happen.

    The agenda is to allow Saudi Arabia to have control of the Middle East by spreading their Wahhabi extremism which will be controlled by the Wahhabi religious leaders in Riyhadh and in turn the House of Saud. In return for us helping the Saudis overthrow the secular regimes of the ME the Saudis have dropped the oil prices in an attempt to destroy the Russian economy. This is all about trying to destroy BRICS and keeping the petrodollar safe. Israel and Saudi Arabia work together and so we have given SA free reign to take over all of the ME. That’s our policy.

  2. Tom_R says:


    Thanks for the good article, Sir. But you do not mention the fact that Israel and its vassal state, USA, do want ISIS to wreck havoc in the Middle East. ISIS is an Israeli-American creation and US could have finished it in a few weeks (or not armed it), if it had so wanted. ISIS is riding on a billion dollars worth of American weapons and treated in Israeli hospitals, as I showed in my previous comments.

    But Israel, a criminal state, worshipper of a war God Yahweh, wants perennial conflict in the Middle East to destroy Syria in order to steal land from it, to establish a Greater Israel extending into Syria, and driving Muslims into Europe, to attack and kill whites there, to carry out white extinction, killing 2 birds with one stone. With Shia and Sunni killing each other, Muslims killing Whites in Europe, Zionists “feel safe” from all groups.

    So USA is not going to help Russia. Russia must act alone in finishing ISIS and arming Shia countries with air power and even nuclear weapons to maintain long term peace, as Israel is likely to incite the Sunni-Shia conflict again for its own interests.

    • Replies: @Junior
    , @Minnesota Mary
  3. All imperial forces should be driven out of Syria. There is nothing to negotiate.

  4. […] Source: Syria Crisis: Let’s Welcome Russia’s Entry Into This War […]

  5. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    You either don’t know that there is a difference between Zionism (a political ideology) and Judaism (a religion) or you are intentionally being misleading. In your above post your first paragraph is true and then your second paragraph goes completely off the rails attacking the religion instead of the ideology and then you follow it up with your third paragraph which is true. Again I wonder if your sandwiching of lunacy between truths is intentional to try to make people think they’re crazy for agreeing with excellent articles (Hasbara Troll) or if you’re incredibly confused and just don’t realize that ALL Jewish people are NOT Zionists.

  6. @Junior

    “You either don’t know that there is a difference between Zionism (a political ideology) and Judaism (a religion)”

    Is that like the difference between the US gov and the American voter who enables it? One is as evil as sin and the other is Priscilla Pureheart? Bullshit.

    One group is wired to be evil because they benefit and the other is wired to tolerate evil because they benefit. Both are scum.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Junior
  7. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    How can you possibly think that the Jewish people who aren’t Zionists benefit from Zionism?! That’s a ridiculous line of thinking. If ANYTHING Zionism does the opposite for Jewish Non-Zionists by creating the type of animosity that you exhibit by conflating the two. There are PLENTY of Jewish people who don’t ascribe to the Zionist political agenda. You do a great disservice to having any meaningful discussions or changes occur by not making that distinction.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  8. @Tom_R

    “ISIS is riding on a billion dollars worth of American weapons and treated in Israeli hospitals, as I showed in my previous comments.”

    Your comment triggered my memory of plane loads of missing billions of dollars. I think we can guess where a lot of that money went.

    Google up “Missing Iraq money may have been stolen, auditors say” by Paul Richter at the LA Times

    I always did wonder where that $12 billion went.

  9. @Junior

    Some otherwise intelligent folks refuse to differentiate between Jews and Zionists. Such distinctions mess up their tidy world view according to which all Jews are evil. Others refuse to distinguish between Islam and Wahhabi’s. You will find that arguing with them is a waste of time.

    • Replies: @Junior
  10. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    You never know though. It’s worth a try because we gotta start somewhere. I think that dialogue and sharing information is the key if we’re gonna have any hope of figuring out what the hell is going on in this crazy screwed up world and what to do about it. As the saying goes, “It’s better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.”

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I gotta come down off this soapbox and fix myself up some lunch ’cause I’m starvin! 🙂

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  11. @Junior

    I like your attitude Jr. You seem to know what you are up against. So – keep hammering away.

  12. […] “Syria Crisis: Let’s Welcome Russia’s Entry Into This War” by Patrick Cockburn.  The comments note that Cockburn is protecting the guilty, but you can’t really blame him as that truth cannot be mentioned in polite company! […]

  13. bondo says:

    “Intertwined struggles for power pit Assad against a popular uprising”

    popular only in vampire state and its vassel, u.s. and the local punks: s. arabia, jordan, turkey.

    why differentiate between isis and the other invading thugs all supported by foreign powers.
    bomb em all. one good dead terrorist thug is as good as another dead terrorist thug. none belong in syria. none were invited.

    only the syrian people have a say about president assad. not some deceiving, flunky reporter nor servile, butt kissing countries. barrel bombs? get serious.

    the syrian arab army blow em all to bits.

  14. @Junior

    So what percentage of Jews are for the dissolution of the Israeli State? They would the ones who are not Zionists.

    1. (Judaism) a political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, now concerned chiefly with the development of the modern state of Israel
    2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, now concerned chiefly with the development of the modern state of Israel
    3. (Judaism) a policy or movement for Jews to return to Palestine from the Diaspora
    4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a policy or movement for Jews to return to Palestine from the Diaspora

    • Replies: @Junior
  15. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    Your question is flawed though because the definition says establishment and support for Israel but your question asks about dissolution which is not the same because the state of Israel is already established so Zionists means whether or not they support it. I’ll try to answer the best I can though. The only statistics which I found (because I know of no international polls which have been taken asking about the dissolution) state that 69% of the worlds Jewish population are Zionists.

Current Commenter

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