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
War in Syria: This Agreement Between the US and Russia Is a Vital Step to Ending the Conflict
🔊 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 war in Syria and Iraq has reached a decisive turning point with the announcement by the US and Russia in Munich that they have agreed on the delivery of food and other aid to besieged communities in Syria; this would be followed by “a cessation of hostilities” in preparation for a formal ceasefire.

A de-escalation of the conflict will be difficult to implement because it does not apply to Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra, both of which are designated by the UN as terrorist movements; between them, they control more than half of Syria’s territory – though a far lower proportion of the population. There is no agreement on which other members of the armed opposition are terrorists, so Russia can continue bombing those whom the US and its allies claim are moderates.

But the agreement in Munich is still a crucial stage in ending the five-year war that has convulsed much of the Middle East and brought terror to people across the world, from Paris to Jakarta. Despite problems in implementation, the agreement is significant because it is brokered by the US and Russia, the only states with enough influence over the many participants in the war to begin the process of ending it.

The outcome of the conflict will not be determined by diplomacy alone, but by events on the battlefield, where winners and losers have been emerging over the past six months. A crucial development was the entry of Russia as a participant in the war; its bombing campaign in support of the Syrian army, which began on 30 September, ensured that President Bashar al-Assad was not going to lose the war. When the Syrian army cut the rebel supply lines between Aleppo and the Turkish border on 2 February it became increasingly possible that he would win it.

The only development that might lead to the military balance of power swinging back in favour of the Syrian armed opposition would be the direct intervention of the Turkish army in Syria. But it is getting very late in the day for this to happen, despite deep unhappiness in Turkey at the advance of the Syrian Kurds along its southern frontier. Saudi Arabia has been an important backer of the armed opposition and has offered to send ground troops to Syria; but it has not said when, where or how it would intervene.

The first test of the new agreement – and of Russia’s ability to ensure that the Syrian government acts in accordance with it – will be the delivery of food and other supplies to besieged and blockaded towns in Syria, such as Madaya and Zabadani. Ending the sieges, or at least alleviating the suffering of the besieged, raises a problem in that almost half of the 486,000 estimated by the UN to live under siege are in government-held areas encircled by Isis and al-Nusra.

In the government-held part of Deir Ezzor, in eastern Syria, 200,000 civilians are trapped and malnourished, according to the UN’s Office for the Co‑ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. When Isis broke into part of the besieged city in January, its fighters executed 85 civilians, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Sieges and blockades have played a central role in the Syrian war because neither side wants to suffer casualties among their combat troops in house-to-house fighting. Government strategy has been to seal off urban areas it has lost by placing checkpoints around them; often these are manned by conscripts who are elderly or out of condition. It then bombards the rebel-held area with artillery and bombs, turning them into “ghost districts” – uninhabited heaps of rubble and shells of burned out buildings.

Going by past experience, government forces will be averse to allowing through food and other necessities to places held by their enemies, whom they have been fighting for years. Nevertheless, the Syrian army is so dependent on Russian air strikes for its recent successes that President Assad will have difficulty resisting Russian pressure, if it is applied, to comply with the terms agreed in Munich.

A “cessation of hostilities”, to be followed by a formal ceasefire, presents problems and opportunities because so much of the armed opposition is dominated by Isis and al-Nusra, which are not part of the deal. Both groups are, in any case, highly motivated fighting machines for which battle is a proof of Islamic faith, and neither would flourish in conditions of peace. They may benefit from a revulsion among many Syrian opponents of the government at the belief that they are being sold out, after all their years of suffering, and that President Assad and the Ba’ath party are going to stay in power.

One of the more important paragraphs in the statement by the International Syria Support Group concerns the policing of compliance with a truce. The paragraph states that the ISSG looks for support “for a cessation of hostilities, and in furtherance of that have established an ISSG ceasefire task force, under the auspices of the UN, co-chaired by Russia and the United States, and including political and military officials, with the participation of ISSG members with influence on the armed opposition groups or forces fighting in support of the Syrian government.”

The ISSG task force will clarify which parts of Syria are held by Isis, al-Nusra and anybody else labelled as terrorist.

There is plenty of room for disagreement, but for the first time there is a plan for de-escalating the war, and a mechanism for enforcing it that is backed by the US and Russia. Syrian and regional forces will find it difficult to sabotage the agreement, though they may try to evade it. Inside Syria, parties are exhausted by the long war and are so reliant on outside support that they may have little option in the long term but to comply. Regional powers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar may not like what has happened, but there may not be much they can do about it either.

ORDER IT NOW

President Assad has survived and the alliance of Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah has avoided defeat and got much of what it wanted. Probably President Assad would like to fight on and win decisively, but his successes over the past four months stem from Russian and Iranian backing.

The approach to peace in Syria will be as messy as the war itself, but despite the many obstacles to diplomacy, this agreement may be a step towards peace: it has the backing of the US and Russia, and it reflects the balance of power on the battlefield.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Syria 
Hide 5 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. This seems like a pseudo-wise analysis – it sounds good, but doesn’t stand up to inspection. Peace requires either a mutual desire for peace (clearly absent – Daesh & Al-Nusra etc don’t desire peace) or that a party willing and able to re-establish order win and do so. The only possibilities for that are
    1. Syrian government total victory.
    2. Turkey invades and conquers Syria, incorporating it into a new Ottoman Empire. They would need to conquer & incorporate much of Iraq also.

    Obviously #1 is far more likely. A rebel victory would not create peace – it would create another Libya – and peace talks certainly won’t.

  2. Randal says:

    Seems possible that having broken the back of the Turkish-backed rebels in the west, the Syrian/Russian/Iranian strategy might be to use any ceasefire to allow them to turn now to the east, recover Palmyra and put IS under even more pressure.

  3. plantman says:

    More delusional reporting from Cockburn…

    After telling us a few weeks ago that both sides were too tired to win, he now admits the Russian alliance will carry the day with the US essentially capitulating on all its demands.

    Then he tells us that that is not a decisive victory.
    Well, then, how do you define victory?

  4. This “agreement” like the “peace conference” seems to be stillborn.

  5. […] Syria Agreement Between the US and Russia Is a Vital Step to Ending the Conflict […]

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