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
The Syrian Ceasefire Proves How Far Putin Has Come Out on Top
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show 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, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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

A ceasefire seldom gets a good press. If it succeeds in ending violence or defusing a crisis, the media swiftly becomes bored and loses interest. But if the fighting goes on, then those who have called the ceasefire are condemned as heartless hypocrites who either never intended to bring the killing to an end or are culpably failing to do so.

Pundits are predictably sceptical about the agreement reached by Russian president Vladimir Putin and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Sochi on Monday to head off an imminent offensive by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces directed against rebels in Idlib province. This is the last enclave of the armed opposition in western Syria which has lost its strongholds in Aleppo, Damascus and Daraa over the past two years.

Doubts about the accord are understandable because, if it is implemented, the anti-Assad groups in Idlib will be defanged militarily. They will see a demilitarised zone policed by Russia and Turkey eat into their territory, “radical terrorist groups” removed, and heavy weapons ranging from tanks to mortars withdrawn. The rebels will lose their control of the two main highways crossing Idlib and linking the government held cities of Aleppo, Latakia and Hama.

There is a striking note of imperial self-confidence about the document in which all sides in the Syrian civil war are instructed to come to heel. This may not happen quite as intended because it is difficult to see why fighters of al-Qaeda-type groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham should voluntarily give up such military leverage as they still possess. The Syrian government has said that it will comply with the agreement but may calculate that, in the not so long term, it will be able to slice up Idlib bit by bit as it did with other rebel enclaves.

What is most interesting about the agreement is less its details than what it tells us about the balance of forces in Syria, the region and even the world as a whole. Fragile it may be, but then that is true of all treaties which general Charles de Gaulle famously compared to “young girls and roses – they last as long as they last”. Implementation of the Putin-Erdogan agreement may be ragged and its benefits temporary, but it will serve a purpose if a few less Syrians in Idlib are blown apart.

The Syrian civil war long ago ceased to be a struggle fought out by local participants. Syria has become an arena where foreign states confront each other, fight proxy wars and put their strength and influence to the test.The most important international outcome of war so far is that it has enabled Russia to re-establish itself as a great power. Moscow helped Assad secure his rule after the popular uprising in 2011 and later ensured his ultimate victory by direct military intervention in 2015. A senior diplomat from an Arab country recalls that early on in the Syrian war, he asked a US general with a command in the region what was the difference between the crisis in Syria and the one that had just ended with the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. The general responded with a single word: “Russia.”

It is difficult to remember now, when Russia is being portrayed in the west as an aggressive predatory power threatening everybody, the extent which it was marginalised seven years ago when Nato was carrying out regime change in Libya.

Russia was in reality always stronger than it looked because it remained a nuclear superpower capable of destroying the world after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 just as it was before. It should be difficult to forget this gigantically important fact, but politicians and commentators continue to blithely recommend isolating Russia and pretend that it can be safely ignored.

The return of Russia as a great power was always inevitable but was accelerated by successful opportunism and crass errors by rival states. Assad in Syria was always stronger than he looked. Even at the nadir of his fortunes in July 2011, the British embassy in Damascus estimated that he had the backing of 30 to 40 per cent of the population according to The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East by Christopher Phillips, which should be essential reading for anybody interested in Syria. Expert opinion failed to dent the conviction among international statesmen that Assad was bound to go. When the French ambassador Eric Chevallier expressed similar doubts about the imminence of regime change he received a stern rebuke from officials in Paris who told him: “Your information does not interest us. Bashar al-Assad must fall and will fall.”

Such wishful thinking and flight from reality continues to this day. Miscalculations by Washington, Paris and London have provided Putin with ideal political terrain on which to reassert the power of the Russian state. The agreement signed by Russia and Turkey last Monday deciding the future of Idlib province is a token of how far Russia has come out on top in Syria. Putin is able to sign a bilateral agreement with Turkey, the second largest military power in Nato, without any reference to the US or other Nato members.

The accord means that Turkey will increase its military stake in northern Syria, but it can only do so safely under license from Moscow. The priority for Turkey is to prevent the creation of a Kurdish statelet under US protection in Syria and for this it needs Russian cooperation. It was the withdrawal of the Russian air umbrella protecting the Kurdish enclave of Afrin earlier this year that enabled the Turkish army to invade and take it over.


As has happened with North Korea, President Trump’s instincts may be surer than vaunted expertise of the Washington foreign policy establishment and its foreign clones. They have not learned the most important lesson of the US-led intervention wars in Iraq and Syria which is that it is not in western interests to stir the pot in either country. Despite this, they argue for continued US military presence in northeast Syria on the grounds that this will weaken Assad and ensure that any victory he wins will be pyrrhic.

Everything that has happened since 2011 suggests the opposite: by trying to weaken Assad, western powers will force him to become more – not less – reliant on Moscow and Tehran. It ensures that more Syrians will die, be injured or become refugees and gives space for al-Qaeda clones to reemerge.

Russian dominance in the northern tier of the Middle East may be opportunistic but is being reinforced by another process. President Trump may not yet have started any wars, but the uncertainty of US policy means that many countries in the world now look for a reinsurance policy with Russia because they are no longer sure how far they can rely on the US. Putin may not always be able to juggle these different opportunities unexpectedly presented to him, but so far he has had surprising success.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Syria, Turkey 
Hide 9 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. As has happened with North Korea, President Trump’s instincts may be surer than vaunted expertise of the Washington foreign policy establishment and its foreign clones.

    Yup! And that’s one big reason why we voted for him.

  2. gsjackson says:

    Is this perspective lost on Saker, PCR and others who fear Putin has given away the store in Syria? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Cockburn a boots-on-the-ground reporter in that region?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  3. As shown in this article, a Washington-based anti-Assad Syrian group has strongly suggested one solution to controlling Syria:

    Given that approval of the United Nations Security Council is required to take actions in a sovereign nation, it is becoming increasingly clear that Washington is doing whatever it wants in Syria.

  4. Looks like Idlib is being turned into an open air prison similar to Palestine. The rebels and the jihadists will be cheek and jowl fighting over dwindling resources like rats in a cage, expending their arms and animus on each other.

    Assad also does not want a Kurdish rump state. Turkey is preserving Syria’s claim by thwarting New Kurdistan.

    Also, nobody, including Turkey and Russia, wants to accept the jihadists back into their country. It’s a giant Jihad Roach Motel.

    You can check in, but can’t get out.

  5. gsjackson

    I agree.

    It’s too bad PCR won’t let people comment on his articles anymore. He should take a page from Fred Reed’s playbook.

    Write an article, let people comment and see how it plays out. Don’t take things too personally, especially Hasbara Trolls.

  6. Stick says:

    What does one win when they win in Syria? I’m asking for a friend.

    • LOL: The scalpel
  7. Anonymous [AKA "barrykeane"] says:

    It’s so telling that Cockburn portrays Russia’s involvement in Syria as “opportunistic”. Cockburn sounds like a snotty british imperialist – or better, like Archie Bunker calling african-americans opportunistic for moving into white neighborhoods: it’s the same tone of privilege, entitlement, racist bigotry, and ignorance. Cockburn is the voice of anglo-american imperialism: a sad, atavistic role to play in this world where our hegemony is clearly becoming a thing of the past.

    Cockburn may criticize the implementation of US mideast policy, but he he tacitly supports the fundamental presumption that the US – as inheritor of British empire – is solely entitled to straighten out the problems in this region. Cockburn carefully hides the fact that Russia – as the Saker clearly argues – is in Syria to guard against the re-igniting of jihadi-driven ethnic terrorism in Russia’s southern border region – the Caucasus. Cockburn should pick up a book (eg Allen Lynch’s brief Putin bio) and try to learn a little about Russia: the traumatic 1999 bombings by Chechen terrorists that galvanized popular support for a strongman successor to Yeltsin; the trial-by-fire test in Putin’s 1st months as president (i.e. either put down the Chechen forces or he was finished); the 2004 Beslan school massacre. Russia’s involvement in fighting the jihadi terrorists in Syria – many of whom come from the Caucasus – is a life-and-death struggle for Russia’s existence, not an opportunistic power-play. Any Russian president (other than a western regime-change puppet) would have to do the same thing or be sacked. It’s John McCain’s legacy that the US directly supports Al Qaeda in Syria in order to weaken Russia’s borders as a prelude to regime change in Moscow. We tried but failed this in the 2008 Georgian invasion of Ossetia, but “succeeded” in 2014 Kiev.

    Yea, I may have Putin to thank that Obama didn’t start WWIII in Syria and send my son to die there. But Putin did this for Russia, not for some global imperial ambition like that which lives on in Cockburn’s imagination.

    • Agree: Per/Norway
  8. 30-40% of Syrians supported Assad in 2011? Try 70-80% and you’ll be slightly closer to the truth.

    • Replies: @eric
  9. eric says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    No I think Assad’s popularity has gone up after Syrians even Sunni Syrians found out just how friendly AlQaeda and ISIS was . Now they know they love Assad .

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
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