Looking at numerous and often contradicting statements that world leaders make about the ongoing conflict in Syria and the fight against ISIL sometimes even an experienced analyst would struggle to discern what is really happening in the Middle East.
Last week we witnessed a veritable barrage of such statements made by various parties against the backdrop of the failed Geneva talks that were aimed at bringing peace to the country that has been suffering a bloody conflict against Islamists for five long years. In fact, the actual negotiations haven’t even started despite the best efforts of the United Nations special envoy for the Syria crisis Staffan de Mistura, since the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) members decided that they would be better off heeding the belligerence of their masters in Riyadh.
The reason for these actions is clear – the successful offensive of Syrian troops both in the north (Aleppo) and south (Daraa), has made it possible to cut radical militants from their supporters in Washington, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Under these preconditions, the negotiations would be nothing more than the acknowledgement of the fact that the so-called opposition has means to achieve a military victory, which would have forced it to follow the road of political compromise that was proposed by Russia, which could allow Syria to preserve its government institutions, while opening a way for democratic reform.
These Western “partners”, primarily the United States and the globalists of the Bilderberg group couldn’t allow this to happen as in this case they would be presented with a rather unpleasant perspective: Russia, which stands behind the recent successes of the Syrian armed forces, would finally achieve a major objective – the defeat of all terrorist forces and the restoration of peace and Syria’s territorial integrity at the same time. This would be the end of the civil war in Syria, which would jeopardize the entire hegemonic concept of induced regime changes that the West tested in Serbia back in 90s and has been using extensively during the events of the so-called “Arab Spring” in 2010-2014.
If the US would lose this tool of perpetuating its “exceptionalism” which has so far allowed it to bring down unwanted governments worldwide, Washington would be forced to admit that the world has finally become multipolar, and the era of American domination on the international stage was all but over. What’s even more important is that the international community would be returned to the Westphalian system of national sovereignty, bringing back the concept of checks and balances, with Russia playing one of the key roles as a “balancer”.
Certain representatives of globalist circles, such as Henry Kissinger, are clearly aware of this fact. It’s no coincidence that in the day of radical change on Syrian fronts, Henry Kissinger visited Moscow and met with Vladimir Putin, giving a lengthy interview afterward to the National Interest:
“Many commentators, both Russian and American, have rejected the possibility of the U.S. and Russia working cooperatively on a new international order. In their view, the United States and Russia have entered a new Cold War.
The danger today is less a return to military confrontation than the consolidation of a self-fulfilling prophecy in both countries. The long-term interests of both countries call for a world that transforms the contemporary turbulence and flux into a new equilibrium which is increasingly multipolar and globalized.. “
In the emerging multipolar world, Kissinger notes, Russia should be seen as a key element of a global equilibrium, but not as a threat to the United States.
What we have witnessed then was a major shift in the rhetoric of British diplomats. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Philip Hammond has virtually changed his position overnight, going from condemning Russia one day to saying that the “key role” in Syria belongs to Moscow the other.
However, it would be naive to think that the recognition of Russia’s role as a strategic partner has already taken place. On the contrary, regardless of the above mentioned statements, Western think tanks are burning the midnight oil to find ways of derailing Moscow’s policies.
The meaning of these events can be understood if one is to look back at what was happening in the Middle East a hundred years ago. The same UK, now hiding its actions behind a smokescreen of alleged recognition of Russia’s role, back in 1915, together with the French divided the region into zones of influence and were even willing to give some of those to the Russian Empire, but were quick to change their minds when the Bolsheviks carried out a coup d’etat back in 1917. Then Lenin refused to play in their games by publishing the notorious Sykes-Picot agreement, thereby excluding Moscow from the list of Middle Eastern actors until the very end of World War II, when the active policy of Stalin led to the disintegration of the British Empire.
And now, in the light of Russia’s triumphant return to the Middle East, British think tanks are doing all they can to find ways for the US to beat Moscow in the burning sands of the Middle East, while staying safely behind its “Big Brother”.
But it turns out that they failed to come up with any new plans aside from the proposition to accelerate the ongoing US policy of reformatting the region which began with the defeat of Saddam Hussein. The main goal of this policy is to divide the Middle East into weak, failed states, that would be fully dependent on Washington.
And now, on the day Henry Kissinger was meeting Putin, the President of Iraqi Kurdistan, Massoud Barzani, called for a referendum on the independence of the Kurdistan Autonomous Region (KAR) and the right of the Kurds to seek self-determination. It is clear that without the support of Turkey this step wouldn’t be announced. The fact that Turkey is playing on the same team is stressed by the fact that Ankara fiercely opposes the participation of Syrian Kurds in the Geneva talks. The Kurds are thereby being indirectly told that they are not a part of Syria anymore, so they should negotiate with Barzani instead of Assad.
The creation of an independent Kurdistan will bring down the whole Sykes-Picot system, which Russia is forced to defend today, which is fairly ironic. But it’s doing this not because of its commitment to the principles of British colonialism, but out of the dire need to preserve the whole UN architecture of international relations intact.
It is clear that Kurds are to pay a high price for their independence by taking an active part in the operations launched by the US so-called “anti-ISIL” coalition to replace the West backed Islamic State, that failed Washington’s hopes, with a Sunnistan (formed by certain Iraqi regions and eastern Syrian ones). This state would be pursuing the same goals that Islamists were assigned to – preventing the reconstruction of a “Shia arc” from Tehran to Damascus, and at the same time, would not allow Russia to achieve a decisive victory in Syria, thereby blocking the restoration of the integrity of the country. After all, it is clear that this so-called Sunnistan would be under full US control and will not allow any form of goods to pass through its territory, whether they are going to be sent from Russia or Iran. Syria will be effectively encircled by hostile states, and it will become a new base for the virtually destroyed Syrian opposition. There’s little doubt that the West will proclaim a “Syrian government in exile” residing in this Sunnistan that would be formed by the same High Negotiations Committee members. Syria would find itself torn to pieces. This would lead to the creation of an “Alawite Syria,” that the West is saying Russia wants to establish, but the true authors of this project will be hiding elsewhere.
To implement these plans, Washington is employing Saudi Arabia, while exploiting its anti-Iranian phobias. Riyadh does not wish to understand that the plan to divide Iraq and establish a of friendly Sunnistan will eventually backfire against the ruling Al Saud clan. A number of days before Saudi officials were saying that they got “stuck” in Yemen and now Brigadier General Ahmed Asiri announces that Saudi Arabia will be eager to become a part of the international coalition in Syria, makes no sense at all.
It should, however, be noted that such statements are to be taken with a grain of salt, since the actual military capabilities of Saudi Arabia today are extremely limited and it would hardly be able to wage a war on two fronts. Such statements are just a demonstration of the support Saudi Arabia shows to the US and nothing more.
However, Riyadh should understand that Washington is treating the KSA in the same way that London used to treat Saddam Hussein – according to the principle of “throw away after use.” Using the resources of the KSA to break up Iraq and Syria, Washington strategists would get rid of Saudi Arabia on the next turn, as it was eloquently shown by Ralph Peters’ maps back in 2005, where four new kingdoms replaced the Saudi one.
Maxim Egorov, a political commentator on the Middle East and contributes regularly for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.