Haberler      English      العربية      Pусский      Kurdî      Türkçe
  En.Haberler.Com - Latest News
SEARCH IN NEWS:
  HOME PAGE 29/03/2024 17:37 
News  > 

Russia Was Wrong

17.09.2014 11:36

Two days ago, my esteemed colleague Gökhan Bacik wrote a column in Today's Zaman under the provocative title “Russia was right.” In the article, Bacik refers to the opinion among most of the scholars, diplomats and journalists he recently met that in the Syria conflict it has become clear Russia was right from the start in its assertion there is no alternative to President Bashar al-Assad. The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIL) has shown, according to this logic, that the world has to choose between Assad and ISIL.To my surprise and, to be honest, disappointment, Bacik does not only summarize this pro-Russian position but also seems to agree with it. Let me explain why I strongly believe Bacik and all his counterparts are wrong in their analysis of the recent past and their prescriptions for the immediate future.First on the start of the uprising against Assad in 2011: It was only after non-violent protests of local opposition groups were brutally suppressed by the regi

Two days ago, my esteemed colleague Gökhan Bacik wrote a column in Today's Zaman under the provocative title “Russia was right.” In the article, Bacik refers to the opinion among most of the scholars, diplomats and journalists he recently met that in the Syria conflict it has become clear Russia was right from the start in its assertion there is no alternative to President Bashar al-Assad. The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIL) has shown, according to this logic, that the world has to choose between Assad and ISIL.
To my surprise and, to be honest, disappointment, Bacik does not only summarize this pro-Russian position but also seems to agree with it. Let me explain why I strongly believe Bacik and all his counterparts are wrong in their analysis of the recent past and their prescriptions for the immediate future.
First on the start of the uprising against Assad in 2011: It was only after non-violent protests of local opposition groups were brutally suppressed by the regime (with the approval of Moscow) that local Syrians across the board started to take up arms. These mainly moderate, homegrown fighters were confronted with the indiscriminate force of the Syrian army, armed and supplied by the Russians. The US and Europe were not willing to do the same with the rebels, which led, among others, to their predictable failure to beat Assad militarily. Combined with the inability of the mainstream opposition groups to unite politically and establish a convincing alternative, this loss led to a gradual shift within rebel ranks. Radicals and jihadists took over, supported by Gulf money and, a point Bacik does not mention, tacitly approved by the Assad regime. The rise of al-Qaeda-related groups and later ISIL was welcomed by the Syrian regime because it strengthened their claim that the only alternative to continued Assad rule was extremist jihadism. The choice of Assad or ISIL was convenient for both and stimulated the Syrian army and ISIL, until recently, not to confront each other but to pick their fights with what remained of the beleaguered mainstream rebels.
At the moment, this is exactly what is happening in Aleppo, one of the last places still, at least partly, controlled by mainstream rebels who are, however, in danger of being squeezed between the Syrian army and ISIL. Several observers have made the point that, if Aleppo is lost, ISIL will expand westward and will present itself as the sole Sunni force capable of sustaining war against the regime.
This leads me to my second point. From the conclusion that the Russians were always right in supporting Assad, it is only a small step to the suggestion that, in fighting ISIL, the US-led coalition should team up with the Assad regime and their Russian backers. On the website of the American Politico magazine, Thomas Pierret and Emile Hokayem recently made a convincing argument against this alliance with the "lesser evil." Apart from the moral problem of working with a man responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrians, it simply won't work according to the authors. Local Sunni populations will refuse to cooperate with their recent oppressor and the Assad regime will in no way feel obliged to act more inclusively towards mainstream rebels. On the other hand, ISIL will not hesitate to present a possible Western-Assad partnership as the best proof it is the only reliable Sunni opposition force, a claim that will attract even more disillusioned Sunni fighters from Syria and abroad.
By saying Russia was right in Syria, one does not only, implicitly, approve of all the brutality of the Russia-backed Assad regime, first against peaceful demonstrators and later against the armed resistance by homegrown rebels of different ideological persuasions. A logical follow-up argument would be for the anti-ISIL coalition to join forces with Damascus and Moscow. According to me, that possible course of action would be both morally unacceptable and strategically self-defeating.
Russia is not right in Syria. It was wrong from the start. The current choice in Syria is not between Assad and ISIL. It is to defeat ISIL first and then to move on to get rid of Assad. With or without help from Putin.

JOOST LAGENDIJK (Cihan/Today's Zaman)



 
Latest News





 
 
Top News