Alik Bahshi
Verified User
Alik Bakhshi
Many colors of the Syrian revolution
The Arab revolution, which reached Syria, was a detonator of a mine laid by France and Great Britain after the First World War. Then, like a flock of wolves of the country, the victors broke the defeated body of the Ottoman Empire, dividing the territories among themselves, disregarding the ethnic and religious composition of the population. As a result, the Middle East was divided into many Arab states, of which two, namely, Syria and Iraq were in the most difficult position. The fact is that in the borders of these countries, artificially created by the colonial powers, three large completely different ethnic groups of the country came to their satisfaction: Arabs, Kurds and Turks or Turkmens, which is the same thing. Naturally, and taking into account the historical traditions and mentality of the peoples of the East, these states could function only under dictatorship. Only dictatorial regimes could exercise power and keep such a motley population in obedience. In general, so it was, until America in 2003, under the foolishness of Bush Jr. under a far-fetched pretext, overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime, after which Iraq plunged into the bloodbath of an endless civil war (1). Attempts to establish democracy in Iraq have completely failed, because it is not possible to bring democratic values to the bayonets of marines to the people, who for objective reasons are not ready to accept them.
Somewhat different picture is observed in Syria, where part of the most advanced population itself without external interference rebelled against dictator Bashar Assad, having formed an armed opposition - Syrian free army. Against the backdrop of the beginning of the civil war, which significantly weakened the central government, new interested players from various ethnic and religious groups of the Syrian population emerged who also started to defend their interests with the help of weapons. Immediately on a heterogeneous political field in Syria, a powerful religious movement embraced the Middle East, which aimed at creating a kind of new Khilafat in a vast territory, including Syria and Iraq, like the Islamic state in Iran, the IGIL. Wild cruel executions of prisoners, demonstrated by the Igilovites to intimidate their opponents, alerted the world community. IGIL was outlawed, the need to combat this extremist movement became apparent. Assad lacked the strength to withstand the chaos that engulfed his country, in the army, cases of desertion of officers increased, and if one takes into account the fact that the democratic Western countries are unequivocally opposed to his bloody regime, his fall was predetermined.
However, Russia's military intervention on the side of Assad saved the regime from an imminent defeat. It should be noted that Moscow has always supported the totalitarian regimes, as close to her in spirit. That's Putin's regime hurried to come to the aid of the Syrian dictator, temporarily pushing back the end of his rule. With all this, it is difficult to imagine that Russia's intervention in Syrian affairs is due solely to Putin's intention to save Bashar Assad from popular anger, to prevent a recurrence of the massacre of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. In Syria, Putin pursues several goals. One of them is the creation on a permanent basis of a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean Sea, not so much to confront the Sixth US Navy as to demonstrate a military presence and restore the military power of Russia. In addition, the military base in another state is a lever for carrying out its policy, which is well demonstrated in the case of the Baltic states, which allowed the Russians to establish military bases, after which they were all immediately annexed in the same way. And a very recent example with Ukraine, leased to Russia a naval base in Sevastopol, for which paid the annexation of the Crimea. I must say that Moscow was still courting dictators in Damascus and Baghdad, but Saddam Hussein managed to be hanged, but Bashar Assad finally got into the Kremlin networks. Undoubtedly, sending Russian soldiers to Syria, Putin satisfied the imperial mentality of the Russian people, which suffered somewhat after the partial collapse of the empire. It is also possible that Putin's military adventure in Syria, according to his plan, should dilute the attention of the world community to the annexation of the Crimea and the rejection of the eastern part of Ukraine. And yet, in my opinion, the main reason for intervention lies in the economic plane. The fact is that after breaking the established postwar world order (2), and secretly having asked to recreate the Russian Empire within the borders of the former USSR, revanchist Putin, like Hitler once, overestimated his strength.
Russia, as a world gas station, seeks to maintain a monopoly on the supply of hydrocarbons to the EU as the only revenue side of the state budget, and in this regard, the destabilization of the situation in the Middle East seems to be favorable for Putin. The matter is that through such countries as Turkey, Syria and Iraq in the future it is planned to conduct gas pipelines to Europe, one of Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Iran through Turkey and the second from Qatar through Syria to Turkey. The implementation of these projects, of course, and this is well understood by Putin, will put an end to Russia's monopoly on the gas market in Europe. Making Assad his puppet, Putin has a chance to turn the gas pipe laying through Syria. Also Putin can play the Kurdish card, because in any case the gas pipelines from Qatar will run through places with the Kurdish population. As for the other branch of the gas pipeline from the Caspian region, Putin has an Armenian card with a smoldering Karabakh conflict in his hands, and there is no doubt that Putin will not use any opportunity to prevent the implementation of these projects, capable of bringing down the one-sided economy of Russia, and lead to an economic situation in which the Soviet Union collapsed. Thus, the presence of Russians in Syria pursues purely Russian interests, the victim of which is the Syrian people. Saving the dictator, Russian planes practically with impunity iron first of all the territory under the control of the opposition Syrian free army, and then IGIL.
to be continued
Many colors of the Syrian revolution
The Arab revolution, which reached Syria, was a detonator of a mine laid by France and Great Britain after the First World War. Then, like a flock of wolves of the country, the victors broke the defeated body of the Ottoman Empire, dividing the territories among themselves, disregarding the ethnic and religious composition of the population. As a result, the Middle East was divided into many Arab states, of which two, namely, Syria and Iraq were in the most difficult position. The fact is that in the borders of these countries, artificially created by the colonial powers, three large completely different ethnic groups of the country came to their satisfaction: Arabs, Kurds and Turks or Turkmens, which is the same thing. Naturally, and taking into account the historical traditions and mentality of the peoples of the East, these states could function only under dictatorship. Only dictatorial regimes could exercise power and keep such a motley population in obedience. In general, so it was, until America in 2003, under the foolishness of Bush Jr. under a far-fetched pretext, overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime, after which Iraq plunged into the bloodbath of an endless civil war (1). Attempts to establish democracy in Iraq have completely failed, because it is not possible to bring democratic values to the bayonets of marines to the people, who for objective reasons are not ready to accept them.
Somewhat different picture is observed in Syria, where part of the most advanced population itself without external interference rebelled against dictator Bashar Assad, having formed an armed opposition - Syrian free army. Against the backdrop of the beginning of the civil war, which significantly weakened the central government, new interested players from various ethnic and religious groups of the Syrian population emerged who also started to defend their interests with the help of weapons. Immediately on a heterogeneous political field in Syria, a powerful religious movement embraced the Middle East, which aimed at creating a kind of new Khilafat in a vast territory, including Syria and Iraq, like the Islamic state in Iran, the IGIL. Wild cruel executions of prisoners, demonstrated by the Igilovites to intimidate their opponents, alerted the world community. IGIL was outlawed, the need to combat this extremist movement became apparent. Assad lacked the strength to withstand the chaos that engulfed his country, in the army, cases of desertion of officers increased, and if one takes into account the fact that the democratic Western countries are unequivocally opposed to his bloody regime, his fall was predetermined.
However, Russia's military intervention on the side of Assad saved the regime from an imminent defeat. It should be noted that Moscow has always supported the totalitarian regimes, as close to her in spirit. That's Putin's regime hurried to come to the aid of the Syrian dictator, temporarily pushing back the end of his rule. With all this, it is difficult to imagine that Russia's intervention in Syrian affairs is due solely to Putin's intention to save Bashar Assad from popular anger, to prevent a recurrence of the massacre of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. In Syria, Putin pursues several goals. One of them is the creation on a permanent basis of a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean Sea, not so much to confront the Sixth US Navy as to demonstrate a military presence and restore the military power of Russia. In addition, the military base in another state is a lever for carrying out its policy, which is well demonstrated in the case of the Baltic states, which allowed the Russians to establish military bases, after which they were all immediately annexed in the same way. And a very recent example with Ukraine, leased to Russia a naval base in Sevastopol, for which paid the annexation of the Crimea. I must say that Moscow was still courting dictators in Damascus and Baghdad, but Saddam Hussein managed to be hanged, but Bashar Assad finally got into the Kremlin networks. Undoubtedly, sending Russian soldiers to Syria, Putin satisfied the imperial mentality of the Russian people, which suffered somewhat after the partial collapse of the empire. It is also possible that Putin's military adventure in Syria, according to his plan, should dilute the attention of the world community to the annexation of the Crimea and the rejection of the eastern part of Ukraine. And yet, in my opinion, the main reason for intervention lies in the economic plane. The fact is that after breaking the established postwar world order (2), and secretly having asked to recreate the Russian Empire within the borders of the former USSR, revanchist Putin, like Hitler once, overestimated his strength.
Russia, as a world gas station, seeks to maintain a monopoly on the supply of hydrocarbons to the EU as the only revenue side of the state budget, and in this regard, the destabilization of the situation in the Middle East seems to be favorable for Putin. The matter is that through such countries as Turkey, Syria and Iraq in the future it is planned to conduct gas pipelines to Europe, one of Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Iran through Turkey and the second from Qatar through Syria to Turkey. The implementation of these projects, of course, and this is well understood by Putin, will put an end to Russia's monopoly on the gas market in Europe. Making Assad his puppet, Putin has a chance to turn the gas pipe laying through Syria. Also Putin can play the Kurdish card, because in any case the gas pipelines from Qatar will run through places with the Kurdish population. As for the other branch of the gas pipeline from the Caspian region, Putin has an Armenian card with a smoldering Karabakh conflict in his hands, and there is no doubt that Putin will not use any opportunity to prevent the implementation of these projects, capable of bringing down the one-sided economy of Russia, and lead to an economic situation in which the Soviet Union collapsed. Thus, the presence of Russians in Syria pursues purely Russian interests, the victim of which is the Syrian people. Saving the dictator, Russian planes practically with impunity iron first of all the territory under the control of the opposition Syrian free army, and then IGIL.
to be continued