On the part of the United States, the need for a truce is due to purely opportunistic interests - first of all, the upcoming presidential elections. They consider the situation in the Middle East in the paradigm of the destruction of the existing regimes and states, their complete sovereignization.
It should be said about the confrontation within the American elites and their approaches to foreign policy. There are contradictions of a conceptual and interdepartmental nature both at the intra and at the inter-party levels, and the contradictions among the democrats can be no less tough than with the republicans. Moreover, in some cases, approaches and views can dynamically change depending on specific circumstances. The concept of US foreign policy can be described in three versions of the American political analyst Jan Bremmer, set out in the book “Super Power. Three choices for America's role in the world ":
First: “Independent America” implies the need to focus on domestic issues and promote American values without trying to impose their vision on others.
The second: “America as a megacorporation” - the maximum increase in profits while minimizing costs.
The third: “Irreplaceable America” is a variant of the presidency of George W. Bush: imposing American values and interests on a global scale. In fact, the promotion of the idea of exclusivity and world domination.
It is obvious that in its pure form, none of the three options in reality is unattainable. The main thing is in proportions, and the election of the president of the United States will show whose approach will be implemented. The forces that have advanced their candidate to the Oval Office of the White House will take control of the colossal state mechanism and take control of their interests.
Another important aspect: the geostrategic confrontation with Russia, China and Iran. A serious conflict with Beijing is almost inevitable, but first Washington needs to overcome their interdependence in the economic sphere. The crisis of the current model of the economy based on the credit pyramid, started by the notorious “Reaganomics”, and the limited global market require an exit, which, alternatively, can go through the fragmentation of a single global financial system through the creation of new currency areas. In parallel, the issue of the weakening of China should be addressed, since TATIP and TTP are incompatible with the Silk Road project - alternatives to partnerships promoted by American TNCs. This is also the reason for anti-Russian hysteria and indirect methods of aggression against our country. Since the Russia-EU connection is also incompatible with TATIP, the initiation of a color coup in Ukraine was only a matter of time.
The question arises: what does the situation in Syria have to do with all this? The most direct.
Syria has become an obstacle to the collapse of the region, an obstacle to the implementation of US projects TATIP and TPP and the weakening of the key geopolitical competitors of the United States - Russia and China. By destroying regimes in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East, the Americans solved the most important tasks: to prevent the creation of one of the branches of the Silk Road passing through Iran and further, through Turkey, they initiated a powerful migration crisis that would become the catalyst for the EU’s disintegration process. Arab Spring ”, one of the initiators of which many experts rightly believe H. Clinton, was destroyed by the state. The exceptions were Egypt, where the military undertook a counter-coup, overthrowing the Muslim Brothers protege, Mohammed Mursi, and Syria, where President Assad, with the help of the allies, continues to control part of the territory and fights against militants controlled by the United States and their Arab allies.
Russia's intervention has allowed the defeat of the Assad regime to be postponed, but it is unlikely to give a strategic result, at least with the current approach. It should be noted that now the share of Syrians in the antiterrorist coalition is already significantly less than half. According to some estimates, the size of the regular government army is inferior to the composition of units and groups operating under Iranian control - about 50 000 and 60 000, respectively. With Russian participation, up to two thirds of all pro-government forces are foreigners, and this trend, given the catastrophic resource situation at Damascus, will only increase.
In fact, Assad is becoming more of a political and media figure, rather than personifies a real military force. The armed struggle in Syria is between external participants through intermediaries (the unofficial term is proxy war), in which the confrontation takes place differently than at the beginning of the conflict, i.e. anti-Assad forces against Damascus, and to a greater extent according to the scheme: conditionally moderate and frankly non-armed, against supporters of the legal regime (Iran with controlled groups and Russia), with less and less participation of the CAA. An assessment of the prospects of Damascus cannot do without comparing the resource bases of its allies and opponents. The ratio is clearly not in his favor, since the militants are recruited in 120 states, which is at least an order of magnitude greater than the capacity of the resource base of the pro-Assad part of Syria, Russia and Iran combined.
In addition, the infrastructure in the conflict zone is being destroyed at a rate that exceeds the possibilities for its restoration, as a result of which the war long ago acquired all forms of genocide. This leads to the exodus of refugees, which also depletes the resources of the SAR army, in addition to direct casualties during the hostilities, and clearly indicates the wrong approach when government forces are scattered in questionable in terms of performance operations. They, as a rule, do not lead to the achievement of a strategic result, but to the devastation of the resource base, which the Syrians are no longer able to replenish. So Russia will have to do this with Iran.
There is no doubt that the Obama administration of his second term was planning to eliminate President Assad before the end of her term in office. The reliance on the militants could obviously justify itself in the long run, but the strengthening of government troops by the Russian VKS in conjunction with the deployment of Iranian units called into question the defeat of Damascus.
On top of that, the crisis coincided with the election race in the USA. The security forces and the “hawks” of the current administration have intensified - from the Pentagon and Langley, a number of high-ranking State Department officials advocating tougher actions in Syria. The choice of the moment is fully calculated: Obama will not be de jure president in a few weeks. This means that the risk of flying away from the office doesn’t scare anyone; The “hawks” from the Pentagon and special services are likely to follow. In this regard, a direct attack on the strategic infrastructure facilities of government forces, including airfields, weapons long range. There are proposals on the need to make blows bypassing Obama so that he does not appeal to the need to enlist the support of the UN Security Council, which, because of the position of Russia and, possibly, China, will block it. Representatives of the American intelligence community insist on hitting in secret, in order to put the presidents of the United States and Russia before the fact. Understanding the reluctance of Obama himself to attack the position of the SAR army is possible: the key goal is to ensure the victory of H. Clinton. Any failure and scandal can play against the candidate of the Democrats, which will be projected negative.
A blow to the positions of government forces in Syria is fraught with direct confrontation with Russia and, possibly, Iran, whose special services and special forces are actively involved in hostilities. The risk of an uncontrolled military escalation increases, the consequences of which are difficult to imagine.
With regard to Russia, the policy of the United States after the elections is unlikely to change significantly - we for the American-centered collective West have been, are and will remain sociosistem, geopolitical and existential enemies. Accordingly, the approach can be changed, but certainly not the goal, the essence of which the former chief of foreign intelligence of the KGB of the USSR Leonid Shebarshin expressed very clearly, once saying that “the West wants only one thing from Russia — that it should not be there”.
Probably, our leadership should reconsider the approaches to Syria. It is required to clearly formulate their key goals in the region and the strategy for achieving them.