Syria in the CSTO. Are new military alliances possible today?

24
Strange things happen sometimes in the information space. Quirky commentators try to retell the easily explainable statements of military and civilian officials in such a way that the meaning of the statements themselves changes radically. So, quite recently, on the air of the Moscow speaking radio, the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Andrei Kartapolov answered a direct question from the presenter about the possibility of Syria joining the CSTO.

Why did this question arise?



Yes, simply because General Kartapolov talked about the situation in Syria and how the Russian Aerospace Forces saved the situation by helping government forces in the fight against militants. Here is what the general said (quoted by RIA News):

"Why not? If it is beneficial to everyone - both Syria and Russia, and our other partners in the CSTO - then I do not exclude such a possibility. "

Very clear and understandable.

However, some analysts for some reason interpreted these words as a settled issue that will soon be implemented by Russia. Strange, isn't it?

Imagine Sergei Pavlovich Korolev in 1961 answering the question of whether humans will settle on planets in other galaxies. The answer is obvious. They will settle down if there is a corresponding desire and appropriate opportunities.

So may or may not Syria become a member of the CSTO?


The answer to this question is simple if you read the CSTO Charter. And this answer will not differ from the answer of the Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia.

Yes, Syria can become a member of this organization, if there are no obstacles stipulated in the charter, and the desire of Syria itself and the CSTO member states is there. The conditions that the state, a candidate for membership in the CSTO, must fulfill are also clear.

Let me remind you of the difficult fate of this organization. For some reason, many have forgotten her.

On May 15, 1992, the former Soviet republics signed the Collective Security Treaty (CST). It was this agreement that became the basis for the creation of a full-fledged international organization. At the time of the signing of the Treaty (Tashkent Treaty), the members of the organization were the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan.

The rest of the organization joined later. Azerbaijan signed the agreement on September 24, 1993, Georgia - September 9, 1993, Belarus - December 31, 1993.

The treaty entered into force on April 20, 1994. The term of the agreement is 5 years, with a subsequent extension for five years.

After a five-year period, the agreement was extended only by Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The presidents of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan refused to renew the agreement. Thus, six states remained in the CST.

The CST became an organization in 2002. At the Moscow session of the CST (May 14), it was decided to create the organization, and in Chisinau (October 7), its Charter and the Agreement on the legal status were signed.

September 18, 2002 is considered the day when the CSTO began its work.

Seven years later, on February 4, 2009, the leaders of the CSTO member states approved the creation of the joint armed forces, which are better known today as the CRRF - the Collective Rapid Reaction Force.

But back to Syria.

Sometimes one gets the impression that the question of joining the CSTO of countries that were never part of the USSR arose suddenly and only now. Let me remind you that for the first time such a possibility was discussed in connection with another country. They seriously talked about Iran joining the CSTO. The noise then in the West was serious. After all, if this happened, such an agreement would radically change the situation in the region.

There is an active search for a new structure of international security


I have written many times that the world is now going through a most difficult period of restructuring of international relations.

The changes that are caused by the internal problems of the United States are global. Some analysts, in general, predict the collapse of the United States and even the disappearance of this state. It seems to me that such predictions are quite fantastic.

The United States can indeed go about the same path as Russia after the collapse of the USSR. But the potential of this state is so great that it is quite capable of withstanding and remaining a world power. I would say this: today the United States is turning from a simple first world power into the first among equals. And by "equals" I mean not only Russia and China.

No matter what we say or write about NATO, the alliance has played its role in maintaining European security. European states had to "gather in a flock", realizing that alone they simply do not represent anything militarily. And as long as the USSR and the OVD existed, the presence of NATO was justified.

However, after the collapse of the ATS, NATO began to look for enemies in other regions of the world. Thus, Asian countries faced European aggression against their own countries. It became clear that collective defense would be the most correct answer against such collective aggression.

However, Asia is not homogeneous. It is divided according to religious, ethnic, cultural and other parameters. Therefore, the formation of an "Asian NATO" is a very distant prospect. But states may well create alliances with fellow believers from other countries, with ethnically close neighbors, as well as with those with whom they actively trade, and the like.

Turkish President Erdogan was one of the first to understand this and began to use it. It is not openly said about this, but if we analyze the actions of the Turks over the past few years, such a conclusion will become obvious.

Russia, realizing that there are practically no allies in Europe today, and there are only “good friends” so far, naturally drew attention to the Asian region. The most powerful and potentially promising countries. Including Syria.

Currently Iran and Syria are becoming a serious force. The recent Israeli fiasco of firing rockets into Syria has shown that Syria must be reckoned with.

A hypothetical alliance between Syria and Iran or the CSTO is deadly for Israel. Probably, this is why nothing has developed yet, and controversial issues between Israel and its neighbors are not being resolved.

With the result that


Events in the world are developing at the speed of a car. And sometimes it is simply impossible to predict them. Therefore, even the most competent analysts occasionally make mistakes in the little things. Strategic directions are assessed correctly.

The time has come for the formation of new military-political alliances or the reform of old alliances. Such work is underway in almost all regions of the world.

This leads to aggravation of relations between some countries. Accordingly, the threat of not only local conflicts but also global war is growing. The leaders of the world powers speak about this openly. This is felt by the inhabitants of some countries. The example of Afghanistan is just right here.

Today it is difficult to talk about what will happen in 5-10 years.

Will the CSTO grow?

It may well be.

Will NATO expand?

Probably too.

Will there be any new military blocs?

Apparently, it is possible.

It is equally possible that events will take a different path: when the leading world powers agree among themselves, and the need for new military alliances will disappear.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

24 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    25 August 2021 15: 07
    when the leading world powers agree among themselves
    "Only when everyone is dead will the Big Game end."
    Joseph Rudyard Kipling.
  2. +6
    25 August 2021 15: 14
    "Here you are not here!
    The whole world is going the other way around now. "
    Chernomyrdin
  3. +6
    25 August 2021 15: 15
    Will the CSTO grow?

    It may well be

    CSTO .. ​​where will it grow, what are the reasons .. economic, ideological? Syria in the CSTO? For the content? The CSTO is the name ... and nothing more. However, like NATO .. ​​it is also such a heterogeneous organization that in the case of a big fool, you will not find warriors ..
  4. +2
    25 August 2021 15: 44
    Perhaps only Russia needs Syria in the CSTO, why do the rest of the Organization's members need it? What are the Kyrgyz to do in Syria? And the CSTO is a rather "muddy" organization. If Armenia was taken to NATO with open arms and without any conditions, Armenia would not need the CSTO, but people like Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Ukraine, "are not accepted as cosmonauts" (c) and thank God. And Asians have their own interests, especially those who have a border with Afghanistan. Turkmenistan, the CSTO does not need the rest of the unions at all, they are their own directors.
  5. +4
    25 August 2021 18: 22
    The topic is not in trend, there are not a lot of comments. The discussion is not glued.
    1. Kuz
      +19
      27 August 2021 21: 29
      Quote: parusnik
      Discussion does not stick

      Looks like everyone is sober smile
  6. +2
    25 August 2021 18: 27
    Alexander, name at least a couple of "good friends" from Europe for Russia. And, in Syria, Assad will decide this alone, if membership in the CSTO will be beneficial to him. We can only recommend, and Iran too, to join this union.
  7. +7
    25 August 2021 20: 32
    The lesson of the USSR has not been learned - again to recruit the orphan and the poor under the wing is a bad, bad idea. Defense alliances must be built with equals or with those striving for one. And not with weak states mired in external and internal problems.
    1. +4
      27 August 2021 22: 54
      The lesson of the USSR is not learned


      This is a very difficult lesson. Whether under the USSR or today, our leadership does not need allies. Because union means EQUAL relationship.
      We need satellites. The weaker and more powerless, the better. A paradox? Not at all. Alliances arise in connection with the need to solve real pressing tasks in the face of real threats. We do not have STATE interests in BV - accordingly, there are no sane tasks. We have the geopolitical ambitions of one, mainly, person; in these conditions, a powerless, completely dependent satellite is most suitable.
      And the root of these ambitions lies in the quasi-Soviet imperial thinking - the foreign policy dogma of the first half of the XNUMXth century. And then only when we close this page of foreign policy views, then only the clock will start again.
      1. +2
        27 August 2021 23: 52
        There is nothing to add here! I agree with you.
  8. 0
    25 August 2021 22: 04
    Nonsense...
  9. +3
    25 August 2021 22: 21
    "when the leading world powers agree among themselves."
    As it was said in one famous film: only the sword will judge
  10. +2
    26 August 2021 07: 13
    To begin with, Syria needs to restore territorial integrity.
  11. +6
    26 August 2021 09: 53
    In general, we are claiming, neither more nor less, for the center of a new really powerful union, which will become the third pole in the world. Pros? Great. They are very large. Minuses?
    We will not only get the US and NATO as enemies. China will also become our outspoken enemy, which itself is raking Asia under itself, and it is only held back by the weakness of the Chinese army, which is obvious, despite its large numbers, training and excellent supplies. And we?
    And our economy is ridiculous. Militarily, we are still strong (so far, ideologically, we have already lost, and the absence of a Russian Warrior, replaced in a fire brigade by Dear Russians, is about to become obvious to everyone), but the economy of our country is no good. We ourselves know this very well. Vorye, as the owners of the factories of the steamship newspapers, cannot cope in principle. It also does not cope.
    In general, such a claim is suicide. I hope the authorities understand this, and will let me die in peace, not seeing how the thieving and bandit servants destroyed Eternal Russia ...
  12. +7
    26 August 2021 11: 02
    Evidence that the Syrian government is ready to work with the United States and coordinate "on all issues related to the Middle East," reported Al-Arabi al-Jadid:
    The Syrian leadership is suspected of wanting to establish feedback channels with the administration of US President Joseph Biden. Gulf media reported that a senior Damascus official went to Washington to discuss adjusting contacts. The reason was allegedly the tense situation in the once "reconciled" southern provinces of Syria, which still show their disobedience to the government. Experts say the Syrian government’s attempts to build bridges with Washington are not new, but they reflect the dynamics of the hardware wars in Damascus.

    And all this against the backdrop of a number of serious disagreements between Syria and the Russian Federation.

    So, dear Alexander Mikhailovich, knowing well how in the past the "Arab brothers" have already "stuck a knife in the back" of their benefactors, breadwinners and defenders, no matter how we see Syria in NATO earlier than in the CSTO. wassat hi
    1. Kuz
      +20
      27 August 2021 21: 27
      Alexander hi You really can't guess here. Vaughn, Russia and Saudi Arabia signed an agreement on military cooperation on August 23 at the Army-2021 forum. Predicting is a thankless job ...
      1. +3
        27 August 2021 21: 46
        Quote: Kuz
        Alexander hi You really can't guess here. Vaughn, Russia and Saudi Arabia signed an agreement on military cooperation on August 23 at the Army-2021 forum. Predicting is a thankless job ...

        I can not disagree.
        We are witnessing a change in vectors and axes in the international confrontation. It seems that this matter is not fast, it all seems to be moving slowly, but sometimes, rather drastic changes occur.
  13. Cat
    +1
    26 August 2021 12: 10
    the most competent analysts are periodically mistaken in the little things

    That's for sure. But some are wrong and for the most part .. periodically, but from the heart wassat As it was with Afgan.
  14. +2
    26 August 2021 13: 18
    Syria in the CSTO.

    After reading the title, I immediately understood who the author of the article was. Already one phrase "The hypothetical alliance of Syria with Iran" suggests that the article lacks an idea of ​​the real state of affairs.
  15. -2
    26 August 2021 23: 18
    The recent Israeli fiasco of firing rockets into Syria has shown that Syria must be reckoned with.


    I wonder what "fiasco" the author has in mind? .. what
    I don’t remember anything like that ..
  16. -1
    27 August 2021 20: 06
    As long as there are Anglo-Saxons and indeed those who are accustomed to living at the expense of others, there will be confrontation and oppression of weak countries.
  17. 0
    29 August 2021 07: 06
    So may or may not Syria become a member of the CSTO?

    Something I have not found a clear, complete answer to this question.
    On the other hand, is it necessary to analyze and discuss such a topic, if so far not a single Russian ally can be seen in Syria (at least in terms of a small coalition). And what will the CSTO coalition be ready for in cases when the territory of Syria will be subjected to missile strikes by Israeli aviation? How will the UN Security Council react to the actions of such a coalition?
    There are a lot of questions, and all the answers lie in the same plane - the plane of commodity-money relations with business partners, where there are no such values ​​that could not be sacrificed for the sake of 300% profit ... Yes
  18. +1
    29 August 2021 19: 31
    Quote: Svarog
    Syria in the CSTO?

    To accept a state in which the government does not control the territory? It is unlikely that the union will become stronger. Only a headache, we will conquer Syria with the whole union. Hardly other members of the union are interested in Syria. hi
  19. +1
    31 August 2021 10: 46
    Why is Syria in the CSTO? There are bases, there is a bilateral agreement ....... except for the Russian Federation, no one will fight in Syria. Considering their mess and the neighborhood with Turkey and Israel and the absence of a border, the Russian Federation is unable to carry out any major operations there either.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"