Why get rid of the dictators
In 1951, the American occupation authorities, who seized the Italian colony in 1943, called their area of occupation “the kingdom of Libya”. They appointed Idris Al-Sensessi, the most "democratic emir", crowned as Idris I., as the king.
Back in 1921, the British, on the basis of three Ottoman provinces, created a separate state of Iraq, setting Amir Faisal on the throne. 14 July 1958 year in Iraq there was a military coup. King Faisal II with the whole family and members of the government was shot, and the dictator was Colonel Abdel Kerim Kasem.
Subsequently, no less than 1970 military coups took place in Syria and Iraq before the start of the 20s, until Hafez al-Asad came to power in Syria in 1970, and after five years in Iraq, Saddam Hussein seized power.
So, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, there were three strong dictators in Libya, Syria and Iraq. No human rights were respected there. But then, just as now, there could be no other form of government guaranteeing the preservation of not only territorial integrity, but also the very existence of states. In all three states there was neither democracy nor democratic politicians - they simply had nowhere to take. Without exception, the coups were committed by the military. As the great Mao said, “a rifle gives rise to power!”.
All three strong and independent dictators did not fit into the American concept of a unipolar world. They were decided to remove. History and the mentality of Eastern peoples in the United States do not know not only politicians, but also professors of history.
It’s one thing to make a rose revolution in Georgia in 2003, replacing Shevardnadze’s operetta regime with an even more comical Mishiko Saakashvili, and quite another to stir up the wasp nest in the Middle East. In Libya and Iraq, dictators were killed, but instead of an era of democracy, an endless civil war of all against all began with the predominance of Islamic extremists.
In Syria, the Americans and the French initiated a civil war. There is no front line in this war. And competent Western military experts map of Syria is a small mosaic of dots of different colors, corresponding to certain groups.
Take at least the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds. They want to be independent. Their old saying goes: "Kurds only love the mountains." Indeed, the independence of the Kurds is opposed by all the players in the Middle East - the governments in Baghdad and Damascus, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the oil emirates, etc. Supports the Kurds only Israel. In the case of the collapse of Syria, Tel Aviv loses a strong potential enemy and finally annexes the Golan Heights.
For selfish purposes, Ankara goes to a temporary alliance with the Iraqi Kurds, hoping to incite them against the Syrian and Turkish tribesmen. In the future, the union of Erbil (the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan) and Ankara could lead to a deal: the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan in exchange for helping Turkey create a puppet state in northern Syria.
Personally, I am sure that if the crafty guarantees Iraqi Kurds independence, they will go into battle with shouts: “Shaitan Akbar!”
For the taming of little animals
It seems that the White House does not know what to do with the Middle East. To send an army of half a million soldiers there - get back thousands of "two hundred" and get bogged down in the war for several years. Without a ground operation, destroy the Islamic State (IS is a banned organization in the Russian Federation) by forces aviation physically impossible by either the US Air Force and Navy, or the Russian Air Force. The White House categorically refuses to take Assad's army, Shiite militias in Iraq, as well as the regular army of Iran, into the allies.
The forces of the so-called democratic opposition are extremely weak. Yes, and they represent not a single army, but scattered detachments of Sunni field commanders. All these Gretsiany Taurian thousands kill not only prisoners, but also civilians, regularly use suicide bombers and in other acts they differ little from the militants of the IS.
We note that the Americans bomb Syria only from the northeast from Turkish airfields or from the southeast from aircraft carriers located in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, as well as from land airfields in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the oil emirates. And the facade of Syria from the Mediterranean Sea is reliably covered by the defense of Syria, and now by the Russian C-400 complexes.
Therefore, the Americans conceived to introduce their divisions into the northeastern corner of Syria through Turkish territory. The White House has been flirting with the leadership of Syrian Kurds for many weeks, and a couple of American airfields are building on their territory. I emphasize - on the territory of a sovereign state, without asking a legitimate government. How does Ankara look at this? Koso ... Personally, I am sure that this option threatens the Americans with a tremendous embarrassment and cleaner flight from Vietnam. Of course, except for the option of action in alliance with Russia.
And why did we get into Syria? The stay of Russian troops there is absolutely perfect from the point of view of international law. They are there at the request of the legitimate Syrian government. Let me remind you that since the end of the 1950-ies, Syria was a permanent ally of the USSR, and then the Russian Federation.
On the other hand, Russian troops in Syria protect the state interests of Russia. IG management with 2014, has repeatedly threatened to invade the territory of the Russian Federation. In the ranks of the IG fighting over 3 thousand militants - citizens of the Russian Federation, who hope after the victory in the Middle East to continue the war in Russia. As the famous expert Yevgeny Satanovsky put it figuratively, “all the flies gathered on one heap of manure in Syria, and there they are easier to slam.” But can the Russian VKS together with the Syrian army slam the IG? In my opinion, this is completely unrealistic. So why send the troops?
Here a literate answer is impossible, if not to discard the last fig leaf of political correctness. The Russian bear, having entered Syria, with its right paw, took the American eagle by the scruff of its neck, and its left paw, a dozen European little animals. Now he can do whatever he wants with them, and they with him nothing. At least in Syria.
WAR TO ALL THE HUNTING
Admiral Nelson's favorite saying was: "Know how to count." So bend your fingers, gentlemen. Imagine the worst and most unlikely. Our troops are leaving Syria. So what? The government will announce that all tasks have been completed, and the people everywhere will meet heroes with the orchestra.
Suppose an equally incredible option: in Damascus, an armed coup, Assad was killed. So what? In Nizhny Novgorod, mourning will be declared, and weeping women running around their hair will run along the banks of the Volga and the Oka?
May the territorial status quo be preserved in the Middle East. Then, in the village of Prostokvashino, the native functionary of the ruling party will announce at the gathering: “Contrary to the machinations of American imperialism, the principles of international law triumphed!” And if Syria and Iraq finally fall apart? He is also there: “Contrary to the machinations of American imperialism, the will of the people triumphed! The borders imposed by the imperialists in the twentieth century have collapsed! ”
So the bear skin, nothing will penetrate. And the bear itself, even if it does not use claws and teeth, can arrange the United States Vietnam squared, and turn the EU countries into a Caliphate Europe.
Russia supplies the most perfect and efficient weapons can ensure the victory of any party to the conflict and destroy the plans of the United States, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern players. Well, except for the supply of weapons can send thousands of instructors. Full "coverage" of events from building dugouts to secret talks between the leaders of countries - players in the Middle East in real time using Russian space vehicles, radio interception, drones, etc. will play a huge role.
Then why send troops to Syria? Is not it better to limit the supply of weapons? Alas, it is impossible! The USA, even in conditions of equality in armaments with the USSR, periodically acted as gangsters from the main road, completely ignoring international law. So, in 1962, without a declaration of war, they imposed a blockade on Cuba. In 1973, mined approaches to Haiphong and other Vietnamese ports, etc.
And with the advent of our VKS in Syria, it becomes more difficult to interrupt Russian arms shipments to the Middle East. And to put it bluntly, it is impossible without the risk of local or total nuclear war. Our C-400 and ships in the Eastern Mediterranean guarantee the delivery of military cargo to the ports of Syria.
Recall that Boris Yeltsin almost destroyed the domestic merchant fleet in the early 1990s. And only thanks to the war in Syria managed to form quite effective flotilla transport ships, which can transport weapons from the Baltic ports and the Black Sea for an entire army.
In addition, Russia has a “back door” to the Middle East through the Caspian Sea, Iran and Iraq. There, under the reliable protection of the Caspian military flotilla, an air bridge has been operating for many weeks. And the Russian transport ships in the Caspian are able to transfer any weapons and in any quantities across the Caspian Sea, and if necessary - a “limited contingent”.
Now the White House has three ways out of the Middle East crisis. The first is an alliance with Russia (at the level of 1941 — 1944). Only then does a real chance appear to eliminate the IS and establish real peace in the Middle East within six months.
The second way is a massive invasion of ground forces, for example, in northeastern Syria, populated by Kurds. For Russia, this is the most preferable option, since the final of such an adventure is obvious.
The third way is to conduct the air war as before. This will postpone the defeat of the West for several months and even years. Washington does not care that every month of the war generates tens of thousands of refugees who hope to get to Europe.
It is worth noting that the majority of players in the Middle East think in terms of "pan or lost," that is, either peace on my terms, or the continuation of war. For example, for Assad, the continuation of the war is clearly beneficial. While his troops capture small pieces of territory, that is, he wins on points. The world today is fraught for him with a very likely resignation.
Immediate peace for the Syrian Kurds - defeat, they will not receive independence now. The continuation of the war for them - the path to independence. The world now will give nothing to either Saudi Arabia or Iran. And the expansion of war gives both countries tremendous chances of spreading their influence, and so on. The same can be said about Turkey, Qatar and others.
Well, bear any option "on the drum." Demonstration of his military equipment sharply increased the merchantability of this in the huge world arms market. It seems that “dynamic advertising” pays for itself. Well, bear the bear, he namyat sides can.