Military Review

The Boston Globe: Russia, thank you!

36
The view is increasingly expressed about the poor prospects of current conflicts in the Middle East. It is argued that the conflict in Syria and the fight against terrorism, due to certain circumstances, could escalate into World War III with corresponding consequences. However, there is an alternative view. The current situation requires cooperation from different countries and pushes them to improve relations. This occasion is probably worth taking advantage of.


13 in February, the American edition of The Boston Globe published in the “opinions” section an article by Stephen Kinser “On Syria: Thank you, Russia!” (“Syria: Russia, thank you!”). S. Kinser is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Affairs at Brown University and is involved in international politics. He reviewed the current situation in Syria and made some conclusions about the prospects for the conflict, as well as the relationship between the United States and Russia. As can be seen from the title, S. Kinzer has a reason to thank Russia for some valuable lessons.

The article begins with a statement of fact. Moscow once again showed its ability to make the right strategic choice and again bypassed Washington. Russia is not an ideal partner of the United States, but the interests of the two countries often coincide. In such cases, according to the author, the Americans should forget the hostility of the Cold War times and work with the former likely adversary. The best place to start such cooperation will be Syria.



S. Kinzer recalls that the American policy towards Syria from the very beginning of the civil war was shameful. Back in the beginning of the conflict, Washington determined its position: Bashar Asad must leave. This position has led to the loss of the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the conflict, since the motivation to negotiate with opposition groups has disappeared. This opinion of the American authorities to some extent helped Syria to plunge into the bloody nightmare of the civil war.

Russia, the author recalls, has repeatedly suffered from terrorist acts perpetrated by Islamist fanatics. In addition, the current chaos in Syria is a danger to Russia in terms of the spread of terrorism. Based on these considerations, Moscow has formed its point of view on the conflict, which should be adopted by the United States. The main task of foreign countries is to prevent the fall of the power of B. Assad and his allies. Only then will it be possible to form a new political regime in which the current president and people loyal to him will be represented. Then you should start working on a cease-fire.

The fall of B. Assad can lead to the most negative consequences. The disappearance of the current regime will lead to the formation of a vacuum of power, which, as practice shows, is a particular danger. Iraq and Libya have already fallen into a similar situation, which, among other things, has made them a real haven for terrorists. A repetition of this situation in Syria is a danger not only for Iran or Russia, but also for the United States. S. Kinzer believes that Americans should recognize this common interest and also join forces with other countries that have the same goals.

Such a proposal looks logical and reasonable, but is unlikely to find support among the American authorities. The fact is that it contradicts the basic foreign policy "commandment" of the United States, which the Republicans and the Democrats adhere to. This commandment is simple: Russia is the enemy, so everything that benefits it is against US interests. The same applies to Iran, and in his case, this phenomenon is large scale. S. Kinzer believes that Washington should no longer cling to outdated mantras in the style of "for us or against us." The authorities should understand that contradictions in some issues do not exclude agreement and cooperation in others. Russia in the current situation is an ideal example of such an approach to business.

The author notes that the United States could be a safer country and more conducive to world peace if they took the example of the Russian foreign policy of the past. For example, in the late eighties, Moscow brought loyal Mohammad Najibullah, who served as president of the country from 1987 to 1992, to power in Afghanistan. S. Kinzer calls this power the most honest and progressive for all history Afghanistan, especially in comparison with the new rulers, who not without American support overthrew M. Najibullah.

Later, Russia called on the US not to invade Iraq and not to crush the regime of Saddam Hussein in order to avoid negative consequences. As practice has shown, both times the policies of the USSR and Russia were right. In Syria, according to the author, Russia is right for the third time. Moscow proposes to maintain the power of B. Asad, which, for all its shortcomings, at the moment is best suited to American interests. In fact, an alternative to B. Assad is the terrorist “caliphate” from the Mediterranean Sea to the Tigris River.

The author believes that the current conflict cannot have a military solution. The continuation of hostilities only leads to new bloodshed and new deaths. Russia intends to end the war through negotiations. The United States does not agree to this, because their so-called friends from the Middle East want to continue the war. They expect to stretch the conflict, pursuing their own interests. However, this development is not in the interests of Washington.

Opposition groups in Syria, supported by Washington without much enthusiasm, refuse to negotiate and do not want to cease fire. By sharing and endorsing this position, the United States contributes to the continuation and dragging out of the conflict without any real prospects for ending it. Instead, negotiations should begin, the purpose of which is to establish a new government. Russia and the United States should support this way of ending the war. Only he can lead to peace.

Stephen Kinzer argues that for the United States it doesn’t matter how much Bashar Assad will remain in power. In the current situation, it is important to only weaken the strongest terrorist organizations. The fight against these forces is also in the sphere of interests of Russia and Iran. It is necessary to recognize these interests and to cooperate with other countries that share the views of the United States on the problem of combating terrorism.

Refusal to cooperate with Russia at the reflex level returns the United States to the long-standing era. In addition, it does not allow taking decisive steps to solve the Syrian problem. This policy also affects Europe. Not so long ago, the administration of Barack Obama announced that in the near future, the cost of deploying troops near the Russian border will be quadrupled. The answer to this was the teachings of the Russian armed forces in the west of the country, including the borders of Ukraine. Tensions in the region develop in a spiral, but ignore the fact that the security of Europe is simply impossible without active Russian participation.

The author believes that the US refusal to cooperate with Russia harms the United States itself more. At the same time, the beginning of cooperation in the field of global security will bring positive results to both countries. S. Kinzer considers Syria to be the best place to start such cooperation. The Russian strategy in this region is now based on several key provisions: it is the fight against terrorist organizations, the defense of B. Assad and the cease-fire, which in one form or another will allow the current government to be maintained. Despite all the shortcomings, such a strategy is not the worst possible solution to the existing problem. While Washington refuses to recognize and accept the strategy of Moscow, the war continues in Syria and people are dying.

***

The Syrian conflict has long ceased to be an ordinary civil war. Syria has become a field for the clash of interests of several countries that claim to be regional and global leaders. By supporting those or other armed formations, third countries are trying to solve their geopolitical problems, regardless of the independence of Syria or the lives of its citizens. All attempts to resolve the situation and end the conflict have not yet led to the expected results.

Stephen Kinzer expresses an interesting idea regarding the reasons that the leading countries of the world are still unable to form a unified and common position on the conflict, which will make it possible to stop the fighting and return Syria to a peaceful life. The reason is simple - at the beginning of the war the United States determined its position and now do not want to change it, still demanding the departure of Bashar al-Assad. Any alternative offers are rejected.

An additional factor contributing to the rejection of other proposals is the main “commandment” of American policy. Russia, just as several decades ago, is considered the main adversary, whose opinion cannot be listened to. Thus, even the compromise proposals expressed by Moscow are immediately rejected by Washington simply because of its origin. The essence of these proposals is ignored.

The way out of the current situation, according to the author of The Boston Globe, could be a change in the views of official Washington and the adoption of Russia's proposals. By acting together, the two large countries and their allies could bring the situation to an acceptable form, and then end the conflict and contribute to the construction of a new state system and the restoration of Syria. However, this is not happening because of the main foreign policy "commandment". We should not forget the position of the third countries of the Middle East, which in one form or another help the parties to the Syrian conflict and thereby carry out their own policies by continuing the war.

S. Kinzer admits that over the past few decades, Russia has repeatedly demonstrated the correct approach to international politics. Practice has shown several times that other countries should listen to the Russian position, otherwise there is a risk of negative unforeseen consequences. Apparently, one should listen in the case of Syria. Thus, Russia regularly presents lessons to foreign countries, and for this it should be thanked. Such gratitude is in the title of the publication.


Article "On Syria: Thank you, Russia!":
https://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/12/syria-thank-you-russia/UNKMxrzQvvAt8j4sJH03mJ/story.html
Author:
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 17 February 2016 06: 34
    +9
    It’s interesting, but to those rare journalists that in the West and in the United States they tell the truth, how is life then ???
    1. nomadman
      nomadman 17 February 2016 06: 47
      +9
      In the States, a bunch of journalists and public figures who have their own opinions that are different from Obama and other officials.
    2. Sensatus
      Sensatus 17 February 2016 06: 51
      +8
      As the United States weakens, it is easier for sane people within the states themselves to voice their opinions out loud. And since the states will continue to weaken, we can expect from them a radical increase in common sense.
    3. samoletil18
      samoletil18 17 February 2016 07: 27
      +2
      Quote: Great-grandfather of Zeus
      It’s interesting, but to those rare journalists that in the West and in the United States they tell the truth, how is life then ???

      On Solovyov’s broadcast, Americans with a similar position complain about a change of attitude: they do not express anything, but they do not support the relationship.
    4. chikenous59
      chikenous59 17 February 2016 07: 42
      +1
      Quote: Great-grandfather of Zeus
      It’s interesting, but to those rare journalists that in the West and in the United States they tell the truth, how is life then ???

      Just like in Russia. The authorities do not like it when they are told the truth.
    5. Alex_Rarog
      Alex_Rarog 17 February 2016 07: 53
      0
      Sour Definitely !!!
    6. Grbear
      Grbear 17 February 2016 08: 44
      +1
      Quote: Great-grandfather of Zeus
      It’s interesting, but to those rare journalists that in the West and in the United States they tell the truth, how is life then ???

      Ask Henry Alfred Kissinger No.
    7. Su24
      Su24 17 February 2016 11: 54
      0
      This commandment is simple: Russia is the enemy, so everything that is beneficial to it is contrary to American interests.


      Actually, normal geopolitical logic. I also have difficulty imagining where our interests coincide with those of America.
    8. Su24
      Su24 17 February 2016 11: 54
      0
      This commandment is simple: Russia is the enemy, so everything that is beneficial to it is contrary to American interests.


      Actually, normal geopolitical logic. I also have difficulty imagining where our interests coincide with those of America.
      1. igorka357
        igorka357 17 February 2016 12: 44
        0
        Seriously? Let them not fly into space then, it’s profitable for Russia! You just can’t imagine how many relations we have with the USA, in the field of science, in the field of art, and in the field of technology!
  2. shinobi
    shinobi 17 February 2016 06: 46
    +1
    Paving the way for a change in foreign policy. Just in case.
  3. CONTROL
    CONTROL 17 February 2016 06: 54
    +2
    - at the beginning of the war, the United States determined its position and now does not want to change it, still demanding the departure of Bashar Assad. Any alternative offers are rejected..
    "Assad must leave ...", yes, you heard! so everything is much worse - there is also "Putin must go" ...
    And after all - in the upcoming presidential elections, in the nominations: the continuity of US foreign policy is almost 100%!
    ...But in Russia? what about "continuity"? "Does the new broom sweep more discerningly? ..."
  4. avva2012
    avva2012 17 February 2016 06: 58
    +3
    Syria has become a field for the clash of interests of several countries, claiming the title of regional and global leaders. By supporting certain armed groups, third countries are trying to solve their geopolitical problems, disregarding Syrian independence or the lives of its citizens.

    The United States has long ceased to take into account whose interests. And so far, even "advanced" journalists do not understand this. The dictate did not lead to anything good. It seems that they have slave-owning experience and should know that the cruelty of the owner sooner or later leads to the fact that his head is chopped off with a machete and the estate is burned with his family. Not long ago a film by K. Tarantino took place.
    They don't ask themselves the question: "Who gave Uncle Sam the right to consider himself a white master?"
    1. Irbenwolf
      Irbenwolf 17 February 2016 11: 45
      +1
      This right was given to the USA by Yeltsin and Gorbachev, who destroyed the only worthy political counterweight. The winner removes all creams and creams.
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 17 February 2016 07: 00
    0
    American policy towards Syria from the very start of the civil war has been shameful

    Right S. Kinzer. We can add that it is not only shameful, but also a failure already at the first stage. You can’t fight terrorism by helping it with weapons, finances (through the SA) and exerting political pressure on those who are really fighting this evil. Moreover, pursuing only one task - the overthrow of Assad.
  6. ImPerts
    ImPerts 17 February 2016 07: 14
    +6
    Iraq and Libya left no instructive mark on American politicians. It’s better to say that they didn’t teach anything. Moreover, they will continue to bend the old line with donkey stubbornness.
    They see it like this:
    1. klin1
      klin1 17 February 2016 21: 01
      +2
      shave and hang
  7. parusnik
    parusnik 17 February 2016 07: 16
    +1
    The American writes correctly, soberly .. But he doesn’t understand one thing .. The West from the USA bit a bit: Carthage must be destroyed, in the sense of Russia ..
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 17 February 2016 07: 41
      +1
      Quote: parusnik
      The American writes correctly, soberly .. But he doesn’t understand one thing .. The West from the USA bit a bit: Carthage must be destroyed, in the sense of Russia ..

      It is necessary, at least once, to declare to the West: Russia will protect its interests, its allies, especially its independence, regardless of the possibility of actual and physical destruction of the ill-wisher.
    2. Nyrobsky
      Nyrobsky 17 February 2016 11: 38
      10
      Quote: parusnik
      The American writes correctly, soberly .. But he doesn’t understand one thing .. The West from the USA bit a bit:

      A poorly grounded horse, limps and stumbles ... and more and more people begin to understand that for a horse it’s better not to change the bit, but the owner
      1. Beslan
        Beslan 17 February 2016 15: 26
        0
        If everything was so simple ... Our business, maybe right, but how to convince others of this?
  8. silent
    silent 17 February 2016 07: 35
    0
    The American apparatus of government, the main unit of terror, the goal is one of as many victims as possible, the paths are different for each state its own approach in unleashing a civil or any kind of conflict to destroy the existing order, spreading genocide around the world, drawing states into war. Their policy is the destruction of any population of any nation.
  9. Ozhogin Dmitry
    Ozhogin Dmitry 17 February 2016 07: 44
    0
    Yes, all Americans are well aware that they are wrong and further escalation will not lead to anything good, including for them. But only the desire to spoil Russia and not recognize their own mistakes is stronger than common sense.
  10. Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 17 February 2016 08: 38
    +4
    A national debt of 18 trillion hangs over America with a domoclass sword.
    While the gross product produced in the states is often an intangible thing and is calculated not in tons of steel and kilowatts, but in kilometers of funds and securities banks written in the bowels of the earth. Which you will not spread on bread.
    In this sense, a war in Europe may well nullify this duty. Orders will go for airplanes, for equipment, you look, and again, the whole world must America.
    1. Izotovp
      Izotovp 17 February 2016 08: 53
      +2
      Now this is closer to the topic! What Assad or someone else? No one in the West is interested in who is in power and peace in the region or war. The main thing is that no one else can earn their business. Salvage. Monopoly and superprofits. All that interests them. Based on this, both interests and politics.
    2. Villon
      Villon 17 February 2016 12: 42
      0
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      A national debt of 18 trillion hangs over America with a domoclass sword.
      While the gross product produced in the states is often an intangible thing and is calculated not in tons of steel and kilowatts, but in kilometers of funds and securities banks written in the bowels of the earth. Which you will not spread on bread.
      In this sense, a war in Europe may well nullify this duty. Orders will go for airplanes, for equipment, you look, and again, the whole world must America.

      No orders can cancel a debt. But they will foment war. Because it is beneficial or disadvantageous to America, but it is not independent in its decisions, being a debtor.
  11. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 17 February 2016 08: 53
    +2
    So far, not everything is so bad in the states in order for them to start cooperating with us.
  12. Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 17 February 2016 09: 05
    0
    Finally, it began to dawn on sane Americans that the "dark lord" was not always right. Good article, encouraging.
  13. sledge
    sledge 17 February 2016 09: 22
    0
    There are sane people in Pendosia, few but there are
  14. Skalpel
    Skalpel 17 February 2016 09: 24
    +3
    He wrote it correctly. Hello. Soberly.
    What's the point? To the American government on such sensible articles and thoughts - absolutely for .. fuck. The American population is similar. The only difference is that a little for various reasons.
    The top of the United States is realizing its geopolitical imperial ambitions and he deeply does not care about everything else and everyone else. Plus, war is a great way to write off your old debts and boost economic growth. "Renew blood" so to speak. And if you don't fight on your own territory, but with someone else's hands - it's just some kind of holiday!
    The population of the United States - realizes its "consumer ambitions" and they also deeply cares about everything that does not specifically concern their well-being and well-being.
    So - the journalists write, and "USA-caravan" goes wherever it goes ...
  15. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 17 February 2016 10: 18
    +2
    The United States and Germany have proposed the introduction of a no-fly zone over Syria.
    No problem - the duty officer on the S-400 thought.
  16. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 17 February 2016 10: 48
    0
    For all its bellicose rhetoric, the United States will not unleash a new world slaughter, realizing that this time it will not be able to sit out safely "behind a puddle." What can we say about Europe! Only those like Erdogan can try to provoke it for their narrowly political purposes. But in vain, for the world powers their own shirt is closer to the body. Therefore, only local conflicts can be expected.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. python2a
    python2a 17 February 2016 13: 11
    0
    True, this, as always one-sided. It was not Bashar Assad who plunged his country into the abyss of a civil war, but the United States unleashed a full-fledged war with the invasion of bandits under the guise of opposition and the outbreak of civil war.
  19. silver_roman
    silver_roman 17 February 2016 13: 54
    +3
    Nonsense
    Russia is not an ideal partner for the United States, but the interests of the two countries often coincide.

    our interests are ALWAYS practically opposite.
    This is how Putin says: "We have many common interests: the fight against terrorism, the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, global warming, the fight against aliens, the conquest of neighboring galaxies, etc." - this is all just an illusion of cooperation, so that the age-old struggle is not on the agenda and people do not hide in bomb shelters as it was in the Cold War. The same environmental problems and green peaks are used absolutely for political purposes, nobody cares deforestation of rain forests in Ecuador, but everyone is soaring because of the drilling of the Shelf by our Prirazlomnaya station and in the same spirit.
    As well as the fight against terrorism: it always smiles at me. First, the states create a global problem (Nazism, terrorism, drug trafficking), and then they sell a cure for this problem, receiving super profits. let them go to hell with their cooperation. For a long time we still have to loosen up the results of this "cooperation", when we actually gave the country's leadership to someone else's (enemy's) management with all the consequences ...
  20. serge siberian
    serge siberian 17 February 2016 21: 07
    0
    There is no "Mr. NO" today. When will he appear? Now, in the current situation, the Russian leadership should firmly (and sometimes harshly) talk with its "partners" indicating their interests. Provide any possible assistance to the Kurds in creating their state. " I jumped on the step of the last car of the departing train. The states did not even have time to do this, they cannot even wave a handkerchief "so they" bite their elbows. "
    The Turks, on the other hand, were drinking. That the last moment had come, they grabbed "the thread" that Russia is about to cut off, let in a couple and "play with Muscles." But they can burn, finally. Kurdistan is like a sickle for them ... on the genitals. Next, let's see how they (the last) with them - will withstand or not. but someone holds them in his fist.
  21. aba
    aba 17 February 2016 23: 11
    0
    The Syrian conflict has long ceased to be an ordinary civil war. Syria has become a field for the clash of interests of several countries, claiming the title of regional and global leaders. By supporting certain armed groups, third countries are trying to solve their geopolitical problems, regardless of Syria’s independence or the lives of its citizens.

    Unfortunately, this has been the case in all recent conflicts.
  22. cergey51046
    cergey51046 18 February 2016 04: 15
    0
    The third world is the end of civilization. Only foolish people can talk about this.