The politico-diplomatic consolidation of the results of the Russia’s and its allies military operation in Syria is no less important than the victories gained by them on the battlefields.
To begin with, some general remarks. To know what to expect in relations with the West, you must clearly understand the following. First, the fact that the Western political mentality is based on the unshakable Machiavellian principle “All means are good for achieving the goal.” Secondly, the fact that in fulfillment of this principle they will never leave you until they achieve their goal.
This is practically everything you need to know, in particular, about the current policy of the West in regard to Syria. The actual military victory of Russia and its allies over the forces of the so-called “world terrorism”, whose goals in Syria in a very strange way always completely coincided with the goals of the Western policy itself, did not affect the willingness of Western leaders to be the first in line for the postwar partition of the Syrian “pie”. Not by washing, so by rolling, not by war, so by political balancing, they are determined to achieve their goal.
This is precisely the purpose of the West’s attempt to revive the so-called “Geneva format” of the talks on Syria, with which it clearly expects to “bracket” the outcome of the victorious military campaign of the Russian coalition in this country and reformat the Syrian political process in such a way as if this victory never happened at all.
It is well known that the insidious treachery of Western diplomacy always tries to win back what has been lost on the battlefields at the negotiating table. And the present Geneva attempt is of the same kind. It is not by chance that the leading Western media, clearly aware of these plans, focused their attention at the recent press conference of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the UN on this particular aspect:
Correspondent: How do you feel about the proposal of the UN Special Envoy De Mistura to hold a conference on the Syrian constitution in Geneva? And what to do then with your plan to hold a similar meeting on Syria in Sochi in late January? Are you going to postpone this meeting, move it to February?
Lavrov: Let me remind you that the efforts that we began to take together about a year ago with Iran and Turkey, known as the Astana process, in many ways stimulated the UN to resume active work. Before the meeting in Astana was announced, the UN has done nothing for more than ten months. And the current round of Geneva talks was announced only after we announced the initiative to hold the congress of the Syrian national dialogue in Sochi… Both in Geneva and Vienna, delegations from the Syrian opposition consist mainly of people who have long been outside Syria. And if you approach the matter seriously, then work on the constitution of this country should involve the whole spectrum of Syrian society. All religious, all ethnic groups, civil society and so on. This is the reason for the initiative to convene a congress in Sochi. We have invited about 1,500 representatives of the Syrian people, who, of course, are interested in having their voice heard along with the voices of emigrants. And we want, that following the results of this congress, Mr. Staffan De Mistura received recommendations who else can become a member of the constitutional commission.
The problem, however, is that this is exactly what the West wants to avoid. And the UN special envoy – an organization existing, mainly, on money of the Western powers, is unlikely to contradict it. It is obvious that the negotiation formula, in which the future of Syria will be solved with the direct participation of representatives of its population, threatens to disrupt all plans of the Western diplomacy. The main essence of which, we will call things by their proper names, is to steal the victory, that has already been practically achieved, from Syria and its president Assad. And to make sure that it’s fruits were used by agents of the same West in the person of long-established political prisoners in London and Paris, who are connected with Western special services. Like the famous for its “fake news” London-based “Observatory on Syria”, consisting of one table, chair and computer, mailing from which, nevertheless, all leading Western mass media cite in unison.
In order to maximize its position at the table of future negotiations on Syria, the West, led by the United States, is making active efforts to ensure its maximum military presence in this country. In particular, by creating zones that are not controlled by the government of the SAR as wide as possible. In the framework of these obviously wrongful efforts (I recall that the US military presence in Syria is absolutely illegal), Washington has put forward various initiatives pursuing the same goals. In particular, the creation of so-called “forces to protect the border with Turkey and Iraq,” based on pro-American armed groups of Kurds.
This US provocation has already led to a new outbreak of war in the Middle East in the form of the invasion of the Turkish troops in the area of the Syrian city of Afrin. It should be expected that the escalation of tension in Syria will continue as a form of military and political support for the positions of the West at the same Geneva talks.
Lavrov: A couple of days ago, the Americans announced the creation of “border security forces” in Syria. And today they said that they were misunderstood, that they do not create any forces. But the fact that the US is seriously engaged in the formation of alternative authorities on a large part of the Syrian territory is a fact. And this, of course, is absolutely contrary to their own commitments to adhere to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. Inconsistency and lack of principled adherence to what we are negotiating is quite typical for modern American diplomacy. Including the reasons for the American presence in Syria and the reasons for the actions of the coalition, which they lead.
Meanwhile, the “inconsistency of American diplomacy” indicated by the Russian foreign minister, in my opinion, has a purely external character. It is connected with the fact that in the West they have never attached special importance to international law, considering it as a purely decorative element of their policy.
They always believed that the main argument in any geopolitical discussion is a military force, and the main principle of the covenant of the same Machiavelli “The end justifies the means.” So, there can be no doubt in the inner integrity, harmony and purposefulness of US foreign policy, which has always been a policy of international expansion, arbitrariness and violence against other nations. As in the fact, they will never get out of Syria’s face easily – as it’s one of the key countries of the Middle East.
The whole struggle is yet to come. And its next important stage will be the Sochi Congress of representatives of the people of Syria. Which today is a unique opportunity to give the Syrians, in their totality and with almost infinite variety, a real chance to see each other not through the sight of the machinegun. And jointly agree on the future of that country, which is the Motherland for all these people. The Geneva diplomatic backstage, where everything is decided at the expense of the Syrian people and with the complete absence of its plenipotentiary representatives, categorically can not give such an opportunity.