Russia is between two agreements with Syria and America & Syria is between two wars and two political processes

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Sequentially Russia is reaping the fruits of its standing with Syria against the war which was led by Washington that aimed to overthrow its country, and putting it between two choices; the division which is led by Israel and implemented by Al-Qaeda through its branches ISIS and Al-Nusra, or the transforming into an organized country on a sectarian basis under the Saudi sponsorship as Al Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi and Stefan De Mistura have tried to show in their speech about the inspired Lebanese example in addition to the confirmation of the US Secretary of State John Kerry about the necessity of taking over the authority by those whom he called the sectarian majority rather than the sectarian minority, otherwise following the leaders of the political and armed groups which are related to Turkey through the Ottoman Empire.

The war of Syria has constituted the center of Washington’s policies for the past five years, it dealt through it with the issues of security, politics, and economy toward both of Russia and Iran, while Syria has withstood and fought supported by its allies which fought as if it is their war, Syria defended accompanied with its allies who defended on their status and their interests which are doomed with every change that affects Syria and its future. Iran has reaped the fruits of its standing and its steadfastness through an honored understanding of its nuclear program, and its devoting itself an inherent member in the club of the superpowers, while Russia is reaping today the fruits of its standing with Syria by devoting itself a rival partner and maybe advanced on America in the policies of the Middles East and the world.

The Russian position through the veto in the Security Council, and the stability in refusing the project of the American war on Syria, which was shown when the Russian fleets came to the Mediterranean and were ready for the confrontation by putting all the reasons, data, and the capabilities to win under the control of the Syrian army, and when the beginning was with the political solution for the Syrian chemical weapon, and then sequentially the scale of the understandings and settlements turned in favor of the confrontation, thus was the understanding on the Iranian nuclear program then Vienna’s agreements regarding Syria, which followed the Russian qualitative military positioning that has changed the track of the war, by giving the Syrian army an opportunity of ongoing resolving in which it is achieving victories against the armed groups, all of these prove that there is no hope neither in saving the projects of these groups nor whom is standing behind, towards alienating Turkey and Saudi Arabia from the Syrian door and preventing their returning back from the window to talk about the ground intervention in the course of the war on ISIS.

The decision of ceasing-fire in Syria which has culminated the marathon negotiations between Russia and America about Syria, through the war on terrorism, the political process and the method of how to integrate them has constituted an articulated phase in this war and that process as in the Russian American relationship and the Russian Syrian relationship. The resolution which devotes Russia as a referentianlity and a rival partner that is relatively precedent  on Washington , is snatching a description to Syria with an American signature by using vocabularies such as the militants forces which belong to the Syrian government, and the militant forces which belong to the Arab Syrian Army, it indicates that the Russian air force and the air force that belongs to the Arab Syrian Army in addition to the militants forces that belong to the Arab Syrian Army will continue the war against Al-Nusra Front and ISIS. In many paragraphs it talks about three forces that grant it a parallel legitimacy, they are the Arab Syrian army, the alliance that is led by Washington for the war on ISIS, and the Russian military presence, this resolution ends the Turkish Saudi and Israeli hopes of adding Al Nusra Front to the political process after strenuous efforts for this purpose where Washington was not far from. The speech of its former Head of intelligence David Petraeus about Al-Nusra as a necessity for the war on ISIS was a live evidence on that, Al-Nusra is the common denominator among the three projects which targeted Syria through division, arousing sects or pursuance of the Sultan, it is the largest collective bridge militarily and humanly between the areas which are under the control of the armed groups which rarely one of them has a control alone on the geography through which it can impose any process of ceasing-fire, so this makes the groups between two choices either joining Al-Nusra or the confrontation against it as a cost of the engagement in any political process and the making use of ceasing-fire.

The resolution puts Russia in front of two agreements one with America that enters its beginning, and one with Syria that starts reaping its fruits, the resolution puts Syria in front of two wars and two political processes, a war on terrorism which is represented by the two branches of Al-Qaeda Al-Nusra and ISIS and a war on those who neutralizing themselves through the ceasing-fire, in addition to a political process that reconciles with the UN resolution towards parliamentary elections under UN sponsorship, and another political process which the constitution has stipulated and has identified its merits.

Russia and Syria have managed the difficulties of the military and political confrontation till they reach these accomplishments, they are confident that what has been accomplished was a result of solidarity, stability and the sacrifices, not a tender or a generosity of manners from an opponent or an army, even if it settled at the level of settlements as with Washington. What is coming is less expensive as long as this level of harmony, understanding, and understanding is being maintained. Syria and Russia are aware that Washington has sold its allies who have failed in leading its war and their war to the victory, thus the capital of money has been dissipated and has become debts-interest bearing, which they throw to each other, while the benefits of profits have been achieved to Syria, Russia and Iran because of the capital which is the alliance which based on principles, no sane can lose the capital asking for the benefits, they know that the politics is not a managing of the tactical alliances between two strategic allies because this is nonsense, but it is the management of tactical disagreements that are created by the divergent sites of two strategic allies  as the requirements of the next phase show, the politics is not the management of a tactical disagreement between two strategic opponents, because this is nonsense too, but it is managing a tactical understanding between two strategic opponents as the requirements of the emerging American Russian relationship show.

Syria will wage its two wars by retail; it will invest its military victories with a military political balance for the resolving with Al-Nusra, and classifying its similarities and putting them in front of the difficult choices, till the conditions of another confrontation become available whether political, security, or military one, especially with the realistic assumptions to change names, and shifts among the entities to preserve who built them. Syria understands the requirements of what Russia has achieved and its consequences, Moscow as well will understand the requirements of the constitutional political process of Syria by making the legislative elections on their time, then it is the time for the second political process which is supposed that it will lead to a dialogue under the UN auspices, but this is still faltering, we will see later on.

The difference between the values and the criteria of the alliance of Syria, Russia and Iran on one hand and the standards and rules of the alliance of Washington, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel on the other hand is the difference between the alliance of the liberals and the alliance of the humbles and the subordinates.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,