Developments in the year 2016 in the Middle East can be a nightmare for the President of Russia
Radio free Europe/Radio Liberty continues the cycle of interviews on major milestone events and trends in the coming year. The threat of terrorist attacks worldwide increased sharply due to the escalation of hostilities in the Middle East and growing power of the terrorist group "Islamic State" (banned in Russia), caused by these factors, the European refugee crisis, as well as in general very tangled situation in Syria, where the different warring parties after the military intervention in the conflict Russia ended up in the patovom position, were the principal international theme in 2015, and certainly will continue to be in the year 2016. What developments in the coming year in the Middle East could be considered the maximum win for Russian President Vladimir Putin and that there could be his most terrifying nightmare?
In celebration of the advent of the new year information about terrorist attacks and avoided the possibility of new attacks influenced the programme of celebrations worldwide. The Kremlin, meanwhile, in the last days of the year 2015 remains steadfastly denied all charges in the bombing of the civilian population in Syria, but Vladimir Putin devoted his traditional new year's address to his fellow citizens thoughts about the global fight against terror, which, in his view, successfully led and leads Russia.
Can I take it that it is the opinion of today war in Syria and action of a terrorist group "Islamic State" the biggest threat to global security, and Russia including? This question is answered by an independent military analyst, an expert on international security issues, Yuri Fedorov:
Russia is the current dangerous world is much stronger. Grouping "Islamic State" is certainly a threat to world security, but so far the regional. First of all this is a threat to surrounding countries Islamic region, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey. For Europe are dangerous radical Islamists planned attacks, but this is not a threat to the very existence of the European States. And that's the first time in 2014 has appeared-2015 years the prospect of "nuclear sharing", or limited nuclear war in Europe, associated with the policies of Russia and Russian threats to use nuclear weapons, the threat is much higher.
-How big is now the possibility that Syria will continue the following year Ta stalemate that emerged by the end of 2015 onwards, when Russia began to operate actively?
Is this situation just continue through the actions of Russia. Because, in spite of intensive bombing, which the Russian planes are subjected to the population in those areas which are controlled by the moderate opposition victory even over its detachments army regime of Bashar Al-Assad won. First of all, because the army had already lost its fighting spirit. The Government constantly mobilized Syrian army Sunni population areas not only Alawi areas. And these people have no sympathy for the current regime in Damascus, and not willing to fight for it. The second factor is that the Government army is spread on a large number of small pockets of fighting, and its part in the current Assad's strategy to retain the greatest possible number of settlements cannot concentrate for drawing of one of a major blow for the strategic offensive. Russian bombing and led to the situation was frozen-and apparently the same it will continue throughout the year 2016.
-What is tactically exodus from really possible rather than fantasy, in the coming year would be maximally advantageous for Moscow in Syria? Conversely, some hypothetical scenario yet could be called conditionally, the worst nightmare there, Vladimir Putin?
Is the most favourable to Moscow, purely theoretically, option-some crucial land victory of Bashar Al-Assad. For example, the return of Idlib, or complete control of Aleppo, the defeat of any large grouping of Syrian opposition forces. This would prove that Russia's air operation has brought success and Vladimir Putin returns to the world stage as a shape that can really affect the provision of important and at the same time conflict regions of the world.
-And the nightmarish option?
-Armed conflict with Turkey! The likelihood of such a conflict still exists, no doubt, because if a loaded gun all the time hanging on the wall, it will sooner or later shoot, sorry for banality! And then there will be a conflict between Russia and a NATO member country, now predict the outcome which I cannot.
-You hold the view that the main aim of the Russian military intervention in the Syrian war was a desire to return, at least partly, a partnership with the West, disappeared after the start of another military conflict-Ukraine. In the United States and in Europe by the end of 2015 onwards is quite noticeable intensified the voices of those who supported the option of cooperation with Russia in the fight, figuratively speaking, with the global world terrorism. Their voices may start sounding even louder in the coming year? And what could it depend?
-Let's see why these voices sound? In Europe and in the United States for almost the entire history of the regime of Vladimir Putin voiced quite serious arguments, and widespread political, and in business and in academia, which boiled down to one point of view: Yes, said supporters of this point of view, Putin and his regime is far not the best mode. The corrupt regime, a regime of nationalist, but he is a threat to the outside world does not represent and can deal with. As far as the totalitarian hell in this mode is a problem for Russia and for Russians, and if they like this regime, why not let it live. But it turned out that this view does not correspond to reality, it turned out that the invasion of Ukraine, how could it be called a hybrid war or otherwise, aggression against Ukraine, refuted that view. And its supporters found themselves in a crazy situation. They said that Putin's Russia "acceptable", and now they need to either acknowledge their intellectual failure, failure to provide a reasonable forecast, or continue to prove that without Russia unavoidable. Some people who have spoken with such a point of view, changed their views, but many others continue to demonstrate that, in General, they are not so strong and wrong. And despite the fact that Vladimir Putin's regime is far from what he seemed earlier, allegedly with him anyway you can and want to deal with, because without it you cannot cope with international terrorism.
This is the mode in its time and was one of the largest sponsors of international terrorism!
But is this really so? Let's see what can be a concrete contribution to Russia, Russian special services or armed forces in combating international terrorism? I don't think that Russia can play a decisive role, without which it is impossible to do. The attempt of Russia to take the lead, according to the Kremlin, the fight against the most dangerous hotbed of international terrorism in Syria, with grouping "Islamic State" and associated with the Al-Qaeda organization "Džabhat an-Nusra" have not led to success, and I think that will not lead to success. Yes, I was able to support the regime of Bashar Al-Assad-but this very regime in my time, I mean the regime of his father, Hafez Al-Assad, at the outset, was one of the largest sponsors of international terrorism! And I'm sure that some regard this kind of Damascus have still remained. In addition, it seems that Moscow is beginning a new round of "flirting" with Kurdish factions, especially with the Kurdistan Workers ' Party. When President Putin uttered the famous phrase already about tomatoes, which Turkey, they say, not otdelaetsâ, apparently, it was understood that Moscow will support this activity now the PKK and other Kurdish organizations, different direction. But Kurdistan Workers Party is one of the elements of this system of international terrorism, it has quite a few of these attacks, and not only in Turkey but also in Europe. So what do Russia's role in combating international terrorism, at least, ambiguous.
-In the Kremlin, calling the West "forget old squabbles", now often hold an analogy between the war in Syria and in General with a radical Islamist terrorism and World War II, when Western States were forced to unite with Stalin's Soviet Union in the fight against common terrible threat. This naïve analogy?
-Nazi Germany constituted a vital threat to the uk. United States to Nazi Germany at that time was not really an existential threat, but the Alliance with the Soviet Union to Washington then was needed for war with another strong opponent, with Japan in the Pacific. And in general the Soviet Union after the 1941 year potentially represented for United States less of a threat than Germany. And this combination has led to the emergence of the anti-Hitler coalition of the three countries, which, I repeat, is for Britain was a vital necessity, and for the United States-the best choice of action in the context of the second world war. After the end of hostilities, when was created the "Yalta-Potsdam system", the Western democracies have simply had no alternative but to go towards the Kremlin, because Stalin's army stood in the center of Europe and almost be able within weeks to reach Paris, the English channel and so on.
What can the Putin offer?
But now the situation is quite different. Russia today is not the force, which will have to be considered the Western countries to the extent to accommodate Putin and agree on a "new Yalta-2". What can the Putin offer? The only one he could say: "I will not more use or threaten to use nuclear weapons in Europe". Very well, if he says, but to believe you want to make a number of steps in a real field. You must begin to resolve the issue of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, in the first place. In General, Putin need to prove not in words but in deeds, that he will no longer represent an existential threat to a number of European States. While Putin is no even a hint of it does not. Respectively, and the reaction by Western States also very restrained. And I see no reason why, in the year 2016 West should go toward Putin's wishes and requirements, "said Yuri Fedorov.
