Russian Expert: Syrian Situation Will Remain 'Unstable' for 'Long Time To Come'

Interview with Leonid Isayev, senior teacher in general political science department of applied political science faculty at Higher School of Economics, by Farida Rustamova 

Government troops have inflicted a palpable blow on opponents of the Bashar al-Asad regime.  On 29 July the army took control of a key district in Homs, a city of strategic importance.  Experts believe that they will now be able to develop an offensive against another opposition bulwark – Aleppo.  Is it possible to say that a sea change is coming about in the Syrian conflict, and how will the war in Syria end?  Gazeta.ru spoke about this with Leonid Isayev, senior teacher in the general political science department of the applied political science faculty at the Higher School of Economics. 

[Rustamova]  Can it be claimed that the government troops are now gaining the upper hand over the opposition forces? 

[Isayev]  The sea change occurred somewhat earlier, in May, since prior to that the situation had been shaping up not in Al-Asad’s favor for a year. 

First, this happened because Russia had nonetheless started supplying armament to official Damascus.  This was a very great help to Al-Asad’s troops, who were exhausted.  At the same time the opposition was counting on the United States being able to restrain Russia from supplying arms to Syria.  But this could not be done. 

Here, of course, it became clear that it is very difficult to fight the Syrian Army, one of the best in the Arab world.

Second, by May it had become clear that the United States was no longer interested in the Syrian conflict.  The United States, like many Western countries, had grown tired of it.  The opinion began to strengthen there that they were helping Islamists who would accede to power and, as was the case in Afghanistan and Iran, rise up against them.  Such opinions began to be aired increasingly loudly. 

Of course, it is not possible just to get out of there, but the United States started tackling the Syrian conflict with less zeal.  It would now have to be tackled by the Turks and Arabs, above all those from the Persian Gulf, who have been drawn directly into this conflict.  This, too, was a very heavy blow to the Syrian opposition. 

The third factor is the situation in Egypt, which has once again started to divert attention from Syria.  From my viewpoint the Syrian conflict was being fed to a greater degree precisely by the information component.  People were talking about it, it was always being heard about, and it was constantly on the agenda of the world community.  That feeding has now started to be reduced to naught.  Egypt has switched the attention to itself, because what is happening there is madness.  In Syria they have been unable to overthrow just the Al-Asad regime in three years, while in Egypt they have already removed three regimes. 

[Rustamova]  But Western countries are now discussing whether or not to supply weapons to the Syrian opposition.  Will this happen, and will the balance of power change then? 

[Isayev]  I do not believe that the balance of power will change cardinally.  Of course, the Americans will endeavor to fulfill their obligations, but all to a lesser degree.  Not that the Americans are even being asked for weapons deliveries; they are being asked to place the situation on the agenda in the UNSC, to speak about this, and to provide food for television channels.  Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have already tackled weapons and funding there to a greater degree.  Therefore the opposition troops will be topped up with armament and militants, but not all of this reaches the right address, because a huge amount of money disappears we know not where. 

What Russia is doing for the official Syrian Army in the sphere of arms deliveries exceeds many times over the deliveries from Western countries and Persian Gulf countries.  Plus, for all that, Lebanon is endeavoring to combat this contraband.  Therefore all of this is, rather, prolonging the conflict. 

[Rustamova]  Can Al-Asad’s new military successes split still further the already motley Syrian opposition? 

[Isayev]  They are already being split.  First, there is very great demoralization.  The moment of courage is very important to the military, when they go and capture more and more new cities.  In a state of demoralization schismatic sentiments manifest themselves strongly.  In addition, many militants are laying down their weapons because among the military who are fighting on the side of the Syrian Free Army there is a huge number of people who were fighting for an idea.  They took to the streets in 2011 because they wanted changes for the better, democratization.  They can see that what is happening in the country now is not democratization at all but degradation. 

People who were fighting for an idea and who love their motherland are laying down their weapons, particularly after the amnesty announced by Al-Asad.  This was a skillful move.  All of this is introducing a very powerful split into the Syrian opposition, which is extremely heterogeneous and is already being torn by endless contradictions.  Its leaders have also been changed many times. 

The Syrian opposition’s chief drawback is that it constitutes a gathering of people of different views, convictions, and faiths.  This is the reason why it has been unable to achieve anything. 

[Rustamova]  How likely is it that the opposing sides will sit at the negotiating table?  Both Russia and the United States support this idea. 

[Isayev]  The main thing for Russia and the United States is to save face and show that they were right:  Russia was right to support Al-Asad, and the United States was right to support the Syrian Free Army.  Of course, we should not expect America to admit that it was wrong and the Russians were right.  Putin will never acknowledge Al-Asad as a dictator.  Both Obama and Putin understand that it is important to eliminate this conflict.  But it is also necessary to save face. 

Talks must take place because America is less interested in the Syrian conflict.  But the problem is that the States is being pressured by its partners – Turkey and the Persian Gulf countries.  If America gets out now, then they will try to sort out the whole commotion in the Near East.  The United States will wash its hands and emerge dry from the water. 

Because of this pressure the peace conference might not take place.  But also because neither Russia nor America has yet thought up the form in which it would be possible to clothe so-called “Geneva-2” and which would be advantageous to both sides.  The conference is being postponed and will, I believe, go on being postponed until there is a consensus between (Russian Federation Foreign Minister Sergey) Lavrov and (US Secretary of State John) Kerry. 

[Rustamova]  How might the conflict in Syria end?  Is a territorial split of the unified country possible? 

[Isayev]  If Al-Asad is suddenly killed – and no one is insured against a terrorist act or a stray bullet – then this will be a defeat, because the entire Syrian elite has now united around him.  Then Syria cannot avoid civil war and further collapse.  The Iraqi Kurds are already free de facto and have their own visas, their own border troops, their own police, their own currency.  The Syrian Kurds are not coming out because they have an agreement in principle with Al-Asad.  If there is no Al-Asad, there will be no agreement, and with the Iraqi Kurds they will squeeze the Turkish ones, and then it could all escalate into a full-scale war in the Near East.  But this is the most pessimistic forecast. 

For now everything is moving toward the conflict gradually coming to naught, but the situation in Syria will be unstable for a long time to come.  This will be a smoldering conflict over many years with terrorist acts and maybe even with an open military standoff flaring up periodically. 

It is important now for Al-Asad to win the information war.  That is, to ensure that people just stop talking about Syria.  As soon as this happens, it will then be necessary to carry out systematic work to eradicate the hotbeds of separatism.  The most important thing is to get to the bottom of this, remove the Syrian question from the agenda of the world community, and ensure that the media, which actually shape the world community’s agenda, lose interest in Syria. 

http://www.gazeta.ru