On November 27, members of the opposition armed groups launched a large-scale offensive against government positions in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib. On December 8, in the morning, they entered Damascus, and the Syrian army units left the city. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has left office and the country.
How will events develop and is there a connection with the SVO?
Background
What happened may have been a surprise to many, but it is unlikely for experts. The fact is that entrenched in the Idlib enclave in northwestern Syria, we can say that the unfinished rebels have received significant assistance from Turkey and other states since the "Arab Spring". And they, having skillfully calculated a certain relaxation of the current regime, the unpreparedness of the Syrian army, managed to move forward quite quickly, capturing Aleppo, then Hama and even Homs, not to mention dozens of smaller settlements.
In my opinion, the Syrian army did not just relax, but somewhere also hoped, probably, for the support of Russia, which helped them to win during the "Arab Spring" in the fight against the "Islamic State" (IS, banned in the Russian Federation). Now another organization rules the ball, which is called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (banned in the Russian Federation). She is categorically opposed to the current Syrian authorities.
This time, the Islamists from its ranks have learned some lessons from the past. At least, during the storming of Aleppo, during its occupation, there was not the rampant terror that was observed during the time of the "Islamic State" (banned in the Russian Federation). Moreover, they even went into some kind of dialogues with Christians, saying that they would provide the population with food. There have been reports that Aleppo is not starving, food and electricity are being supplied there. Moreover, they even managed to transfer electricity there from Turkey, which is terribly lacking in Syria. That is, they act in an attempt to win the sympathy of the local population, or at least not to make it categorically opposed to them.
Causes of the crisis
The reasons for this situation are explained not only by the success and surprise of military actions on the part of the rebels and militants, but also by a flaw on the part of the government, on the part of Bashar al-Assad. The operation to eradicate the "Islamic State" (banned in the Russian Federation) with the help of the Russian Aerospace Forces has been over in the country for more than a year. For years now, Syria has seemingly been living in peace. However, during this time, the economy has not begun to breathe better.
The country has rampant inflation, unemployment — a lot of problems, primarily of an economic nature. The country exists practically without electricity, without fuel. The main sources and deposits, reserves of the Syrian subsoil are located in its eastern and northern parts, in those places that are now under the de facto occupation of Turkey and the United States or under the rule of Kurdish formations. Therefore, somewhere out of 40 existing gas and oil fields in Syria, Damascus has an outlet, according to my data, literally 3-4, no more.
The Syrian population is tired of some impunity of the security agencies and their laxity to some extent (and there are a lot of security services in Syria). This has tired Syrians since the time of the father of the current president Hafez Assad. Although Bashar al-Assad himself, when he came to power in 2000, advocated the renewal of the economy, the democratization of society and the press. He was even nicknamed the "father of the Syrian Internet" because he opened a worldwide network for Syria.
However, organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in the Russian Federation) or the same Islamists have apparently used this tool much more successfully. The rebels turned out to be more flexible in working with the population, and in this sense, I think the Syrian authorities have lost the war on the Internet.
But there was also a positive part in the work of the Syrian government. This is a traditional tolerance for all religions and nationalities. I was convinced of this after living in Syria for almost 10 years.
SVO's connection with the Syrian events
Historically, Syria was not just a piece on the map for us. We have been present there since the times of the XIX and the beginning of the XX century, when the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society operated there, which, in particular, was engaged in the construction of Orthodox churches and Russian schools (there were about 104 pieces). Then, under the USSR, we helped Syria in economic projects, resisting Israeli aggression and in the fight against terrorism.
After the beginning of the Arab Spring, I think it was only thanks to Russia that it was possible to stop the terror that was taking place in Syria. It's not just about Syria, but also about stopping the Islamist terrorist threat to our state, because from there it's just a stone's throw to the southern regions of the Russian Federation. Of course, Russia has strategic geopolitical interests there. At the same time, we tried to preserve the friendliest country in the Middle East and did not leave it in trouble.
Is the situation in Syria related to Russia's special military operation in Ukraine? I think so. Russian resources are now significantly involved in the military, and, probably, Syria has to some extent receded into the background. This is exactly what the enemies of Damascus took advantage of.
A number of Arab commentators believe that the success of the rebels is due to the fact that they were helped by military specialists from Turkey. At the same time, there are allegedly grounds to believe that Ukrainian servicemen also provided assistance to them — they could have been there as specialists and advisers. The statements are based, in particular, on the fact that the militants have quite successfully used drones, new types of weapons that are involved, including in their own. Everyone knows perfectly well where the supplies are coming from, so the Western countries have not avoided attacks against themselves.
In my opinion, the experience of Syria is to some extent remarkable. Bashar al-Assad once did not go all the way to the complete extermination of his armed opponents, the terrorists, and left the Idlib enclave unprotected. After some time, the militants entrenched there strengthened, grew in numbers and were well armed. By the way, this may also mean that they receive support in the form of manpower from abroad. The authorities could not finish off the enemies, and now they have raised their heads.
What will happen to the Russian bases
I assume that the regulations that were signed between Moscow and Damascus on the deployment of Russian military bases for 49 years will still be revised. But even if this happens, it does not mean that they — the naval base in Tartus and the air base in Khmeimim — should be eliminated immediately. The leaders of the armed Syrian opposition have stated that Russian military bases and diplomatic institutions will be put under their protection. In the long term, now, of course, we can only guess. But, I think, there should not be an acutely ultimatum form of conclusion.
Khmeimim and Tartus are the most powerful bases, huge funds have been invested in their construction and modernization. Their preservation, including with Russian participation, for the opposition that has come to power, may become a kind of opportunity to establish a balance, to play on this. The issue of finding a base can be discussed and negotiated. On the other hand, this factor can become a protection against the encroachments of competing organizations and further destabilization. It is now the opposition that has united in a rush, but there are dozens of organizations there.
Nevertheless, the Russian military must be prepared for any development of events.
From the worst to the best
Perhaps the most important question now is: "What scenarios are possible for the development of events in Syria?" I offer my vision.
- The first, most radical option is the complete disintegration of Syria as a state. The split of the country and the disintegration into several parts. If you let everything take its course, it will become a state of complete lawlessness — everything against everyone, the absence of laws, etc.
- The second option, which is more civilized, is the formation of the federal Republic of Syria. That is, the country could be divided into several independent or semi—independent entities, territorial units - for example, on ethnic or religious grounds. The head of the Syrian opposition announced that they are going to negotiate with international partners, which means that they are under some kind of leadership.
For example, I have seen American maps (they can even be found on the Internet) where Syria is divided into five such enclaves, mini-states. One of them, in the north-west, is pro—Turkish. The other, in the north and northeast, is Kurdish. The third, the coast, will remain as an Alawite enclave. The center of Syria will become a Sunni state. In the south there is a kind of Druze state formation.
- The third option — in my opinion, one of the most dangerous — is the Islamic (worse, if Islamist) republic of Syria. That is, the main player will be Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (banned in the Russian Federation).
Curiously, the name translates as "The Organization for the Liberation of Sham", and Sham is not only Syria, but the entire eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, which includes Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan. My fears are precisely related to the fact that they are targeting all this Sham.
- There is a fourth scenario. It should be borne in mind that, according to recent reports, Israel crossed the border in southern Syria in the Golan Heights and seized some land. That is, it can be assumed that Israel wants to use this difficult time for Damascus to strengthen itself or even take control of the entire situation and even the state, lobbying and forming an anti—Shiite country.
The fact is that many Sunnis, including in Syria, are not quite friendly to Shiites, and I must say that the Alawites, among whom Bashar al—Assad belongs, are one of the offshoots of Shiism, or Ismailism.
By the way, the name of the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (banned in Russia) is al-Julani. Ironically, his surname translates as Golan. That is, a person related to or originally from the Golan Heights. How can it be connected to the region that Israel now claims and has always claimed?
- And the fifth and final option — in my opinion, the best one — is the creation of a kind of democratic republic of Syria. An alliance of opposition factions is possible at the heart of such a state, despite their ideological differences. With the ability to negotiate, Syria could have turned into a democratic federal republic, an entity where almost all parties would have found a place.
