Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

Obama, Cameron and their juniors have been quick to condemn the Russians for allegedly making no distinction between IS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and other militant Islamists in Syria, and those ‘opposition’ forces backed half heartedly by the West. All of them are anti Assad, but the Islamists are anti almost everybody and especially the West, Iran and Russia.

One of the problems with all the disastrous interventions of the West and the string of failed states which has resulted, is that there has never been clarity on who the enemy is. We end up fighting factions and splinters and supporting governments with no proper mandate to govern, no ability to uphold the law or keep the peace. Russia senses real danger if IS is not checked and fears a link-up with an increasing bold Taliban in northern Afghanistan which can spill northwest towards Russia and Chechnya.

Russian military doctrine has always been much more outcome focussed than that of western allies and it is determined to try and avoid the failure of Syria as a state. Assad and his regime, whatever their faults and they have never tried to threaten the West or its interests, is the only combination that looks remotely like a coherent government in Syria and Russia therefore regards its survival as critical to the survival of the Syrian state. The alternative for sure is IS in Damascus.

Russia has said that it goes along with the political wing of the Free Syrian Army taking part in a political settlement, but it will not offer their military wing, such as it is, any immunity from attack on the ground, during the campaign to disable all the various anti-government elements opposing Assad, of which IS is the largest and most dangerous. We cannot tell if the Russian strategy will work, nor if they will succeed in bringing about by force a climate in which a political settlement becomes realistic. Since the West’s own effort has failed and is going nowhere, it might be best if its politicians  shut up, for the time being at least. If Russia, too, fails there will be an opportunity to say something.

The American led coalition, which has so many members it is all but meaningless, wants both IS and Assad to lose. But for that to happen there has to be a winner. And the problem for the West is that there is no such organisation in  the field. Just a pipe dream. Russia has worked that out. That is why it has intervened.

This Blog has many times complained of the incompetence of western foreign policy in almost every sphere, but especially in the Middle East and in relations with Russia. It is the inability to think strategically, the refusal to depart from the old tribal model of goodies and baddies post cold war, and the pointless campaign to isolate Russia, which hurts the west more than Putin. The shambles of failed states, Iraq and Libya, now being joined by Afghanistan where everything is going wrong, should put down the kind of marker that would trigger a rethink. But no.

So we get to Syria. A senior UK politician today described western policy here as childish and based on fantasy. The enemy has always been the militant forms of Islam trying to turn the clock back to the middle ages, not Assad, although there is much about him and his regime to deplore. The moderate opposition western politicians promote does not exist. The free Syrian Army, which is very weak, were it to triumph, would almost certainly inaugurate a second Libya. IS and its allies, including Al Qaeda affiliates, are heading to take over all of Syria, as the west’s bombing campaigns does no more than hinder.

Russia then steps forward and asks to join the coalition to defeat IS et al. The west vacillates and argues because Russia sees Assad in the short term as part of the solution not the problem. But the west takes a posture verging on the imbecile. No he has to go. It is like insisting on Stalin going as part of the deal to defeat the Nazis. So Russia and Iran decide, in effect, to go it alone. For this the west can only blame itself. The smart move now would be to walk away and let the Russians and the Iranians, with what is left of Assad, to get on with it. They could not do worse. But the chances are they would do a whole lot better. If they defeat or hobble IS that is good for the west.

The snag is it would make western politicians look silly and their military inept. Yes well…

Corbyn has come under attack from friend and foe for saying in two interviews widely repeated across the media that he would not, if Prime Minister, press the button to launch a nuclear strike from Trident submarines. Dealing with the question of his becoming PM first. This is where everybody is awry. Corbyn’s influence is not what he may do if he wins in 2020. He will then be 71. It is unlikely he will by then want to lead Labour on age grounds alone. If he does fine, but his earthquake is going on now  and his historic influence will come from his stint as Leader of the Opposition. He has already changed the nature of the political conversation, ended the Thatcher consensus and opened up a real and tangible  gap, missing for many years, between the Tory view of what has to be done and the Labour view of what should be done. He has defined the political battle as one between vested interests and the people and tripled Labour’s membership in the process.

Now to Trident. This blog has supported the deterrent and I have always been a supporter of Britain having its own bomb and means of delivery. I believe nuclear weapons saved about 60 million lives, which would have been the toll of a conventional WWIII. I would vote for a renewal of Trident.

But Corbyn has made me take a closer look at this whole concept, and the more I look at this awesome system capable of frying half the world, I begin to wonder whether in the current world (rather than the Cold War stand off) it is actually credible. We know Corbyn would not fire it. But, when it came to it, would anybody else? And the answer to that question is nothing like as straightforward as I had supposed.

So I am now continuing to wonder. When my wondering is over I will share my conclusions with you. I am not in any hurry. The end of civilisation and the killing off of the better part of the human race is quite a big subject. For me. And perhaps for you too.