In the view of this blog and many other commentators who look upon international affairs as an interaction of national interests which overlap, part, and then come together in different forms and ways, the West’s view of the world is muddled, its actions do more harm than good, it has no strategic view of where it wants to be and its policies are based on tribal preferences akin to football supporters.
So its interventions have lead to failed states and civil wars across the Middle East and Afghanistan and in Ukraine, where we must remember a legitimate government was overthrown and replaced with one without authority in all parts of the country leading to civil war. There is not a single place where the West’s intentions have become the outcome. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, even Egypt. And all the time the default position is to blame the Russians.
Kissinger remarked recently that the West had no strategy and therefore its tactics could not work. Russia sees the world differently. Putin has a strategy in Syria. He has seen the doleful line up of failed states in which the West has meddled and he can see the millions in flight everywhere. He knows that if Assad falls it will be IS, not the Free Syrian Army which takes over in Damascus. Two thousand Russian nationals are fighting with IS and their bloodthirsty ideology can spread back into the heart of Islamic Russia. He sees Turkey destabilizing.
The first priority is to preserve the surviving elements of the Syrian State, which include Assad, because he knows that without the fabric of a state no political settlement is possible. The second is to seriously damage IS so that it becomes more concerned with its own survival than in spreading its influence. Then a political settlement may stand a chance and can include the Free Syrian Army and other moderate opposition to Assad. Until then any armed formations trying to overthrow the government will be targeted. Unlike the West’s Russia’s air strikes can be coordinated by strong ground forces supplied by Assad and a mixture of Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Certain things flow from this. The first is the West should tell its so called moderate friends fighting the Syrian government to turn their attention on IS. Second it should cooperate more willingly with Russia, because Russia’s aims are actually the same as the West’s, save for Assad. Third if Russia is willing to get stuck in to the trouble in Syria it should be supported, because there is no way the West can do the same.
Finally the West must learn the lesson that in volatile regions where tribal and religious rivalries simmer like a grumbling volcano beneath the surface, any government which can produce stability and a functioning state should be left alone. It does not matter whether we like them or not or whether their ideology or social structures meet our ideals. The alternative is chaos and suffering on a biblical scale for which we have no will to ameliorate and no means to end.