The Grand Chessboard

The Escalation of the Syrian Conflict as a Threat of the World War

 

Victor Hvozd

In 1997, an American political scientist, a National Security Adviser to US President J. Carter (1977–1981), Z. Brzezinski published a book, “The Grand chessboard”, which actually summed up the challenges of the Cold War of the second half of the 20th century. One of the main ideas of the book is to view the world as an arena of geopolitical struggle between different centers of power, which use other countries for their purposes. At this, the latter appear, in fact, as ordinary “chess pieces”, that is, instruments of action in the hands of real players on the “world chessboard”.

All this is fully in line with the current geopolitical situation in the world, where a new Cold War may now arise in the USA — China — Russia triangle. At this, while the confrontation between the USA and China is mainly in the economic sphere, the confrontation between the USA and the Russian Federation is increasingly moving to the military sphere.

As recently noted in my article “Battlefield. Syria and the New Cold War”, a manifestation of such a confrontation at the strategic level, is the parties’ building up their nuclear and missile potentials and conventional forces on the main directions of their conflict. At the same time, the USA’s and Russia’s military exercises to rehearse different scenarios of war between them are accompanied by armed clashes between the parties in crisis zones and conflicts at the periphery of their interests.

…The world as an arena of geopolitical struggle between different centers of power, which use other countries for their purposes…

Just like during the previous Cold War, similar crises and conflicts are elements of the geopolitical game between the USA and Russia, where their satellites and puppets are involved. In most cases, they become direct participants in the armed confrontation, consequences of which are used by those behind them. However, as with chess or other games, the situation may get out of control of players and develop unexpectedly with unforeseen consequences. Including with the involvement of the leading centers of power in the armed conflict.

In the second half of the 20th century, there were wars on the Korean Peninsula and in Vietnam, as well as Arab-Israeli conflicts in the Middle East — in fact with the participation of the United States and the USSR. The most dangerous precedent was created by the Caribbean Crisis of 1962, which came close to developing into a nuclear war between the United States of America and the Soviet Union.

Now, in a similar scenario, the situation begins to develop around Syria, where the interests of the United States and Russia intersect most sharply after Ukraine. At this, while the conflict on the Ukrainian direction has been taking place in the military-political and economic spheres, on the Syrian land, the USA and Russia are conducting military operations with diametrically opposite goals. Although they are quite well known, they are worth being mentioned here again. The main goal of the United States is to overthrow B. Assad’s regime in Syria and replace it with pro-American leadership (as was done in Afghanistan and Iraq). In this regard, the USA’s being interested in changing Syria’s ruling elite is objectively in line with Turkey and Israel’s interests. Besides, Turkey is an ally of the United States and NATO, and Israel is the same ally outside the North Atlantic Alliance.

…In Syria the interests of the United States and Russia intersect most sharply after Ukraine…

In turn, Russia seeks to retain power in the hands of B. Assad, as Russia’s main partner in the Middle East. In 2015, in the midst of the civil war in Syria, Russia signed an agreement with the Assad regime to provide him with military assistance and sent Russian troops there. Iran, taking into consideration its own interests and siding with B. Assad and Russia, also sent to Syria its troops from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

As expected, this created the threat of an armed clash between the USA and Russia that may well escalate into a major conflict. Given this, Washington and Moscow have, until recently, tried to avoid such a development, and have largely acted through their allies and partners. Thus, the Russian Armed Forces in Syria support the B. Assad regime’s military operations with the help of their aviation. At this, the Russian Federation avoided direct actions against the United States, Turkey or Israel. For their part, the United States, Turkey and Israel assisted the Syrian opposition, including striking B. Assad’s troops and the IRGC units, while also avoiding clashes with Russia’s Armed Forces. The exception was a few incidents such as the downing the Su-24M Russian bomber by Turkey in November 2015, as well as the USA’s striking the Russian mercenaries from the PMC Wagner in February 2018.

The situation has been fundamentally changing lately. This is evidenced by events in the Syrian province of Idlib, where Turkey’s forces directly counteract B. Assad’s troops, supported by Russian aviation. Since the beginning of this year, this has already caused deterioration of the relations between Turkey and Russia. True, in the form of mutual accusations, threats or individual actions against each other. For example, in mid-February 2020, Turkey closed its airspace for Russian military aircrafts. In turn, Russia has begun to build up its naval forces in the Mediterranean Sea near Syria, including sending to it ships with “Kalibr” missiles (carriers of tactical nuclear weapons) on board.

…The tensions between Turkey and Russia reached a new level of actual armed confrontation between the parties…

However, in late February 2020, the tensions between Turkey and Russia reached a new level of actual armed confrontation between the parties. The reason is Russia’s air attack on the Turkish Armed Forces convoy in Idlib province on the night of February 28, 2020, which killed more than 30 Turkish military. The incident caused a dramatic reaction in Turkey. It saw it as Syria and Russia’s blatant attack.

In response, the Turkish Armed Forces massively hit B. Assad’s troops and promised to destroy all Russian planes that would threaten the Turkish troops. At the same time, Ankara has sought NATO assistance under the Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty on Collective Defense. Besides, pressing on Europe to gain support in its confrontation with Russia, Ankara said it could open its borders to Syrian refugees.

The Turkish society also reacted negatively to Russia’s actions. Thus, in Turkey there were massive anti-Russian protests (near the Russian Embassy in Ankara included), and a number of radical Turkish politicians have promised to “dismantle Russia from inside” with the help of Muslims living in the RF. Russia, in its usual manner, denies its aviation’s participation in the incident, while stressing that the Turkish Armed Forces were bombed by Syrian troops due to the fact that Turkish units were among rebel forces. Russia has also categorically refused to stop Syrian troops, explaining it as a “fight against terrorists”.

Against this background, the USA and most of NATO’s leading countries have supported Turkey. At the same time, the United Nations, NATO and the EU have called for every effort to reduce tensions in Syria and prevent further escalation of the confrontation.

On the whole, the following conclusions and estimates can be drawn from these events:

  • …Armed clashes in Syria are beginning to pose a direct threat of the US-Russian military confrontation…

    Firstly, the actual renewal of the Cold War in the world at a new level again is turning it into a “grand chessboard” or arena of confrontation between the leading centers of power, accompanied by armed conflicts at the periphery of their interests;

  • Secondly, the situation in Syria is increasingly getting out of control of the USA and Russia, which are the leading geopolitical players in the region. At this, armed clashes between their allies and partners in Syria are beginning to pose a direct threat of the US-Russian military confrontation;
  • Thirdly, the escalation of the situation in Syria shows that leading international collective security organizations, first of all the UN, cannot eliminate existing conflicts, let alone to prevent their spreading and escalating into larger-scale military confrontations;
  • Fourthly, NATO members demonstrate their commitment to the basic principles of the collective security, but try to avoid their involvement in armed conflicts, especially with Russia. This is exactly what Moscow hopes for, using its aggressive policy, although it does not seek a direct military conflict with NATO;
  • …Events in Syria will directly affect the situation in the Black Sea region and around Ukraine…

    Fifthly, events in Syria will directly affect the situation in the Black Sea region and around Ukraine. For example, Russia may intensify its actions to further enhance its military capabilities on the Southwestern direction in order to achieve an undeniable military advantage over Turkey. At the same time, the complication of the Russian-Turkish confrontation will, to some extent, divert Moscow’s attention from Ukraine.

 

 

Схожі публікації