The Current Phase of the Conflict in Syria
Prof. Giancarlo Elia Valori zooms in on the current situation of the war in Syria: The successes of the Russian-backed Assad forces, the Turkish attempts to create buffer zones, the rising force of Egypt, and the EU strategy for the region
Giancarlo Elia Valori
| 07/12/2016
A Syrian army soldier holds up the Syrian national flag in Aleppo (Photo: AP)
While we are writing this article, much of South Aleppo has now been liberated by Bashar al-Assad’ Syrian Arab Army.
Jaish al-Fatah, which cooperates with the Al-Nusra Front, namely the "Syrian Section" of Al-Qaeda, has now been ousted from the Southern districts of Aleppo and most of the city suburbs. But it still keeps Idlib.
Jaish al-Fatah is an "umbrella" organization of jihadists who fight against the Shiites, but not necessarily against ISIS.
Assad’ Syrian Arab Army has completely liberated sixteen suburbs of Aleppo, while the anti-jihadist forces still attack some districts, including Karam al-Tarab and Amiriyah, so as to make Aleppo definitively safe and then move forward towards Idlib, still held by the jihadists.
Obviously, Bashar al-Assad’s forces must also harshly oppose the expansion of the Turkish military forces operating in Northern Syria.
While the Russian Air Force keeps on bombing the Hama Province, Assad’ Syrian Arab Army is finally fighting against ISIS in the Eastern region of Homs. This is the picture of the current situation there.
Nevertheless, some pro-Turkish militants, backed by the Turkish army, have attacked the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Syrian Arab Army in the village of Azrak, near Aleppo. Turkey and the Kurdish YPG have also clashed in Sheik Nazir, Qert Weran, and Oshali.
In short, Turkey keeps on creating protection buffer zones also in favor of ISIS, which can use the Turkish flank to defend itself from the Syrian Arab Army and the Kurdish YPG. In essence, this is the Turkish, Kurdish and jihadist military framework of Greater Syria.
It is worth recalling that on December 1 last, President Vladimir Putin adopted the new Russian strategic doctrine. This changes many factors.
Let us review its main aspects: Russia does not accept NATO’s expansion eastwards; it supports the agreements for a balanced reduction of armaments and it does not accept the "global missile defense system" that the United States is supposed to perfect and finalize within 2020. In short, it is a doctrine designed to make the global strategic balance increasingly multipolar.
Furthermore, Russia does not accept any US attempts to put pressure on it and reserves its right to respond militarily to military actions deemed unfriendly. With reference to Syria, Russia’s ultimate goal is to build a broad international coalition to be defined within the UN framework.
The explicit fight against the jihad and everybody’s acceptance of a united, independent and intact Syria should be on the basis of this coalition.
Hence, on the Syrian military ground, the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian and Iranian allies are recording successes in North Aleppo, while the Russian aircraft are bombing the ISIS rear-lines and have significantly reduced the ISIS operating mass and materials.
Hence, if the Russian air forces continue to carry out their operations, Bashar al-Assad’ Syrian Arab Army will be in a position to press victoriously on Idlib northwards and Raqqa eastwards.
After the breakup of the jihadist front in northeast Aleppo, the defenses of the moderate "insurgents," as the Americans call them, are supposed to collapse in the short term.
However, despite the many Turkish actions, Syria’s air responses – supported by Russia – have not allowed Turkey to reach its true goal in Syria, namely the creation of a Turkish enclave between Raqqa, Manbij, and al-Bab. An emplacement that EU analysts consider “irrelevant,” as we will see later on.
Soon, the jihadist pocket in Western Ghouta – the old oasis near which Damascus was founded, the area from which many jihadists will leave as "refugees" towards puerile Europe – will be eliminated.
Egypt is the Real "Game Changer"
The fundamental political and strategic factor is that now the Egyptian forces are entering the Syrian region. The reason is simple: President al-Sisi rightly believes that every jihadist success in Syria is a vital threat to Egypt.
The United States has always supported the Muslim Brotherhood – suffice to read the very detailed book by Ian Johnson, A Mosque in Munich, published in 2010. Al-Sisi’s only other option was to turn to Russia.
Hence, the US strategy of negotiating with the Islamic fundamentalism and de facto relinquishing the US traditional friendship with the Maghreb countries and with Iraq, the country "liberated" a few years ago, was formidable in its inanity.
Now, Egypt is entering the Syrian scene, siding with Russia and Bashar al-Assad’s alliance with Iran – an intra-Islamic religious paradox which has its own perfect strategic logicality.
Stressing Islam’s religious differences too much makes us forget the extreme pragmatism – not to say cynicism – of the Arab and Islamic political elites.
Hence, a few weeks ago a high-level Egyptian delegation had arrived in Syria to discuss the operations that the Egyptian forces should carry out under the Russian and Syrian command. Some sources maintain that Egyptian aircraft and helicopters are already deployed in the Hama base.
It is also worth recalling that Egypt has independent access to Syria by sea. The two "Mistral" ships that France had built for Russia and that it could not sell to it, were later sold to Egypt.
Ironically, those two ships – not sold to Russia due to the current restrictions on trade with this country – will go to Syria to fight in favor of Russia and Assad, thanks to the EU stupidity and the European inability to think strategically.
Each of the two French "command and power projection" frigates can accommodate a battalion of 900 soldiers with all their equipment.
Hence, a situation would materialize in which a brigade – protected by the Russian Air Force – is fully autonomous and can operate freely on Syrian territory, being also equipped with Russian attack helicopters.
Therefore, the Egyptian forces would be the real "game changer" in the Syrian war, because even the Hezbollah Brigades and the Iranian "volunteers" need the Syrian support and logistics. Hence, Egypt can carry out its operations in Syria on its own, in close coordination with Russia and Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
In terms of OrBats, the Iranian situation in Syria is as follows: 4,000 Iraqi units and 4,000 Shiite units sent directly from the Shiite republic, coordinated by 400 Pasdaran operational units in Iran. Hezbollah has also sent 2,000 units of its special forces, namely "Ridwan" units, from Lebanon. In this particular situation, the 4,000 Egyptian units would be a significant increase of military and operational efficacy.
Obviously, no one could prevent Egypt from taking part in the Syrian war, considering that forces and soldiers pass through the Suez Canal. This is a real blackmail even for the countries that fund and support the jihad since their oil passes through the Egyptian waterway.
Hence, this new complexion of anti-jihadist forces would allow a fast and powerful attack on Raqqa, which would be final and would close the game in Syria, except for some jihad "remnants" in the South.
The EU Strategy
As President-elect Donald Trump does no longer intend to support the "good" and "moderate" jihadists, the Turkish and Saudi game could soon be put to an end. The era of President Obama – who only aimed at eliminating Assad and did not view the jihad as a real threat (which strangely operated ever more often with "US-made” weapons) – is over.
The European Union has published a new document on Syria, entitled “The First Trump Test: European Policy and the Siege of Aleppo."
The EU analysts maintain that President Assad is unfortunately still there and it is impossible not to accept his political presence.
Hence, they think that we must swallow the bitter pill of accepting that Assad is still in power, as if they could send him away from there (which is not the case) and as if the jihad were an irrelevant operation.
EU analysts maintain that if Turkey remains interested in its Northern corridor, so as to counter the Kurds, it should no longer be a problem to launch a vague, bombastic, and non-existent "transition." A transition which should be managed by the Europeans, who pretend to have powers and abilities they do not have and take actions for no reason or purpose.
We all know that Turkey wants its corridor to trigger off a second fight against the Kurds and Assad – which is not harmless at all, as the EU strategy claims. The winner does not need to sit at the negotiating table, while the losers need to reduce damage. Hence, it is not clear who should participate in the "transition" led – alas – by the Europeans.
Finally, the EU analysts that drafted the document on Syria believe that Europe should resume President Obama’s Syrian policy, namely to reach any bad deal so as to put an end to the violence and help the Syrian people.
However, bad deals tend to worsen the situation. What about the jihadists? Are they to be blamed for the Syrian disaster or rather the Russians and the "tyrant" Assad?
It seems that the EU still does not consider the holy war, which will certainly not pay heed to the EU "humanitarian" requests.
This is yet another proof of European inanity. As President Putin maintains, it would be enough not to provide European aid to President Erdogan for three months, and his regime would collapse.
Certainly, the European Union will do nothing of this sort. Actually, it will take no action at all.
Prof. Giancarlo Elia Valori zooms in on the current situation of the war in Syria: The successes of the Russian-backed Assad forces, the Turkish attempts to create buffer zones, the rising force of Egypt, and the EU strategy for the region
A Syrian army soldier holds up the Syrian national flag in Aleppo (Photo: AP)
While we are writing this article, much of South Aleppo has now been liberated by Bashar al-Assad’ Syrian Arab Army.
Jaish al-Fatah, which cooperates with the Al-Nusra Front, namely the "Syrian Section" of Al-Qaeda, has now been ousted from the Southern districts of Aleppo and most of the city suburbs. But it still keeps Idlib.
Jaish al-Fatah is an "umbrella" organization of jihadists who fight against the Shiites, but not necessarily against ISIS.
Assad’ Syrian Arab Army has completely liberated sixteen suburbs of Aleppo, while the anti-jihadist forces still attack some districts, including Karam al-Tarab and Amiriyah, so as to make Aleppo definitively safe and then move forward towards Idlib, still held by the jihadists.
Obviously, Bashar al-Assad’s forces must also harshly oppose the expansion of the Turkish military forces operating in Northern Syria.
While the Russian Air Force keeps on bombing the Hama Province, Assad’ Syrian Arab Army is finally fighting against ISIS in the Eastern region of Homs. This is the picture of the current situation there.
Nevertheless, some pro-Turkish militants, backed by the Turkish army, have attacked the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Syrian Arab Army in the village of Azrak, near Aleppo. Turkey and the Kurdish YPG have also clashed in Sheik Nazir, Qert Weran, and Oshali.
In short, Turkey keeps on creating protection buffer zones also in favor of ISIS, which can use the Turkish flank to defend itself from the Syrian Arab Army and the Kurdish YPG. In essence, this is the Turkish, Kurdish and jihadist military framework of Greater Syria.
It is worth recalling that on December 1 last, President Vladimir Putin adopted the new Russian strategic doctrine. This changes many factors.
Let us review its main aspects: Russia does not accept NATO’s expansion eastwards; it supports the agreements for a balanced reduction of armaments and it does not accept the "global missile defense system" that the United States is supposed to perfect and finalize within 2020. In short, it is a doctrine designed to make the global strategic balance increasingly multipolar.
Furthermore, Russia does not accept any US attempts to put pressure on it and reserves its right to respond militarily to military actions deemed unfriendly. With reference to Syria, Russia’s ultimate goal is to build a broad international coalition to be defined within the UN framework.
The explicit fight against the jihad and everybody’s acceptance of a united, independent and intact Syria should be on the basis of this coalition.
Hence, on the Syrian military ground, the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian and Iranian allies are recording successes in North Aleppo, while the Russian aircraft are bombing the ISIS rear-lines and have significantly reduced the ISIS operating mass and materials.
Hence, if the Russian air forces continue to carry out their operations, Bashar al-Assad’ Syrian Arab Army will be in a position to press victoriously on Idlib northwards and Raqqa eastwards.
After the breakup of the jihadist front in northeast Aleppo, the defenses of the moderate "insurgents," as the Americans call them, are supposed to collapse in the short term.
However, despite the many Turkish actions, Syria’s air responses – supported by Russia – have not allowed Turkey to reach its true goal in Syria, namely the creation of a Turkish enclave between Raqqa, Manbij, and al-Bab. An emplacement that EU analysts consider “irrelevant,” as we will see later on.
Soon, the jihadist pocket in Western Ghouta – the old oasis near which Damascus was founded, the area from which many jihadists will leave as "refugees" towards puerile Europe – will be eliminated.
Egypt is the Real "Game Changer"
The fundamental political and strategic factor is that now the Egyptian forces are entering the Syrian region. The reason is simple: President al-Sisi rightly believes that every jihadist success in Syria is a vital threat to Egypt.
The United States has always supported the Muslim Brotherhood – suffice to read the very detailed book by Ian Johnson, A Mosque in Munich, published in 2010. Al-Sisi’s only other option was to turn to Russia.
Hence, the US strategy of negotiating with the Islamic fundamentalism and de facto relinquishing the US traditional friendship with the Maghreb countries and with Iraq, the country "liberated" a few years ago, was formidable in its inanity.
Now, Egypt is entering the Syrian scene, siding with Russia and Bashar al-Assad’s alliance with Iran – an intra-Islamic religious paradox which has its own perfect strategic logicality.
Stressing Islam’s religious differences too much makes us forget the extreme pragmatism – not to say cynicism – of the Arab and Islamic political elites.
Hence, a few weeks ago a high-level Egyptian delegation had arrived in Syria to discuss the operations that the Egyptian forces should carry out under the Russian and Syrian command. Some sources maintain that Egyptian aircraft and helicopters are already deployed in the Hama base.
It is also worth recalling that Egypt has independent access to Syria by sea. The two "Mistral" ships that France had built for Russia and that it could not sell to it, were later sold to Egypt.
Ironically, those two ships – not sold to Russia due to the current restrictions on trade with this country – will go to Syria to fight in favor of Russia and Assad, thanks to the EU stupidity and the European inability to think strategically.
Each of the two French "command and power projection" frigates can accommodate a battalion of 900 soldiers with all their equipment.
Hence, a situation would materialize in which a brigade – protected by the Russian Air Force – is fully autonomous and can operate freely on Syrian territory, being also equipped with Russian attack helicopters.
Therefore, the Egyptian forces would be the real "game changer" in the Syrian war, because even the Hezbollah Brigades and the Iranian "volunteers" need the Syrian support and logistics. Hence, Egypt can carry out its operations in Syria on its own, in close coordination with Russia and Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
In terms of OrBats, the Iranian situation in Syria is as follows: 4,000 Iraqi units and 4,000 Shiite units sent directly from the Shiite republic, coordinated by 400 Pasdaran operational units in Iran. Hezbollah has also sent 2,000 units of its special forces, namely "Ridwan" units, from Lebanon. In this particular situation, the 4,000 Egyptian units would be a significant increase of military and operational efficacy.
Obviously, no one could prevent Egypt from taking part in the Syrian war, considering that forces and soldiers pass through the Suez Canal. This is a real blackmail even for the countries that fund and support the jihad since their oil passes through the Egyptian waterway.
Hence, this new complexion of anti-jihadist forces would allow a fast and powerful attack on Raqqa, which would be final and would close the game in Syria, except for some jihad "remnants" in the South.
The EU Strategy
As President-elect Donald Trump does no longer intend to support the "good" and "moderate" jihadists, the Turkish and Saudi game could soon be put to an end. The era of President Obama – who only aimed at eliminating Assad and did not view the jihad as a real threat (which strangely operated ever more often with "US-made” weapons) – is over.
The European Union has published a new document on Syria, entitled “The First Trump Test: European Policy and the Siege of Aleppo."
The EU analysts maintain that President Assad is unfortunately still there and it is impossible not to accept his political presence.
Hence, they think that we must swallow the bitter pill of accepting that Assad is still in power, as if they could send him away from there (which is not the case) and as if the jihad were an irrelevant operation.
EU analysts maintain that if Turkey remains interested in its Northern corridor, so as to counter the Kurds, it should no longer be a problem to launch a vague, bombastic, and non-existent "transition." A transition which should be managed by the Europeans, who pretend to have powers and abilities they do not have and take actions for no reason or purpose.
We all know that Turkey wants its corridor to trigger off a second fight against the Kurds and Assad – which is not harmless at all, as the EU strategy claims. The winner does not need to sit at the negotiating table, while the losers need to reduce damage. Hence, it is not clear who should participate in the "transition" led – alas – by the Europeans.
Finally, the EU analysts that drafted the document on Syria believe that Europe should resume President Obama’s Syrian policy, namely to reach any bad deal so as to put an end to the violence and help the Syrian people.
However, bad deals tend to worsen the situation. What about the jihadists? Are they to be blamed for the Syrian disaster or rather the Russians and the "tyrant" Assad?
It seems that the EU still does not consider the holy war, which will certainly not pay heed to the EU "humanitarian" requests.
This is yet another proof of European inanity. As President Putin maintains, it would be enough not to provide European aid to President Erdogan for three months, and his regime would collapse.
Certainly, the European Union will do nothing of this sort. Actually, it will take no action at all.
