Russia has legitimate worries about Assad’s removal
In places like Libya, that created a vacuum; the same could happen in Syria, and yet, Islamic State must be defeated, writes Elena Vanya
WHAT keeps all interested parties from joining forces against the terrorist Islamic State – the threat of which has been acknowledged worldwide?
The US and its allies claim it is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who remains in power. Moscow disagrees and suggests fighting the terrorists together with Assad’s army.
Late last month, Russia called for building a broad international coalition against Islamic State. Moscow said it should include pro-Assad troops, the Americanled coalition forces fighting the Islamic State now, as well as the Iraqi army and the Kurds. At about the same time, Washington announced a new strategy towards Syria, according to which any threat to its “moderate opposition” could necessitate US armed intervention in that country, including against its pro-government troops.
In other words, this gives Washington a pretext to strike against the Assad regime.
Moscow’s plan could have become the only real alternative to direct US involvement in the Syrian conflict, but the “Putin plan”, as the media called it, was rejected by both the US and Saudi Arabia, and by the Syrian opposition. They all strongly rejected the very possibility of Assad’s staying in power further.
The West apparently wants to get rid of Assad just as it disposed of Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. But history shows their removal only exacerbated the situation in those countries.
Russia keeps warning that Assad’s removal after he received the support of 88.7 percent of Syrians in last year’s election would cause different opposition groups to fight for power, creating chaos and strengthening Islamic State’s position.
So Moscow offered to host ongoing negotiations between members of the moderate Syrian opposition and the Assad government.
“We think it necessary to discuss the future first and understand how the legitimate rights and interests of different ethnic and religious groups can be ensured, then make the changes, not vice versa – remove Assad and then think how to go further,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said back in November 2012. His views have not changed. He cautioned last year that an unconstitutional removal of Assad would cause an endless civil war.
However, some Western commentators believe Moscow is about to stop its unconditional support for Assad who controls only a third of the country’s territory and has to fight both rebel groups and Islamic State forces. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan shared this opinion early this month. Russian experts disagree. “Even judging from Russian officials’ statements, there is no indication that Russia is ready to ‘ditch’ Assad,” says Vladimir Sotnikov, a leading researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Pro-Assad troops are the main force opposing Islamic State. If no agreement is reached and Assad is removed by force, competing opposition groups will start fighting for power. And Islamic State will take advantage of the resulting chaos.”
“We keep saying there is no military solution to this conflict, that political methods have to be employed,” says Irina Zvyageltseva, an Orientalist scholar and professor of the MGIMO Institute of International Relations. “Many of our opponents and partners agree. But political methods will mean opposition leaders and the Assad regime will have to come to agreement. And the future of Assad himself will have to be decided too, of course.”
She believes no agreement can be possible if Assad’s fate becomes a priority. The focus should be on the integration of the opposition and on the creation of a government trusted by the people. “Once this starts working, steps are taken towards stabilisation, and elections are held, they can raise the question of Assad’s exit and the conditions of his resignation,” Zvyagelskaya said.
Russia does not support Assad for his own sake, she said. “I do not think Russia can be regarded as Assad’s ally. This is a much broader issue, because if Syria falls to pieces, we all understand what kind of forces will get an extra boost. It’s not only Islamic State, but many other extremists as well. And this will affect not only the Middle East or Syria and its neighbours, but will easily go across the borders which will simply cease to exist. We should also think about what is going to happen to the ethnic minorities in Syria such as Christians, Kurds and others,” said Zvyagelskaya.
The removal of Assad is a matter of principle for the Americans, she said. “They believe he bears immense responsibility for what has happened in Syria. And this is true. They also supported the so-called moderate opposition and invested in its members hoping things will improve immediately when they come to power. But let’s face the truth: This opposition has no clear plans for building a new state and needs broad public support, while Assad already has it,” Zvyagelskaya said.
Who is fighting Islamic State now? “It is Assad’s army, battered and worn out,” she said, adding that it would be much more important now for everyone to join forces, leaving their disagreements behind.
In the meantime, Russia is not considering sending its military to Syria, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
“This issue is not on the agenda or under discussion,” he said.