Russia and America

War and peace

Some hoped that the Americans and Russians would reach some sort of understanding about the Syrian war on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Beijing, maybe even work out a limited peace in certain areas. But the war’s more committed observers dismissed such optimism from the start. For one thing, claiming influence on forces fighting on the ground is not as easy for Washington as Moscow in this instance. Putin has considerable leverage over the war; primarily because he helped turn it around for Damascus. And while he can’t, and shouldn’t, advise Assad to halt the advance just when the government has secured the upper hand, Moscow’s views are clearly taken very seriously in Syria.

The US, on the other hand, has very little direct control over any faction except a portion of the Kurds. And they, too, are now dogged by the Turks after the war’s latest on-ground entry. For the first few years, when America – along with the GCC, EU, Turkey, etc – tried to sell the Free Syrian Army (FSA) myth, many feared the arms, and a lot of the money would find their way to the Islamists. And that is exactly what happened.

The Syrians’ position is very clear. After the Islamists killed, tortured and tore and burned down the country for half a decade, the Russians finally helped turn the tide. Why, when proxy militias funded and armed by outside countries are finally being beaten back, should the government be persuaded to agree to peace on the terms of the Americans? This has become a sticking point in all negotiations. That is why all Kerry and Lavrov could agree on, once again, was the need for keeping the aid flowing, especially in and around Aleppo. The Americans and Russians have played war and peace in the Middle East, as elsewhere, since the darkest days of the Cold War. Not much has changed in that sense. Yet the players taken more seriously now are very different.