The negotiations in Lausanne
In Lausanne yesterday have passed the first after the collapse of the us-Russian deal negotiated on the situation in Syria.
Since bilateral discussions between the United States and the Russian Federation ordered to live long, it was decided to connect to the negotiations of other external players, so in Lausanne gathered almost all stakeholders, except for the actual legitimate government of Syria and its “moderate” opponents. Besides the US and Russia, the talks were attended by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and the UN was De Mistura, whose plan for the disengagement of militants and the withdrawal of some of them from Aleppo, the US not so long ago, buried at the meeting of the UN security Council. Major players absent, only Israel and the European satellites of the United States.
Tried to go back in the days when the Vienna and the Geneva format of negotiations was seen as something that could lead to settlement in Syria through diplomatic means. It would be naive to expect that the resumption of meetings in this format will bring some immediate progress. It was not. Following the meeting, no concrete steps will not be made and the meeting itself rather remarkable that from a political point of view, the situation returned to the level of January 2016, which suggests that the diplomacy of the 2016 year has been a waste of time.From a military point of view, the situation in Syria since the beginning of the year has improved to Syria, Iran and Russia and, accordingly, deteriorated for the United States and Saudi Arabia.
Of course, at subsequent meetings, attempts will be made to steer events in a more positive direction, but the key to Syria’s problems, it still depends on a number of painful questions:
1. USA can not and do not want to divide the fighters into moderate and not moderate, which is why Syria and Russia continue to arbitrarily bomb the militants, who consider it necessary, as they are mixed with the “Al-Nusra”, which the United States thus provides de facto cover.
Without the separation of militants into “Good” and “bad”, it is physically impossible to form an adequate subject of negotiations for an inter-Syrian settlement. Jihadists Assad for sure will not negotiate and he’s already made it clear that he intends to kill them, not converse with them. We will talk with sane, but go find them in the conglomerate of bearded men cutting head and sitting on foreign succor.
2. There is no clarity with the Kurdish question – Syria, Iran, Russia and Turkey are against an independent Kurdish state. Syria and Turkey are also against the autonomy of the Kurds. By contrast, the US play the Kurdish card feeding the Kurds with weapons and some promising political prospects. Of the Kurds to negotiate not invited. All this makes the Kurdish issue is a time bomb, which one of the parties to the negotiations may, on occasion, arbitrarily undermine. Lasting peace in Syria without considering the interests of the Kurds to build will be difficult.
3. No iron guarantees on the territorial integrity of Syria, as the US playing the Kurdish card, or opposing Russia, can go to the collapse of Syria. The same applies to Saudi Arabia, which sees war in Syria as one of the fronts of a proxy war with Iran. In the case of threats to the defeat of the Pro-Saudi groups in Syria, the Gulf monarchies can also update the map of territorial disintegration of Syria.
4. There is no clear political future of Assad, as an option – the transitional period and the participation of Assad in the next election, not happy with Washington. On the other hand, the military successes of the Assad reduces the opportunity to avoid this scenario through diplomacy. The capture of Aleppo, Assad is even more would not make sense to agree to those concessions that he might go in 2015. The situation has since changed and the fighters and their masters probably will regret that refused to negotiate in late 2015 or early 2016, when the position of Assad was a much more difficult.Now Assad speaks from a position of strength, and his opponents are forced to beg for a truce with him.
5. This tangle of contradictions, the efforts of parties to combat the Caliphate fragmented and chaotic nature, as a significant part of the resources gathered in Lausanne to spend in fighting each other. USA with Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In this part the participants of the meeting reasonably suspect USA that their war with the Caliphate is to implicitly weaken the Russian-Iranian coalition. The impact under the Deir ez-Zor only strengthened these suspicions.Gap military cooperation on Syria partly eased the situation of the Caliphate, though strategically its position is quite heavy – too many enemies he has produced. However, the conflict between the enemies of the Caliphate leaves for the “black” variety of tactical possibilities associated with trying to use these contradictions to extend the existence of the “first terrorist state”.
We wait for the next negotiations, maybe there will emerge the contours of the future agreements on a political settlement in Syria.