(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
The Americans claim that the Russians are not only bombing ISIS, but also civilians and moderate rebel groups that have received training from the CIA. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, for his part, claims that Russia only bombs ISIS, al-Nusra (which is al-Qaeda's branch in Syria) and "other groups designated by the UN and Russia as terrorist groups". Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has, in turn, urged the Kurds and moderate rebels to join the Syrian army in the fight against ISIS and al-Nusra.
Differences between ISIS and Nusra. Ny Tid has asked Middle East researcher Cecilie Hellestveit whether it will be possible to form such an alliance against ISIS and al-Nusra. Hellestveit believes that both al-Nusra and the regime must be included in a future peace solution.
"IS and Nusra are different," she says. "While ISIS has a regional ambition and no interest in Syria as a state, the Nusra Front fights to overthrow the regime in Damascus, and for a new Islamic regime in Syria. They also consist primarily of acid. Therefore, Nusra and ISIS cannot be treated equally on this issue, ”Hellestveit says. "To exclude all Sunni Muslim groups with different forms and degrees of radicalized ideologies, I consider it a blow in the air if there are ceasefire and peace processes one wants."
However, in an interview with Al-Monitor newspaper October 2, Kurdish leader Salih Muslim said: "Al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham do not differ from ISIS. They are terrorist organizations, all of them, and they share the same extreme mentality. " as President during a transitional period. He also adds: "Russia is the main supporter of the peace plan for UN Syria envoy Steffan de Mistura. But Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey oppose the peace plan. If the United States wants to work for a solution, they must put pressure on these states. "
Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been the main suppliers of weapons to the rebels in Syria since 2012, while Turkey has allowed the rebels to establish bases in the country and freely cross the Syrian-Turkish border. The regime, in turn, has received military support from Russia, Iran and the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah.
Disagreement over Russia's support for the regime. British Prime Minister David Cameron accuses Russia of "supporting the assassin Assad". It is undoubtedly true that since the beginning of the uprising, Russia has provided arms support to Syria, and vetoed Security Council resolutions that allowed the United States to intervene militarily on the side of the rebels. However, already at a press conference in December 2012, Vladimir Putin claimed that Russia "is not worried about what is happening with the Assad regime". According to Putin, Russia was rather worried about what would happen next: "We are in favor of a solution that will save the country and the region from falling apart, from a civil war that never ends."
In April 2012, Haytham Manna, chair of the Non-Violent Coordinating Committee for Democratic Change, visited Moscow. He then told Al Arabiya that the Russian government did not intend to maintain the dictatorship in Syria: "They are talking about the need for democratic change, and that is important to us." As recently as August this year, Khaled Khoja of the Western-backed National Coalition also stated that Russia's main focus was not on preserving the regime, but on Syria's state structure and territorial integrity. However, after the bombing raids on rebel-held areas, Khoja said Russia had "intervened to support the regime, to ensure that the killing continues".
Cecilie Hellestveit, for her part, expresses hope that the increased Russian military presence can contribute to the realization of an acceptable peace solution. "Russia's presence is the only thing that can reduce the heavy Iranian presence, which is one of the things that has made it very difficult for Turkey and Saudi Arabia to accept any solution in Syria so far," she said.
US arms support failed. A recent declassified report by US military intelligence shows that as early as 2012, the Americans knew that the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda were "the leading forces behind the uprising in Syria." Nevertheless, since 2012, CIA agents have been involved in directing arms shipments from Qatar and Saudi Arabia into Syria, and since 2013, the United States has both trained and supplied weapons to Syrian rebels. In an interview with The Telegraph last year, the Syrian priest Elias Hanout begged the West to "stop giving weapons to terrorists". The newspaper referred to when the city of Ghassaniyeh fell to rebel forces in 2012: A few weeks after the secular rebels had taken the city, their Islamist allies followed. They kidnapped and expelled Christian men, destroyed the church and killed the local priest. Al-Nusra and other Islamist rebel groups have carried out several massacres of religious minorities in Syria. In June 2013, rebels killed 60 Shia Muslims in Hatla, in November 2013, 45 Christians were killed in Sadad, in August 2013, 190 Alawites were killed in Latakia, and in June 2015, 20 Druze were killed in Idlib.
In an interview last year, the Syrian priest Elias Hanout begged the West to "stop giving weapons to terrorists".
US attempts to build secular rebel groups have failed. In October 2014, the CIA-funded Hazzembrigaden chose to disband and join the Levant Front, led by Islamists from Ahrar al-Sham. In several cases, significant numbers of US weapons have been captured by al-Nusra. During a congressional hearing in September, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions described the United States' attempt to build a moderate rebel army in Syria as "a total failure."
Negotiations back to square one? Russia has officially rejected the US demand that Assad resign. But according to former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, in February 2012, Russia's UN ambassador proposed a peace plan that included three things:
1) Do not give weapons to the opposition. 2) Create dialogue between the regime and the opposition. 3) Find an "elegant" way for Assad to step down after peace talks begin.
Ahtisaari said the proposal was rejected by the United States, Britain and France "because they were convinced that Assad would be ousted from government offices within a few weeks," writes The Guardian.
In a 2014 Carnegie Endowment article, Robert Mood, former head of the UN Observatory in Syria, writes that his impression and experience from Syria is that the crisis could have been resolved if the international community had offered the president and his government an "honorable way forward in the summer of 2012. ". He goes on to say: "When the political leaders of the United States, Britain and France made harsh public statements condemning the actions of President Bashar al-Assad, these public insults effectively led to the doors of diplomacy and dialogue being closed. So foreign pressure, implicit threats and verbal condemnation probably escalated the level of violence, while Kofi Annan worked to create a political solution. "
When Ny Tid asks Cecilie Hellestveit if the war would have been as brutal and protracted if outside countries had not supported the armed insurgents in Syria, and insisted on President Assad's departure as a precondition for a negotiated solution, the answer is a clear "no". "It was especially outsiders' signal to the Syrians that they would support them in the end that contributed to the massacre developing in Syria," says Hellestveit. "The Syrians were up against a brutal and militarized regime, and they could only do so if they believed in outside support. They were promised. And that support never came. "
On 17 August this year, the Security
The Council, for the first time, adopted a unanimous resolution in favor of establishing a transitional government with representatives from both the regime and the opposition. The resolution did not contain any demands for Bashar al-Assad's resignation.
Storaker is a member of the International Committee in Red and a regular contributor to Ny Tid.
