I have been researching the topic of Islam in Russia for a few weeks already and, as a part of this research, I spent a lot of time listening to various Russian Muslims and their views on the various conflicts in the Muslim world today. It is still too early for me to begin writing on the fascinating but very complex and multi-faceted topic of Russia and Islam (which will probably require a series of articles), but I want to share with you what appears to be a consensus opinion of many Russian Middle-East experts (Muslim and Orthodox Christians) about the war on Syria and its likely development.
The following is a summarized paraphrase of the conclusions these Russian experts have come to.
The Syrian government and the US backed insurgency have reached somewhat of a stalemate: the insurgents cannot take key cities such as Damascus and Aleppo, while the government is unable to control most of the country. As soon as some region, city or neighborhood is cleared of insurgents and the Syrian army withdraws, the insurgents soon come back. Still, most of the population still supports the Syrian government, in particular in urban areas, including well to do Sunnis who see the insurgents as illiterate bloodthirsty religious zealots who threaten their way of life. In spire of this popular support, the Syrian government is unable to execute a mobilization of its large reserve forces because of the chaos in most cities. The government is now fighting with soldiers who have basically been kept in the military after the expiration of their regular military service. The failure of the insurgency to take over Aleppo and Damascus shows that the conflict has reached a stalemate.
The US, which is acutely aware of this stalemate, has come up with a plan to break it. The US plan – which is basically a variation on the US policy in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo – is based on the following steps:
- Consolidate the insurgency into one federation of forces controlled by the US CIA.
- Recognize the insurgency as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
- Transfer massive amounts of weapons to the “internationally recognized Syrian government”.
- Create “safe heavens” inside Syria, protected by NATO airpower
- Send in ground forces of the Arab League to run these safe heavens.
- Use these safe heavens as a staging base for a final attack on, and seizure of, Aleppo and Damascus.
A key requirement of this plan is an absolute rejection of any type of negotiations with the Syrian government. Just as Iran must stop all enrichment before any negotiations begin, Assad must go before any negotiations will take place (the same trick was played on Gaddafi in Libya). If you wonder what might be left to “negotiate” in these conditions, you are not alone.
Another feature common to both the war in Bosnia and the war in Syria is that just as the US policy in the Balkans greatly encouraged the Albanians to struggle for a “greater Albania” (including Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia and parts of Greece) the current US policy in Syria and Iraq is creating all the conditions for the Kurds in Syria, Iraq and, possibly, Turkey or Iran to join forces and establish some kind of sovereign entity. This is a major threat to Turkey which might wake up one day with an “Kurdish Kosovo” on its southeastern border.
There is, of course, one crucial difference between Bosnia and Syria: during the war in Bosnia, the US skillfully played Milosevic against the Bosnian-Serbs by promising him that he would be allowed to stay in power if he betrayed the Bosnian-Serbs. In Syria, Assad does not have to look over his shoulder for a betrayal from Iran.
The US policies have dramatically exacerbated the tensions between the Shia and the Sunni. This is well illustrated by Hamas’ betrayal of Syria, Iran and Hezbollah and its new found alliance with the Muslim brotherhood. One likely consequence of this (US run) “Salafist coalition” is that as soon as it is done doing its business in Syria, it will turn its gaze at the Shia regime in Baghdad and re-start a full scale sectarian civil war in Iraq. Such a civil war in Iraq will inevitably involve Iran, at which point the US and Israel will be in an ideal situation to attempt to overthrow the Iranian regime.
According to Russian experts, the current US plan has the potential to ignite Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan resulting in massive refugee movements towards Western Europe and Russia. For Russia this risk is compounded by the possibility of all sorts of Jihadis attempting to enter the Caucasus region and then penetrating into Russia to fight the “Kuffars“.
While this has not been reported in the West, the Russian media has reported that one of the leading Sunni spiritual leaders on the planet, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has called Russia the number one enemy of the Muslims (his declaration was triggered by the Russian veto of US anti-Syrian Resolutions at the UNSC). Many Russian experts spoke of a “Sunni declaration of war on Russia”.
Russian experts are very pessimistic on the Russian options to prevent such a scenario. They believe that the US has been extremely successful in pushing Russia out of the Middle-East and they recognize that Russia does not have many means to influence the situation. The only real option for Russia at this point is to put its southern borders on a very tight lock-down and the further strengthen the already formidable capabilities of the 58th Army and of the Southern Strategic Command of the Russian Armed Forces. Preventing the aftershocks of the US-initiated “blast” of the Middle-East from reaching Russia appears to be the only good option left for the Kremlin at this point in time.
While I personally cannot disagree with any of the above, I think that it is important for Russia to formulate some kind of proactive policy, preferably in coordination with China, if not the BRICS countries, to prevent a destabilization of Iran. In fact, many Russian experts have declared that Iran is Russia’s last natural defense and that “after Iran, we are next”. If that is the case, and if the entire region is threatened, then a broad anti-Salafist front must be created by all those who are directly threatened by the current situation: first and foremost, the Shia, of course, but also the traditional Sunnis, and the Sufi and those Christians who, regardless of denomination, are not US-puppets and/or Zionists.
Such an anti-Salafist front is, I believe, being created right now inside Russia, but that is a topic which I will leave for future articles.
The Saker
Your whole recap is flawed.
1. BRICS? Good Lord! Your words: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/11/russian-experts-predict-extension-of-us.html
2. Anti-Salafist front.
With whom? Do you really believe in such ***Arabic or Muslim*** “unity”? Such a “front” should have crossed Russian borders to be effective.
3. Russia
Even two 58th Armies will not stop the proverbial Islamist influx when the whole ME region will be set ablazed. Russia is on “a defensive” (or keeps her profile low arming to the teeth for the not-so-future World War III) what astonishes me but not much if you pay attention to the text I wrote on rt.com in comments:
http://rt.com/news/hamas-military-chief-killed-684/comments/page-4/#
Look for Dummy Oracle.
Regards
I’ve made an error, correct BRICS address:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-quasi-unanimous-adoption-of-unga.html
@anonymous: stop dreaming, your union of Slavic people is not going to happen, least of all against Islam which is part of Russians history (unlike Papism). There is ZERO interest for that kind of nonsense.
Analysis of the latest murderous attack on Gaza by Palestine solidarity activist Kevin Ovenden.
http://www.socialistunity.com/gaza-what-means-this-war/
But of course! Did I say otherwise? Slavic hates each others even more than Arab leaders one another. But my word were not concerning Slavs. To put it short – your analysis is based partly on self-evident Middle East reality (e.g. Shia alliance for survival) or on tea leaves (e.g. “anti-Salafist front”). Last but not least, I thought I would read what Russia do when the West would start bomb Syria (let it be – via proxy states) but Russia is too big enigma even for you…
This scenario sounds very depressing, especially considering I am living in Lebanon. And what is the guarantee that if the Salafists come to power in the region, they won’t end up turning on Israel?
Very sad news if true. Russia should a adopt a more forward defensive strategy aimed it, if not saving Syria, then making it as costly as possible for NATO. In coordination with Iran and Iraq (despite Maliki turning coat on the arms deal, Iraq has a strong interest in Syria and Maliki knows this) A lot can be done.
1) Iraq can continue financial support for Assad.
2) Iran can train former Mahdi army fighters to be a force multiplier in Syria if there is a manpower shortage.
3) Russia should provide whatever air defense capabilities it can to deter NATO air power. This is ***ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL***
AN organization like NATO can’t afford serious casualties (Like a dozen aircraft) against a country like Syria for three reasons
1) People at home don’t like casualties.
2) NATO depends on an aura od invulnerability. Taking loses to a weak 3rd world country punctures that aura seriously.
3) NATO fears a big shift in Arab public opinion. If Assad is seen shooting down western aircraft, there can be a huge change of public opinion in the Arab world in his favor.
Russia would be making a mistake not to exploit this.
Finally, I suggest (yet again) that Russia recreate it cold war era KGB foreign service with the aim to destabilize KSA. At least build up the capability to do so. It doesn’t have to overthrow the KSA government, but if it succeeds in frightening the fat princes, that would be a success. It might be enough for Russia to be able to tell KSA “Look, we can both cause each other some trouble. Why don’t we just go our separate ways?”
It would be a mistake for Russia to play pure defense IMHO. The west will never stop harassing Russia if they feel they have nothing to loose. If they feel KSA could be put in play then MAYBE they will back down.
@Mari:
============
And what is the guarantee that if the Salafists come to power in the region, they won’t end up turning on Israel?
============
In the entire history of the conflict between Israel and the Islamic world, Wahhabi-Salafism has never fired a single shot towards Israel, only at other Muslims.
OTOH, a Syria in chaos could create uncontrollable little Frankensteins whose blowback could conceivably reach Israel too in unpredictable ways.
Maybe the plan is to divide Syria into mutually antagonistic mini-states so that there will never be any serious threat.
Also keep in mind that Israel only survives in the wake of real or perceived external threat (“Israel wants peace!” has always been a big lie). So a few ministates lobbying a mortar every now and then across the border is in Israel’s strategic long-term interest.
Peace
@EVERYBODY: In the entire history of the conflict between Israel and the Islamic world, Wahhabi-Salafism has never fired a single shot towards Israel, only at other Muslims.
That is absolutely true, and that is also a crucial criteria to consider when assessing the nature of the Wahabi-Salafi phenomenon. We have to ditch this canard about “Israel vs the Saudi Jihadists” that has been fed to the planet since 9/11. The reality is that the al-Qaeda types have always worked directly for the interests of the Anglosphere and that objectively the Wahabi-Salafists are crucial allies for Israel. Furthermore, if we accept that then we immediately realize why Israel is trying so hard to impose on the public discourse the conflation of “Islam=Salafism” whose main purpose is to conceal the reality that they key “clash of civilizations” happening nowadays in happening *INSIDE* the Muslim world between on one hand the Wahabi-Salafists and on the other hand pretty much everybody else in the Muslim world. The Zionists by promoting the Salafists are trying to destroy traditional Islam which the Zionists, the Anglosphere and the Salafists all perceive (correctly I believe) as one of their potentially most dangerous enemies.
@Ishamid: what do you make of these predictions by Russian experts?
@Lysander: Russia should provide whatever air defense capabilities it can to deter NATO air power. This is ***ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL***
That is also very complicated. To defend an entire country you need air-defense systems ranging from squadron level to Army level, they need to be fully integrated into one network (including AWACS and satellites), and they need to be manned by teams which are fully trained in rather complex procedures. I don’t think that Iran or Syria have what it takes to deploy such a system. The next option is to defend certain key spots, which is doable with various systems, but keep in mind that the *better* option is to conceal your lucrative targets from NATO. That is what the Serbs did so brilliantly in Kosovo. NATO will not simply walk into an air defense trap set up to shoot down their aircraft. If a specific location/target is very well defended, they will very slowly and gradually degrade it with a combination of cruise missiles, special operations teams, stealth bombers, jammers, cyber-attacks, command and control nodes, anti-radiation missiles, etc. and they will only hazard themselves close to that objective once they have determined that they have effectively suppressed the enemy air defense systems.
I am not saying that this is impossible, only that both the Serbs and Hezbollah have denied NATO/Israel their victory by not presenting a good target and by presenting many worthless fake targets.
No question that the Empire’s strength lies in air power. If that could be checkmated I would love to see how the Imperial forces would fare in a ground war on anything like equal terms.
The Russian experts’ view on Syria seems realistic in that the Syrian regime and armed forces are as brutal as they are irredeemably pathetic. An extension of the war to Iran seems now inevitable, that’s also true, especially in light of Old Man Kissinger’s recent op-ed, basically mandating one. On the other hand, US means are limited, in political terms I fail to see what such a war can really achieve. Maliki is a Fadlallah acolyte with an anti-American core. And there is a Cunctator sitting in the White House. A very nasty, but politically inconclusive mess is still the most likely scenario. That’s all the Russians and the Chinese really need. That’s still the best bet. The wild card is Turkey.
@Saker:
=========
what do you make of these predictions by Russian experts?
=========
I agree with you that it is in Russia’s interest to be proactive on this. I’m not sure that Russia fully appreciates the consequences of losing Syria for its own long-term security.
I would not say that Hamas has “betrayed” Syria et al; that’s too strong a word. Has Hamas fought on the side of the insurgents or provided them with logistical help? I am not aware of anything like this. They were caught between conflicting, preexisting, loyalties so they withdrew from Syria; that was the honorable thing to do.
OTOH, the cozying up to Qatar in particular could lead the group to a real betrayal if they are not careful.
Related: Yusuf Qaradawi is owned by Qatar, and is also one of the most respected clerics in the Sunni world. Technically he is a traditional Sunni, not a Wahhabi-Salafi. But his own sellout to Qatar et al. makes him a bridge between Sunnism and Wahhabism. I have little doubt that his statement, “Russia is the number one enemy of the Muslims” was delivered on behalf of the Qatari government.
(Some inside information: Qaradawi’s son Abdul-Rahman apparently converted to Shīʿī Islam a few years back, after which Qaradawi took a stridently anti-Shīʿī tone; previously he had been quite conciliatory.)
Peace
@Ishamid: Yusuf Qaradawi is owned by Qatar, and is also one of the most respected clerics in the Sunni world. Technically he is a traditional Sunni, not a Wahhabi-Salafi. But his own sellout to Qatar et al. makes him a bridge between Sunnism and Wahhabism. I have little doubt that his statement, “Russia is the number one enemy of the Muslims” was delivered on behalf of the Qatari government. Some inside information: Qaradawi’s son Abdul-Rahman apparently converted to Shīʿī Islam a few years back, after which Qaradawi took a stridently anti-Shīʿī tone; previously he had been quite conciliatory.
Dear friend, that is the type of information which is absolutely invaluable and I thank you for sharing it with us. I am extremely disturbed, if not distressed, at the idea that one of the foremost traditional Sunni cleric could actually sell out to Qatar and, thereby, to the Wahabi-Salafi camp because this raises an extremely serious question: does this mean that any Sunni is to be considered as a potential ally/recruit/agent for KSA/Qatar/Wahabi/Salafi camp? I am sure that you see that even asking such a question is potentially very dangerous, if only because this might contribute to foster exactly what we all would want to avoid: turning all of the Sunni world into a Petri-dish of “Wahabi sayanims”…
These are very much the same questions which both Muslim and non-Muslims are struggling with in Russia nowadays (I will write about that in the not too distant future).
Peace to you too,
The Saker
@VS & Everybody: Good point about the wahabis never actually targeting Israel. I don’t know if you are familiar with Jonathan Azaziah, but he claims that the founder of the wahabi faith was Jew named Soloman who converted to Islam and became Suleiman.
There’s much more to it, but to make things short, he believes the Wahabis are a large scale cult uder the control of Western powers.
I can’t find the podcast where Jonathan goes into this in detail, but I think it’s the one where he addresses the Sunni-Shiite split:
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/category/mask-of-zion-broadcast-archives/
Btw, I strongly recommend Jonathan’s Mask of Zion series of podcasts.
@Ishamid:I would not say that Hamas has “betrayed” Syria et al; that’s too strong a word. Has Hamas fought on the side of the insurgents or provided them with logistical help?
They did much worse than that. Sending a few Hamas fighters would not have made a difference. And what kind of logistical help could Hamas provide when NATO is using all its resources to support the insurgency!? No, Hamas gave the insurgents something far more valuable, so valuable in fact that the world media immediately reported on it: it gave its blessing, its moral imprimatur, its seal of approval, to the insurgency. That is why I speak of betrayal, because Hamas did the ONLY thing it could have done to really hurt Syria.
Hamas has also betrayed all Muslims by playing strait into the sectarian card by solidifying the current conflict as a Sunni vs Shia/Alawite.
Basically, what Hamas did everything Uncle Shmuel and the Empire wanted them to do and that is, imho, a disgrace.
Cheers!
I always thought that the Salafists serve US/Israel interests in the region and even beyond, that many of their Jihadi groups have been either created by or co-opted by the CIA and Mossad agencies both knowingly and unknowingly. But I don’t think that there are a lot of Sunnis that see things this way. I think that many of them think that what these Salafists have been doing is not true or it is being exaggerated, which would largely be linked to the kind of news sources many of the Sunnis rely on for information. I am thinking that there needs to be a lot more research and news coverage on these Salafi groups, from those who know they are a real problem in the region, in an attempt to educate. They need to be put under a microscope so to speak. And more media coverage has to be applied on them that basically poses the question as to why they are not taking their jihad to Israel, but only to Arab countries that are basically traditionally against Israel and even resisting it. I am going to start working in a news station here next week, which has a plan for a 50 minute English news program which I will be working on with a group of people. I may eventually bring this particular subject up to them.
@Saker:
==============
does this mean that any Sunni is to be considered as a potential ally/recruit/agent for KSA/Qatar/Wahabi/Salafi camp?
==============
I don’t think so. Qaradawi is something of a special case.
We also have to be aware of intra-regional rivalries. Qaradawi is persona non grata in the UAE, while Qatar has been trying to undercut Saudi Arabia’s bid for global leadership of the Sunnis. Part of Qatar’s wooing of Qaradawi has to be seen in that context.
Peace
London Labour mayor Ken Livingstone received Qaradawi at City Hall and was vilified for it by the Islamophobes and War on Terror brigade in the Uk. According to Livingstone Qaradawi condemned Al Qaeda and called for Muslims to donate blood to the victims of 9/11.