CC BY
21
ISLAM IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
A. TSURKAN. RUSSIAN MILITARY OPERATION IN SYRIA: THE PROSPECTS FOR RUSSIAN-AMERICAN CO-OPERATION AND THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ISLAMIC RADICALISM // The article is written for publication in the Bulletin "Russia and the Muslim world"
Keywords: Russian aerospace forces, military operation, struggle against Islamic radicalism, armed conflict, ISIS militants, to coordinate airstrikes, the U.S. sanctions, Russian and coalition operations, local armed groups, to destroy illegal oil sales channels.
A. Tsurkan,
Ph. D. (Political Science), the Center for Analysis of the Middle East Conflicts (Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences).
Participation of Russian aerospace forces in a military operation against the terrorist group ISIS, prohibited on the territory of Russia, was the objective reality of today. Almost every day, the Russian Defense Ministry publishes on its website information about dozens of combat sorties and hundreds of the broken objects of terrorists simultaneously denying the facts of committing airstrikes on positions of moderate Syrian opposition forces and civilian objects, which appear regularly in the Western and Arab press. The Ministry of Defense even organized a press
tour for foreign journalists to the airbase Hmeymim for this purpose.
The real preconditions, as well as declarations of intent to conduct an independent struggle against Islamic radicalism in Syria was not observed practically until the final decision on Russia's participation in the armed conflict as an independent actor. This decision virtually coincided with the actual start of the operation. Of course, the Russian political establishment and expert community have always been concerned about the serious threat posed by "Islamic State". Our country meets the same challenges posed by ISIS, that other members of the international community: ideological indoctrination, recruitment and transportation of human resources for participation in the fighting on the side of the militants; direct terrorist threats against high-ranking officials, citizens, and the Russian Federation; perspective of returning the militants - Russian citizens to their homeland after the end of hostilities in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc. However, Moscow has not entered into an international coalition of 65 countries against ISIS (which worked from August 2014), highlighting the fact that there was no agreement with the UN Security Council. The possibility of Moscow's participation was highly improbable in the midst of sanctions blockade of Russia by the U.S. and other Western members of the coalition. However, there was no aspiration.
The Russian proposal on the fight against ISIS, which has been replicated to world community through diplomatic channels since the summer of 2015 and until recently, it was made at a meeting with the head of the Foreign Ministry, of the official Damascus. Moscow's position to support the official Damascus is different from the position of the coalition of 65 countries, including the United States. The essence of the proposal was as follows: the creation of a broad anti-terrorist front on an agreed international legal basis with the involvement of all parties fighting against ISIS. Thus the attempt to include in the negotiating process "irreconcilable" enemies - al-Assad and
members of the anti - ISIS coalition has been sounded, giving a legitimate status to the first, in the framework of the antiterrorist track and contrary to the American concept of non-perception of him. A number of domestic experts on Islam are impressed by the Russian position in support of Assad's regime, as the alternative is the prospect of the Islamization of Syria. However, Russia's military participation was not expected for this scenario, excluding armament of the Syrian army in accordance with the current inter-state contracts. On the contrary, President Putin, and then, Foreign Minister Lavrov spoke of inexpediency of joining of new participants into the war, Russia was assigned an honorable role but intermediary one.
The real moment of change of Russian foreign policy paradigm on this issue remained in the shadows for the general public, as well as an explanation of the incentive mechanism of decision making.
Reports on the escalation of the Russian military presence in the area of the base of material support for the Russian Navy in Tartous, and the expanded group of Russian fighter-bombers at the airport in Latakia began to appear in the media from mid-September 2015. Russian President issued a decree on the use of Russian armed forces outside its territory to the Federation Council of Federal Assembly of the RF, which was adopted unanimously on September 30, after the meeting of Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama at the UN General Assembly, September 29, 2015. Air and Space Forces of Russia actively conduct the bombing of Syrian territory from the same date. According to the official website of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, it has already carried out 5662 sorties, including 145 sorties of aircrafts of strategic missile-carrying and the long-range bombers and were produced launches of 97 cruise missiles on January 15 of this year, and in conjunction with the ground-based military operation of the Armed Forces of Syria has led to their control over the 217 settlements (1040.7 sq. km area). For comparison, from August 2014, the International anti-
ISIS coalition has launched 9782 airstrikes on the positions of ISIS in Syria and Iraq as of 19 January this year, killing a total of 20352 targets as of January 10 this year.
On the one hand, the question arises: why is the effort of the Russian side, if the motivation is traced poorly? On the other hand, this military operation is presented as a task of primary importance from the moment of its beginning in the Russian media and the rhetoric of public officials. Moreover, the beginning of Russian air strikes on Syrian territory that is not under the control of government troops, coincided exactly with the lull in the Ukrainian conflict - the beginning of withdrawal of armaments in the Donbass and the launch of a political process, with certain reservations. TV footage of fighting in Ukraine was replaced by occasional references to the return of the population of Donetsk and Luhansk to civilian life. In this connection, it can be argued that the Ukrainian question is almost completely lost its dominant role in the information broadcast, partly losing its Syrian issue. This scenario shows its relative effectiveness for domestic (Russian) consumption.
At the same time, the official Moscow traditionally refers to the request of Assad regarding the provision of military assistance to Syria in the decision about the beginning of the air strikes, which gives legitimacy to Russia's military operation in contrast to the operation of 65 countries of the coalition bombing of Syrian territory. However, the information message about the query of Syrian party is dates back to September 30, 2015, whereas the consultations between Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were held the previous day. Of course the form of the reached agreement on the participation of Moscow in the Syrian conflict is unknown, but the issue was discussed by the two leaders, which is obviously based on the dynamics of previous consultations between the Russian and the U.S. parties.
Thus, the intensification of Russia - the U.S. contacts, on the Iranian problem can be traced since May 2015. The impetus was the visit of the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Sochi, where
he was admitted to Russian President Vladimir Putin. June 26, 2015 there was a telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama, during which the situation in Syria and the strategy of the struggle against "Islamic state" was discussed, as well as the order was given for the organization of the Russian-American meeting at ministerial level, which took place on 30 June. Sergei Lavrov and Jim Carrey held a series of meetings and telephone conversations after that, where the Russian side has promoted the presidential initiative on forming a united front to fight ISIS, if guided by the official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry. But finally Russia is not embedded in the existing the U.S. - led coalition, but acts as an independent actor, creating a separate information structure with the participation of the official Syria, Iran and, partly, Iraq - Information center for the coordination of the fight against "Islamic state" with headquarters in Baghdad.
As for the beginning of the Russian military operation in Syria, Moscow's expectations with regard to the resumption of the U.S. - Russian cooperation, interrupted by the difference of the two countries to the Ukrainian crisis and poured out in the diversified support opposing sides, have played a significant role. After joining the Crimea to Russia at the beginning of April 2014, the U.S. (referring to the ongoing violations of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity on the part of Russia) has announced the suspension of the work of the Russian - U.S. Bilateral Presidential Commission, in which a wide range of issues has been decided for common agenda since 2009, bringing relations between Russia and the US on the level of almost full institutionalization.
The fact of the suspension of the Commission on the initiative of the American side has caused ambiguous reaction in the Russian public space, despite the obvious contradictions between Russia and the United States. All statements of the political establishment were limited to disbelief that the situation will lead to real cessation of the dialogue. Despite the suspension
of institutional mechanisms of cooperation, the dialogue between the two countries has not been stopped, but it is either in the format of international relations (quartets, triples contact groups, etc.), or in the form of one-time contacts at present. And the discussion of the situation in Ukraine has played a dominant role in terms of one-time contacts in the framework of consultations between Moscow and Washington from April 2014 - by May 2015.
Themes on the fight against ISIS in discussions of Russia and the United States contributed to the expansion of the current agenda of Russian-American dialogue, displacing Ukrainian question, although without removing it completely. In particular, an intensive exchange of views between Moscow and Washington on Syria did not prevent the prolongation and expansion of the U.S. sanctions against Russia in August -September and November - December 2015, Moscow promises regularly to take countermeasures. Therefore, there is a conclusion that the Syrian-playing cards to reduce tensions in Ukraine is a strategy aimed not only at the domestic but also the foreign policy of Russia.
Bet on Syria is made on the basis of two fundamental issues.
Firstly, Russia is involved in the international processes on Syria, as it has taken a position different from that of Washington to support the Assad regime. Moscow supports the official Damascus, which makes it automatically, if not a party to the conflict, it takes one step with the international community, including the United States, supporting the opposition. Thus, there is a clear rivalry between the two directions of foreign policy, according to which a direct dialogue is necessary in order to avoid escalation.
Secondly, it is clear that global problems are taken into account, for example, Islamic radicalism. Moscow and Washington are faced with a common threat, which leads to a dialogue between the two countries. The threat has arisen in
connection with the activation of the "Islamic state", including the process of recruiting and sending human resources to fight in the ranks of ISIS on a commercial scale, its terrorist activities, as well as the corresponding appeal of the organization against the citizens of Russia and the United States. Moscow's fight against "Islamic State" is entirely consistent with the interests of Washington's national security in this context, taking into account that the negative consequences for its actions will affect solely on Russia.
Russia expected resumption of partnership with the U.S. in the process of Syrian settlement. And, indeed, quite an intensive dialogue on Syria carried out with the Americans. It was an agreement on the direct, communication channel to coordinate airstrikes when applied at the beginning of the Russian military operation as the foreign ministries and military agencies. But according to the rhetoric of Sergey Lavrov, it becomes clear that there is no real coordination between the Russian military and coalition forces.
Moscow again made an attempt to deepen cooperation with Washington after the incidents with dangerous convergence of military aircraft of the two countries in the skies over Syria, 6 and 10 October 2015. The result was the preparation and signing of the Memorandum on the prevention of incidents and ensuring aviation safety during operations in Syria between the Ministry of Defense, Russia and the Pentagon on October 20 2015. However, the document was exclusively a military-technical nature and a real resumption of cooperation between the two countries is not expected, as evidenced by Washington's refusal to receive a delegation of military experts headed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, as well as the statements of the American side of the impossibility to send a delegation of own similar to Moscow. After the incident with the Russian Su-24 bomber, shot down by Turkey in November 24, 2015, the Russian Foreign Ministry relayed the message that the United States assumed responsibility for all anti - ISIS coalition by the
signing of the above-mentioned memorandum. While official Washington stressed the bilateral nature of the paper and urged other members of the coalition to sign the relevant documents with the Russian Federation.
It seems that Washington's total mistrust towards our country is a real obstacle to the coordination of Russian and the U.S. operations. Russian commitment to support the current Syrian regime, a guarantor of security and the only alternative to a complete Islamization of Syria, is not fully consistent with the position of the anti-ISIS coalition, resulting in reluctance to share data about the locations of military forces. As mentioned above, according to the American press, Russia does airstrikes on positions of moderate Syrian forces. Moreover, October 22, the U.S. permanent representative to the UN Samantha Power said that the Russian air strikes in Syria constitute interference, which only enhances the "Islamic state." Strategy and tactics of the Military Space Forces of Russia is the support and coordination with the Syrian army, even if similar populist statements of the U.S. officials are not counted, and the facts of the bombing of the opposition will be ignored, or enter into ideological debate about which the armed forces can be considered "moderate". The result is a strengthening of the position of the official Damascus, "in Syria, the transition of previously lost territories under its control, and giving greater the vitality of Assad's regime, which is contrary to focus on the change of power in Syria, at least 65 other countries.
Some kind of consultations between Russia and the United States remain. As of January 14, there were about 17 phone calls and a series of meetings between Sergey Lavrov and John Kerry after the decision on the beginning of Russian bombing Syrian territory; there was an exchange of views on the situation in Syria during these meetings. In addition, the prospects for Russian diplomatic efforts on Syria are stored in the framework of Vienna process to resolve the situation in the country, which began October 30, 2015.
Moscow is trying to solve at least two important tactical and strategic objectives in the format of the meetings of the international "Syrian Support Group" (running with the participation of delegations from China, Egypt, the European Union, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, UK, UN and US):
- To coordinate and approve the list of terrorist organizations in Syria, which would allow Russia to get rid of the accusations of causing air strikes on Syrian opposition forces;
- To start a political process in Syria, with the participation of official Damascus for the purpose of legitimating the current Syrian regime.
Now it is difficult to make predictions on the success of this international scenario of Syrian settlement. Despite the fact that the contact group established a timeframe for the second question, at least, (meeting in the Syrian political forces should take place on January 25 this year in Geneva) the position on Assad of our American partners remains unchanged. As for the separation of the Syrian rebel movement on the oppositional, and terroristic, then, there is a feeling of a complete loss of control of the anti - ISIS coalition over the situation with the illegal armed groups. This opinion was repeatedly expressed by both Russian and American experts. But under the circumstances, international basis of cooperation on Syria seems more perspective variant for both Russia and the US as a priority to bilateral ties.
The chosen form of dialogue (the contact group) is able to make amends for the existing contradictions in the presence of the political will of participants, and with the maximum "saving face". Such a scenario of international cooperation exists for a long time and has proven its effectiveness in practice (negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program; solution to the issue of chemical weapons in Syria, etc.), where Russia managed to achieve some diplomatic victories. Moreover, all participants of the process, including Russia and the United States are
satisfied with such a scenario. There is already a certain "fatigue" on the Syrian issue and the desire to move forward on the way of settlement. The more that such military intervention of Moscow in the fight against ISIS has shaken Washington's monopoly on the leadership of the anti-terrorist operation in the region, as well as strengthened the American domestic political discourse on the correct tactics of its own government to minimize this threat.
Characters of Russian and coalition operations in Syria differ significantly on the basis of quantitative indicators on sorties, and hit targets statistics. Russia has reported about more than 5500 air strikes of over 3.5 months of its air campaign, which shows an impressive dynamics and tempo adopted by the Russian side initially, in comparison with the 9500 air strikes of anti-ISIS coalition for more than a year on the territories of the two states - Iraq and Syria. On the other hand, we should not lose sight of the fact of absence an official mandate to carry out military operations directly in Syrian airspace for the coalition of 65 countries, as well as a legitimate ally in the territory of this state. This significantly limits the possibility of coalition against ISIS on the Syrian track. For example, only 3266 of more than 9.5 thousand air strikes are fallen on the territory of Syria. The United States also practicing dropping weapons from aircraft , which are often fallen to the militants of the "Islamic state" on the territory of Syria, (under the control of the "moderate" opposition, according to the U.S.), and sending small local armed groups that have passed the preliminary military training, as the main tactics for Syria. It is clear that such actions are subjected to harsh criticism both in Russia and in the United States.
At the same time Moscow positions its involvement in the Syrian conflict as a factor contributing to the intensification of the activities of the coalition forces to combat terrorism within the framework of their operations. One may agree with this only partly - 20352 stricken sites as of January 10 this year against 10,684 as of August 7, 2015 shows a serious intensification of military activity. It noted a significant increase in the bombing
in order to destroy illegal oil sales channels by the ISIS militants. If the anti-ISIS coalition reported 196 oil infrastructure objects of destroyed the terrorists as of August 7, 2015 before the decision to hold the Russian military operation, it is reported on the destruction of, 1170 such objects at present, therefore, a significant dynamics of growth of such bombing can be traced. However, Russian and American interpretations of the recipients of the "black" oil market are quite different. If Moscow accuses the Turkish side in the supply of oil to the ISIS, Washington accuses the official Damascus with indirect Russian support in this matter. In particular, the U.S. accused the former president of the Republic of Kalmykia, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and Mudalala Khoury, a Syrian by origin, and the Russian bank "Russian Financial Alliance", and other foreign companies, associated with these entities, in the financial ties with the Assad regime. Regarding the bombing of Syrian territory, the initiative has been fully transferred to the Russian side, considering that the number of airstrikes has increased slightly since the start of the military campaign of the Aerospace forces of Russia - with 3266 as of 19 January this year, against 2,381 as of August 20, 2015.
However, the presence of an alternative point of view on the nature and future of the "Islamic state" in general could be called one of the most interesting differences between the Russian and the U.S. operations against the ISIS. Americans, seriously have attended to a question about the necessity of involvement of their own state in the Middle East affairs in recent years (the result of this activity is very doubtful), put forward theories about the exaggerated threat of the ISIS. An article, as an illustrative example of the given direction of political thought has been published in the U.S. journal "Foreign affairs", where the Islamic State is positioned as a revolutionary authority, unable to expand in the long term projections due to geopolitical realities and historical experiences. Consequently, the US strategy in such circumstances, according to the author, should be limited to a maximum minimization of their own involvement in the fight
against this unit, concentrating only on the elimination of ISIS opportunities for expansion in the short term. Motivation is to avoid serious inevitable civilian casualties, which will automatically lead to the deterioration of the United States' image in the Islamic world.
Thus, in the case of the adoption of such a position of Washington on the official level, it is possible to expect the change of behavior patterns in relation to the "Islamic state" from the United States, as has already happened in relation to the Taliban. Washington, in due time, stopped calling them terrorists: it is now illegal armed groups. As a result, understanding that the negotiations with the "Taliban" is the actual help to war criminals for "naturalization" in the new Afghanistan exists simultaneously with the recognition of the need to resolve this conflict; moreover, the movement continues to fight for the territory, using the absence of the international coalition forces there now. It is probable that Americans will have to act against the ISIS in the same way. This explains their weak military operation to combat terrorism, in part, as it appears in the Russian media. Of course, there will be no similar changes in the United States position towards the ISIS until the end of the Obama administration.
Unlike the U.S., Russia decisively carries out its military operation in Syria, not worrying about the country's image in the Muslim world. More precisely, the Russian representation of the Islamic world in the matter is somewhat different from the Western. The term "Islamic World" ( or Muslim world) for official Moscow comes down to the official regimes in the appropriate countries, with the vast majority of Islamic population, whereas the presence of the "Arab street" is ignored. Meanwhile, the "Arab street" has become a major catalyst for the processes in the "Muslim world", leading to the destabilization of the region, - the events of the "Arab Spring". Moscow persistently ignores the fact that the initial conflict in line with the "Arab Spring" was held in Syria between the official Damascus
and the "Arab Street" in 2011. And, eventually, the same conditional "Arab street" is the main supplier of human resources for the terrorist organizations.
The Islamic world might not be able to forgive the Russian military operation in Syria, it will be capable of turning into a completely different forms. Objectively, civilian casualties can not be avoided during the bombings in a campaign against terrorism within the boundaries of settlements, and the like, which is certainly a negative impact on the attitude of the Muslim Ummah to our country. According to the human rights organization "Human Rights Watch", a total of 59 civilians, including 33 children, were killed as a result of only two (presumably) Russian air strikes in the northern part of the province of Homs. Picture is a disappointing one, given that statistics is presented for the victims of only one day.
Another serious aspect has become a fatwa of religious leaders in Saudi Arabia calling for the Islamic countries to unite in the fight against the Assad regime in Syria and its Russian and Iranian patrons. Despite the statement of the Mufti of Moscow and Central Russia, Albir Krganov that a similar fatwa of international character can be approved only by the head of a state or the supreme spiritual person for its legitimization, it is clear that both the Saudi authorities and the local population of the Kingdom agree with Moscow's accusation of the military operation in support of the Syrian government, but do not fight against the ISIS. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that Saudi Arabia's permanent representative to the UN, Abdullah al-Moallem called on Russia to stop the military operation in Syria because of the Russian Federation Air Force Space applied airstrikes on positions, where there were no militants of the Islamic state. Thus, the Saudi fatwa could be the unofficial state opinion as a whole, which puts it on a completely different level, not to mention the possible consequences of its appeal at all.
One should not forget about the threats more than once sounded in Russian address by the ISIS. The ISIS militants have
released a video of accusations of Moscow in supporting the Assad regime by supplying weapons to him and promised to send the weapons to V. Putin personally, long before the Russian military operation in Syria. Also, the Islamic State conducted executions of Russian "spies" on the camera. The last video was posted on December 2, 2015. In the end, the ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack on board the Russian aircraft in the skies over Egypt, which killed 224 people.
In addition, according to the intelligence agencies, about 2 thousand citizens of Russia are fighting in the ranks of the Islamic State, and according to some experts' estimates, their number is closer to 5 thousand. As stated in the investigation of "Novaya Gazeta", leaving some of them were, if not organized, then encouraged by the FSB of Russia in order to weaken the terrorist underground in our country. The main issues on the medium and long-term prospects in this regard: the possible return of militants in Russia and intensification of terrorist activities in the North Caucasus and other Russian regions.
There are concerns about the merger of the Russian terrorist underground with the Islamic state and its continued functioning under the auspices of this organization. In this vein, the leaders of the militants began to swear allegiance to the leader of the ISIS Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi since late November 2014. The apogee of this process was the message of bringing such an oath "in full force" of militants belonging to the structural units of the Caucasus Emirate, dated June 21, 2015. In turn, several days later, the Islamic State announced the creation of the Kadar Wilayat (province) in the North Caucasus, which includes Chechnya, Ingushetia, Daghestan and Kabardino-Balkaria, under the leadership of the Daghestani militant Abu Muhammad.
Thus, it can be concluded that the risk of a terrorist threat to Russia posed by ISIS, has always existed, regardless of the direct involvement of our country in the events in Syria. Nevertheless, the military operation increases the risk that is already supported by the fact of the terrorist attack in the skies over Egypt, although
2016.09.004
the direct involvement of the Islamic State has not been proved yet. At the same time, the intensification of the bombing is not able to cope with the radical ideology of the terrorists. Based on a retrospective analysis of the recent anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc., the leaving of the militants to underground is the maximum that can be achieved, while maintaining all the possibilities for them to carry out terrorist activities. Accordingly, the risk of a terrorist threat directly on Russian territory in both short term and medium one, will remain at a high level, and the prospects for a decent completion of the military operation - rather vague, in conjunction with the inevitable deterioration of the image of Russia in the eyes of the wider Islamic world. It seems that the final withdrawal of Russia from Syria will be very similar on the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the only significant difference is that there is no ground forces of our country in this area, in this case.
2016.09.004. E. SATANOVSKIY. BETWEEN CRISIS AND CATASTROPHE. THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE FUTURE OF THE WORLD // "Rossiya v globalnoy politike", Moscow, 2015, Volume 13, № 6, November/December, P. 38-49.
Keywords: redistribution of territories, the main actors, the balance of forces, the modern world order, war of civilizations, area of instability.
E. Satanovskiy,
president of the Middle East Institute
The author analyzes the current situation and potential prospects of development of the Middle East (ME) and its periphery: the African and the European, Central Asian and the Transcaucasus.
At the beginning of the article the author delves into the history of the redistribution of territories, the Middle East,
