There is a curious, though hardly unsurprising, distortion in the way that the tragedy in Syria is framed in pretty much all western political discourse. Politicians across the political spectrum and their friends in the media tell us that it is Russia that is the problem. If it wasn’t for those nasty Russians, the good guys (aka the western powers) would be able to “fix” this ugly war. Seemingly unaware of the fact that Russia is a nuclear armed military superpower, some British MPs of the righteously indignant variety have taken this manichean view of the conflict to its logical conclusion and publicly called for military action against the Great Bear. Worrying times.
Perhaps there is some justification for this rage. After all, only the emotionally inept, or those who willingly embrace the peculiar form of denial sometimes found in radical circles, can fail to be moved by the plight of those in Aleppo. The relentless Russian and Syrian bombing, the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, including aid convoys and those who work to deliver much needed supplies, is undoubtedly an unforgivable crime. On this, all reasonable people must agree.
However, to gain any semblance of understanding of what is going on in Syria, a more robust and sophisticated framework is required. One needs to understand the wider “game” being played by its principal external protagonists.
The United States and Russia are at war with one another. Let’s not pretend otherwise. They are no longer mere rivals, vying for global influence and eyeing one another with suspicion - they are engaged in barely concealed conflict throughout the world. We can see this in Ukraine, Yemen and most strikingly in Syria. Confronted with global instability, and the realisation of the diminished control they can exert on events, they are increasingly desperate to retain order. Like all those pathologically obsessed with control, they are prepared to obtain it regardless of the destructive consequences. Any account of the complex chaos in Syria that fails to take this dynamic into account is destined to fail.
Take recent events for instance. The tragically short lived ceasefire that began at sunset on the 12th September collapsed with astonishing rapidity. Why? Mainly because the U.S. was unable, or unwilling, to reign in its (largely jihadist) “allies” on the ground. Instead of admitting its role in the collapse of the ceasefire, the U.S. quickly realised it could use this tragedy to seize the upper hand and demanded that any future ceasefire would only work if Russian and Syrian warplanes agreed not to fly any further sorties. The U.S. correctly calculated that the Russians, as ruthlessly intent on pursuing their objectives as itself, would not agree to such a demand and with the help of the ever obliging media managed to bury their responsibility for the collapse of the ceasefire by focusing on the atrocities being committed by Russian and Syrian warplanes in Aleppo.
We are told that the U.S. is nowhere near as bad as the Russians. When the forces of light kill civilians they don’t do it deliberately (how terribly comforting that must be to the victims’ families). Yet when the U.S. bombs a target in the knowledge that some civilians will be killed, it is, without doubt, the deliberate killing of civilians. How could it not be? And if one still believes that the U.S. has any sense of respect for civilians it’s also worth mentioning the deliberate targeting of the Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital in Afghanistan by U.S. forces in October 2015. Conveniently enough, this did not have the same level of news coverage that the recent Russian attack on the aid convoy near Aleppo did. Let’s not also forget the U.S. sponsorship of Saudi terror against the civilian population in Yemen, and also their willingness to work alongside murderous sectarian Shia militia in the battle against I.S. in Iraq. With each side seemingly in competition to steal the moral low ground from the other, the only coherent moral response must surely be to wish for a plague on both.
When the current state of the Syrian conflict is viewed this way, as a localised manifestation of a much larger conflict between the U.S. and Russia, it should be clear that any demand by the British Foreign Secretary for protests outside the Russian Embassy in London is not credible. It is a call for the continuation of this great game. It is a call to perpetuate and worsen the conflict. It is also an attempt to discredit the legitimate anti-war movement and it is one that must be rejected absolutely.
The people of Syria have the misfortune to inhabit the land in which the great powers battle it out. For their sake we need to insist that our governments stay as far away as possible.
Perhaps there is some justification for this rage. After all, only the emotionally inept, or those who willingly embrace the peculiar form of denial sometimes found in radical circles, can fail to be moved by the plight of those in Aleppo. The relentless Russian and Syrian bombing, the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, including aid convoys and those who work to deliver much needed supplies, is undoubtedly an unforgivable crime. On this, all reasonable people must agree.
However, to gain any semblance of understanding of what is going on in Syria, a more robust and sophisticated framework is required. One needs to understand the wider “game” being played by its principal external protagonists.
The United States and Russia are at war with one another. Let’s not pretend otherwise. They are no longer mere rivals, vying for global influence and eyeing one another with suspicion - they are engaged in barely concealed conflict throughout the world. We can see this in Ukraine, Yemen and most strikingly in Syria. Confronted with global instability, and the realisation of the diminished control they can exert on events, they are increasingly desperate to retain order. Like all those pathologically obsessed with control, they are prepared to obtain it regardless of the destructive consequences. Any account of the complex chaos in Syria that fails to take this dynamic into account is destined to fail.
Take recent events for instance. The tragically short lived ceasefire that began at sunset on the 12th September collapsed with astonishing rapidity. Why? Mainly because the U.S. was unable, or unwilling, to reign in its (largely jihadist) “allies” on the ground. Instead of admitting its role in the collapse of the ceasefire, the U.S. quickly realised it could use this tragedy to seize the upper hand and demanded that any future ceasefire would only work if Russian and Syrian warplanes agreed not to fly any further sorties. The U.S. correctly calculated that the Russians, as ruthlessly intent on pursuing their objectives as itself, would not agree to such a demand and with the help of the ever obliging media managed to bury their responsibility for the collapse of the ceasefire by focusing on the atrocities being committed by Russian and Syrian warplanes in Aleppo.
We are told that the U.S. is nowhere near as bad as the Russians. When the forces of light kill civilians they don’t do it deliberately (how terribly comforting that must be to the victims’ families). Yet when the U.S. bombs a target in the knowledge that some civilians will be killed, it is, without doubt, the deliberate killing of civilians. How could it not be? And if one still believes that the U.S. has any sense of respect for civilians it’s also worth mentioning the deliberate targeting of the Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital in Afghanistan by U.S. forces in October 2015. Conveniently enough, this did not have the same level of news coverage that the recent Russian attack on the aid convoy near Aleppo did. Let’s not also forget the U.S. sponsorship of Saudi terror against the civilian population in Yemen, and also their willingness to work alongside murderous sectarian Shia militia in the battle against I.S. in Iraq. With each side seemingly in competition to steal the moral low ground from the other, the only coherent moral response must surely be to wish for a plague on both.
When the current state of the Syrian conflict is viewed this way, as a localised manifestation of a much larger conflict between the U.S. and Russia, it should be clear that any demand by the British Foreign Secretary for protests outside the Russian Embassy in London is not credible. It is a call for the continuation of this great game. It is a call to perpetuate and worsen the conflict. It is also an attempt to discredit the legitimate anti-war movement and it is one that must be rejected absolutely.
The people of Syria have the misfortune to inhabit the land in which the great powers battle it out. For their sake we need to insist that our governments stay as far away as possible.