Amjad Ismail Al-Agha
Within the set of questions on their political, military and even economic levels that frame the Syrian scene, it has become clear that the Russian-American dispute in Syria, and the state of interactions at all levels, may not herald a military conflict in its explicit sense, but the dispute between the two countries stems from arrangements for the military presence only, and the acquisition of The strategic value of the geographical location of the Syrian state, as the facts imposed by the developments of the Syrian crisis confirm that during the years of the crisis no Russian-American military frictions were recorded in the fields of geographical conflict in Syria, and it was clear that the vocabulary of the confrontation between the two countries was limited to its political and diplomatic meaning. The Security Council, translated as entrenchment through the use of the right of veto regarding the Syrian file, which explicitly discloses the size of the contradictions and challenges framed by equating the strategic interests of both countries in Syria.
In the details of the Syrian file, Moscow and Washington have always adopted a policy of brinkmanship, but the titles of the war on Syria and the alliances and lineups it produced at the regional and international levels were capable of reaching many side understandings between them, according to the orientations and alliances imposed by the developments of the war in and on Syria, In a parallel aspect that cannot be overlooked, developments in the Syrian issue have prompted some influential forces in the Syrian issue to recklessness as a result of a hasty or wrong reading of the paths of this policy between two poles, each of which allocates the resources and political, economic and intelligence capabilities available to it to entrap the other.
The previous diagnosis of the balance of the Russian-American relationship in Syria did not arise according to the circumstances and developments of the Syrian crisis, and the challenges, complications and sensitivities it imposed, and the relationship between the two countries in Syria was not framed according to a theory that opposes projects and agendas. Strategic for both countries. This description enabled Russia and the United States to find the most secure ways to formulate parallel paths for their relations in Syria, and from there to most regional and international issues. As each of them maintains a safety distance, avoiding direct friction, no matter how long the line is and how many zigzags it is, and then it keeps the specter of a direct armed conflict between them on the Syrian soil or elsewhere.
As a result, the strategic legacy of both Moscow and Washington fueled the two countries ’orientations in Syria, and contributed decisively to drawing the political and military features and steps of the two countries. Undoubtedly, Russia realizes that the United States is following a specific path in Syria that it cannot deviate from, and at the same time it realizes The Russian decision-maker that the solution addresses in Syria cannot see the light without high-level coordination with Washington, which was translated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his summary of the overall results of the work of Russian diplomacy during the past year 2020, and his accurate description of the nature and essence of Moscow’s stance towards Washington and its policy Regarding Syria, he said, “Russia does not intend to expel the American soldiers from Syria or enter a fight with them. Rather, it is conducting a dialogue with the United States within the framework of working to adhere to specific rules.”
The Syrian reality is framed by many Russian statements, which are not devoid of specific-oriented messages that affect both Washington and Tel Aviv, but it is clear that Russia has not yet reached the crystallization of a full-fledged political project that can be built upon to end the Syrian crisis, and it is noticeable that most of the Russian policies In Syria, it starts from the ABCs of searching for solutions, and at the same time attracting the parties involved in the Syrian crisis to the determinants of the political solution in Syria, but the Russian attempts and their importance remain far from the vocabulary of the conflict that is being run in Syria by the United States and Israel. Sergey Lavrov on Israel ignoring his country’s proposal to inform it of the supposed security threats emanating from the Syrian territories, so that Moscow would ensure that they are addressed.
What Lavrov revealed is also a message in content to Joe Biden, as Lavrov tried, through Russian diplomacy, to set his country’s political parameters in Syria. They are determinants that may attract everyone, particularly Washington and including Tel Aviv, to formulating perceptions that would solve the Syrian reality with all its complexities and Middle Eastern influences, so Lavrov chose the Syrian window to say that his country “does not want to use Syrian lands against Israel or to use an arena for the Iranian-Israeli-American confrontation.” . Lavrov’s approach speaks from a diplomatic dimension that cannot engineer the appropriate conditions and climates for any solution, and we do not dispute the truth if we say that the Russian overtones of all the active forces in Syria stem from the fact that Russia is trying to reassure everyone that the Syrian arena will not be a platform of blackmail, provocation or threat from Iran accepted its interests and the interests of its allies, and this is what Lavrov summarized by saying, “We will follow the necessary measures to neutralize any threat.”
Within the foregoing, it is natural that Russia, within its bloc of options and interests in a number of arenas of diplomatic and political conflict and conflict with the United States of America, seeks to disclose its desires and political inclinations with approaches that imitate Washington’s interests in Syria and in some thorny regional files, without that means neglect or Abandoning the core of its vital interests in Syria and throughout the region.
In conclusion, and despite all the Russian statements related to the Syrian issue, they are statements that are considered to translate into the depth of the new American approaches towards Syria. As the Russian statements about US policies in Syria still take an ineffective political character in the context of any development that ends the crisis and puts an end to the state of interactions at all levels between the majority of regional and international powers, which confirms the distance of interests between the two parties and their intersection in many aspects, and the exploitation of the Syrian situation. As a barter in other files; Accordingly, it is imperative that the major players holding the strings of the solution in Syria create what is necessary to start the actual change. It is true that many regional and international powers will not be satisfied with the results of the final game in Syria, but it is also true that attempts to establish lineups that include countries and powers that are looking for gains will not lead to effective solutions, and on the other hand, these alignments will pour into the crucible of disagreement framed by competitive interests, and it will be The road ahead is blocked.
As a result, the time has come for Russia and the United States to work together to stop the war in Syria and remove all those who do not wish to negotiate with others from the battlefield in Syria.