“Active actions of the Russian armed forces in Syria began a few days ago, but we already have enough sociological information to describe exactly how Russians feel about what is happening,” writes sociologist Denis Volkov for the Carnegie Moscow Center. The Levada Center has addressed the Syrian conflict from time to time since 2013 as part of a program of regular public opinion polls; In addition, last week we managed to discuss forwarding latest events during focus groups.

Support for war in detail

Regarding Russia’s role in the Syrian conflict, in September, even before the start of the operation, those surveyed agreed that Russia should provide diplomatic and humanitarian support to Syria (supported by 65% ​​and 55%, respectively, versus 20% and 29%). On the issues of arms supplies and economic assistance, public opinion was split in half. Russians had a sharply negative attitude towards the introduction of troops and assistance to refugees. In group discussions people said: “This is not our war!” Someone grumbled: “Afghanistan is not enough for us, or what?” At the same time, by “introduction of troops” people mean a full-scale military operation, and most discussion participants agreed that “ great war will not be". There was another opinion: “War is not necessary, but we are ready for it!”

It is interesting that when asked whether there is Russian troops in Syria, the familiar clarification was heard several times: “Do you mean officially?” Similarly, when we repeatedly asked respondents last year whether there were Russian troops on the territory of eastern Ukraine, we each time ran into a blank wall: “Officially no!” Then the discussion usually ended with this; it was not possible to achieve more. Today, no one denies the presence of the Russian military in Syria - after all, they talk about it openly on TV - with one important caveat that has been heard more than once: “Only a limited contingent is present.”

All suggestions that the number of Russian troops in Syria could be increased were met with rather aggressive rejection. Watching the progress of the discussion, I had to catch myself thinking that discussions about “limited presence” are similar to war spells, attempts to convince oneself that Russia will not be drawn further into the conflict. That is, a certain proportion of people latently admit that the government may be lying about the scale of the operation. But almost no one openly expresses such concerns.

The majority of the population has only a vague idea of ​​what is happening, limited to scraps of information: only 15% follow developments closely, and a third of the population does not follow at all. Moreover, before the active phase of hostilities, about half of those surveyed stated that they were not interested in what policy the Russian leadership was pursuing in relation to Syria. Now attention is growing, but this is only spectator interest - Russians are not showing any special sympathy for either refugees or the victims of the civil war that has been going on in the country for several years.

If the number of Russian troops in Syria does not increase, then this war will remain virtual and not causing concern for the majority of the population. Support for the actions of the Russian military in Syria is more likely the rating of a popular television program, and not an indicator of the mobilization of Russian society. Statements about readiness for war more reflect ideas about Russian power war machine and the symbolic authority of the army than the willingness to fight oneself. The less involvement of the population, the fewer losses, the higher will be the support for the actions of the Russian military. It is also worth recalling that at the end of 2013, Russian public opinion opposed Russia’s intervention in the situation in Ukraine (the mood at that time can be described by the following formula: “Don’t give money, don’t send troops!”). But a few months later, Russians supported Vladimir Putin’s policy towards Ukraine, largely thanks to the authorities’ skillful play on the fears and misconceptions of the population.

Correct delivery

In general, today’s Syrian conflict is perceived in Russia through the prism of confrontation with the United States and the protection of the notorious “geopolitical interests.” In the eyes of the majority, indifferent to the troubles of the Syrians, this gives the decisions of the Russian leadership on Syria a special meaning. The confrontation with the United States is becoming a universal means of explaining (and justifying) the actions of the Russian government on the world stage: the threat of the deployment of NATO bases in Sevastopol explained the need to annex Crimea. In group discussions today, respondents say that Russia should under no circumstances leave Syria, “otherwise the Americans will immediately come there.”

Events in Syria Once again demonstrate that the Russian population as a whole is not able to rationally interpret what is happening; there are neither resources nor motivation for this. Russian state media year after year explain Syrian events solely as the West's desire to overthrow Russia's staunch ally. One-sided coverage of events in Syria today, in Ukraine in 2014, in Georgia in 2008, in Chechnya in the mid-1990s has led to the fact that the theory of a global conspiracy “to weaken and humiliate Russia” has become a universal explanation for what is happening.

The confrontation with America, the world's leading power, has value for Russians in itself, since it gives most a sense of the country's resurgent greatness, which was lost after the collapse of the USSR. Therefore, the news that Russia is leading the fight against the Islamic State and criticism from the West will bring a sense of satisfaction to many Russians. People are not against cooperation with Western countries(there is no quantitative data on this yet, but on many other issues public opinion has almost always been positive, especially since now this will only confirm Russia’s status among world powers). However, during group discussions, a significant proportion of respondents expressed doubts that such cooperation was possible. Not through our fault, but through the fault of the United States, which is not interested in Russia’s success in the Middle East. It got to the point that there were versions that the existence of the Islamic State was beneficial to the United States, which means they would not cooperate in the fight against the Islamists.

In conclusion, it is worth saying a few words about the possible impact of the operation of Russian troops in Syria on the president’s rating. A short military campaign may strengthen the president’s rating (primarily in the eyes of the military and security officials), but this hardly justifies the words of some commentators who claim that Vladimir Putin started this war in order to strengthen his own position within the country. He didn’t have any particular need for this - his rating was high, and the next presidential elections were only in three years, and until then a lot of water would flow under the bridge.

It is more correct to recognize that the operation of Russian troops in Syria has foreign policy goals: to bring Russia out of foreign policy isolation, to divert the attention of the international community from the situation in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, to support the friendly Assad regime, and perhaps in the future to demonstrate the superiority of the Russian strategy over the American one. The purpose of Russian television propaganda is thus to provide support for political decisions that have already been made. Russian government takes into account public opinion not in order to best satisfy public demand, but in order to minimize the costs of its policies. Events in Syria have once again confirmed this.

The official version of Russia's entry into the Middle East military conflict sounds like a response to a request from the Syrian leadership and personally from President Bashar al-Assad for military assistance. But is this really so? And since when the mighty of the world Why did they begin to provide free assistance in the hostilities of one of the parties? There is probably some interest in this that they prefer not to talk about.
Let's try to understand the tangled tangle of complex Middle Eastern relations that resulted in a bloody massacre. It would be naive to believe that the hell into which this region has been plunged is caused only by religious differences among Muslims. Following the logic and the pressure with which the United States is acting in the Middle East, we can assume that very serious geopolitical interests are involved here.

It is absolutely clear that the plan to destroy Russia is still placed at the forefront of any foreign policy decisions and actions of the United States. For several years now, the United States has been trying to clear the way for the gas pipeline that they are planning to run from Qatar to Europe. It is clear that the gas pipeline will be built by American companies. But this is far from the meaning of the plan. The goal is to force Europe to supply its gas and cut off Russia from it as an exporter of blue fuel, thereby depriving it of one of its main sources of income and continuing to carry out the Dulles-Brzezinski plan to destroy our state.

Having reached an agreement with the Sheikh of Qatar to agree to sell gas through US-controlled companies, all that was left was to clear the territory for the construction of the pipeline. This is exactly what the Americans are doing in the Middle East. last years, unleashing a bloodbath here under the slogans of overthrowing totalitarian regimes. All who dared to oppose themselves to the United States of America (think: America! Where is America and where is the Middle East) were subject to destruction. The first to fall in this unequal battle was the head of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Nowadays no one remembers that American troops invaded and captured Iraq under the guise of saving the world from chemical weapons, which was allegedly produced in Iraq. True, no chemical weapons were ever found, there were not even traces of their possible development. But this did not stop him from quickly executing the legitimate head of Iraq, putting another puppet government at the helm, destabilizing the political situation by supporting religious military formations and igniting another hotbed of war. They did the same in Libya, removing another leader from their path - Muammar Gaddafi.
Iran is more complicated, the state is stronger, and its leadership cannot be presented to the world in an odious light. For now, they are trying to deprive Iran of the opportunity to influence the events taking place around it and force it to follow its decisions, using economic and political pressure.
Syria remains. The Assad family has long been in the crosshairs of the American administration. Mainly because of their commitment to friendly relations with the Soviet Union in the past, and with Russia in the present. And after giant deposits were discovered in Qatar natural gas, the fate of Syria was sealed.


“The East is a delicate matter,” and kindle religious wars It’s very easy here, which is what the CIA specialists rolled up their sleeves to do. Units of the so-called moderate opposition were created, armed and trained, which was supposed to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria and give carte blanche to the Americans to build a gas pipeline. But it is the Americans who think that they are using Muslims for their own dirty purposes, and Muslims, like the Bolsheviks in their time, take money and everything they give from everyone, and use it only for themselves. Just as Lenin called for kindling the fire of revolution from a spark, so the current leaders of the Islamic movement are eager to kindle the purifying religious flame.

It is a pity that the lessons of history have taught Americans nothing. After all, created by them in contrast Soviet troops in Afghanistan, Alkaida was able to transfer the theater of military operations to the United States, staging massive bloody terrorist attacks. Now ISIS, formed from those very units of the moderate opposition, threatens the whole world. But, apparently, the Stalinist slogan “they cut down the forest - the chips fly” has now been adopted by the “universal defenders of democracy.” We can recall another controversial statement that American intelligence agencies use to justify all their actions: “the end justifies the means.” That is why the fanatics of “true democracy” do not count how many tens and hundreds of thousands, or even millions human lives will be placed on the altar of “American Democracy.” Yes, not a single totalitarian regime overthrown by the United States destroyed even a tenth of the number of victims - killed, maimed, dispossessed, deprived of shelter and homeland of people doomed to “salvation from dictatorship.”
So, Russia has finally decided to protect its interests and, it is very likely that this decision will protect not only us, but also millions ordinary people- residents of the Middle East, from American “business democracy”, will give them a chance for a peaceful sky above their heads, a chance for a normal, human life.

Read

About half of Russians believe that Russia should complete its military operation in Syria. Less than a third of the survey participants (30%) conducted by sociologists from the Levada Center were in favor of its continuation. Another 22% of respondents found it difficult to answer this question. According to a similar survey by the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research (VTsIOM), in April, 53% of Russians supported the continuation of the Russian military operation in Syria.

Russia entered into a military operation in Syria on September 30, 2015. Its official goal is the fight against terrorism. Since the beginning of 2017, according to the agency Reuters, at least forty Russian military personnel and private military specialists were killed in Syria. In March 2016, the President of Russia Vladimir Putin stated that the Russian military operation in Syria cost about 33 billion rubles. According to estimates by the Yabloko party, they could range from 108 to 140 billion rubles.

Reuters notes that among the dead are 21 fighters from so-called “private military companies,” 17 career military personnel and two Russians, whose status has not been established. Losses for this year have thus increased significantly compared to the previous 15 months of the military campaign in Syria, when at least 36 Russian citizens were killed, the agency writes. The authors of the publication emphasize that the commanders of the units fighting in Syria demand that the families of the victims remain silent. According to official data, only 10 Russian military personnel died in 2017. Discrepancies in numbers Reuters explains Russia’s refusal to recognize the participation of employees of private military companies in hostilities, as well as the upcoming presidential elections, against the background of which the issue of losses is “sensitive”.

The results of the survey, according to which Russians are becoming less and less concerned about the war in Syria and Russian losses in this country, comments the director of the Levada Center. Lev Gudkov.

No media source currently available

0:00 0:08:13 0:00

– When did the downward trend in support for the military operation of Russian troops in Syria begin?

– From the acute phase, from November 2015-January 2016, around this period. When it became clear that there would be no radical changes and the campaign itself would continue in much the same spirit, most of the people who were extremely worried when this operation began began to lose interest in it and move away. This is partly due to the reduction in the intensity of television propaganda, because over three years the monthly number of messages about Syria has fallen by three and a half times. Mainly the provincial bureaucracy, older people and pro-imperial people, for whom geopolitical issues are important as some new ideology in Russia, continue to follow this. And, on the contrary, those who can be called “socially weak groups”, that is, people with lower incomes, the elderly, who remember how the Afghan epic ended, are losing interest and are rather afraid that this will turn into a new Afghanistan.

– But still, the number of troops that were sent to Afghanistan was incomparably greater compared to the Syrian campaign. How often does this comparison to Afghanistan come up in surveys?

– Often enough. At first, when the operation just began, 46% believed that this is exactly how events would develop in Syria, according to the Afghan scenario, and only 38% considered it impossible. Now the ratio is the opposite: 32% still believe that, one way or another, this will end, but the absolute majority, more than half, are confident that this is unlikely or even completely excluded. Example of Afghanistan, trauma Afghan war is strong and sits very deeply in people’s memories. The only ones for whom it matters less are – these are young people who generally know little about the Soviet era, since there was a very significant gap between the Soviet past and Putin’s youth. They don’t follow this; for them it’s an insignificant analogy. And for the most part, of course, the end of the Afghan war and the end of the Soviet empire – it was such a paradigmatic process.

– What are people more afraid of: that Russia will get stuck in Syria for a long time, will spend a huge amount of money to support this operation, or that Russia will suffer human losses? There are, of course, losses, but they are still incomparable with the losses that Soviet Union carried in Afghanistan.

– No, people know very little about the losses, since practically nothing is reported about them on federal television, and these are the main channels of information. People don’t understand the very meaning of why they had to go there. This is far from Russia, and the versions offered by the Kremlin and official propaganda do not look very convincing to the mass audience. Fight against terrorism – this is not very clear, because where is Syria and where is Russia? Defending some interests of Russian companies – This is the second most common answer that Russians gave to explain this; it is too abstract and does not relate to their everyday life. life problems. The line of confrontation with the United States is being drawn from the general context. And this really worries people very seriously, because they understand that Russia has entered a clinch, a very deep and long-term confrontation with the West, which could end in the Third World War. Now the fear of this has weakened a little, but it has not gone away, the intensity of it has simply decreased, but the fear sits deep, people are afraid of it. Therefore, Syria is among the conflicts in which Russia was drawn in at the behest of its leadership.

– When Russian troops were first introduced into Syria, this operation had great support. And propaganda then worked at full capacity, but this was perceived as Putin showing the power of Russia to the West by supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad. In general, it seemed that this entire operation would be bloodless for Russia, that planes would bomb ISIS positions, and shelling would be conducted from ships. Has all this gone away already?

– I think this continues to work because the nature of the presentation of information about military operations in Syria has remained the same. And this is basically a “drumroll” about the strength of Russian weapons, about the victorious actions of Russian aviation. Main – convince people that these are only air operations, there are no ground operations and losses, and therefore there is nothing to worry about. The “humanitarian” aspect is also important here. When they show food distribution to women and children from trucks that say " Humanitarian assistance Russia", this gives moral satisfaction to the population. This important point confirmation of Russian self-identity. Russia, in the eyes of propaganda and the population, never acts as an aggressor; it is always a victim of someone else's will, someone else's malicious intrigues and provocations.

- We are talking more about propaganda, but let’s return to the losses, which, according to official data, this year amount to 17 people, according to unofficial data - 40. Do Russians really care about them?

– No, this hardly comes up in our surveys; in general, there are no signs of concern about the number of deaths. But again, this is the effect of information delivery. If any information comes through, it is two or three people who died at the hands of terrorists. Like random losses. Against the backdrop of a much larger number of victims of disasters or accidents in Russia, this is perceived quite indifferently, – notes Lev Gudkov.

The last official report of the death of Russian military personnel in Syria dates back to September 4. According to a spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Defense, the vehicle convoy came under mortar fire near the city of Deir ez-Zor, where heavy fighting is taking place. As a result, one soldier died on the spot, the other died from wounds in the hospital. The Ministry of Defense also confirmed that the militants defending the city are from a group banned in Russia." Islamic State" – mostly immigrants from Russia and CIS countries. Deir ez-Zor – The largest city in eastern Syria, its pre-war population was about two hundred thousand people.

Moscow. March 17. INTERFAX.RU – The Russian General Staff said that there are signs that the United States is preparing to strike Syria.

“We note the presence of signs of preparation for possible strikes,” Colonel General Sergei Rudskoy, head of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian General Staff, said on Saturday.

“In the eastern part Mediterranean Sea, strike groups of naval carriers of cruise missiles have been created in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea,” the general said.

“The question arises: who are the United States going to support with these strikes – the terrorists of Jabhat al-Nusra (a group banned in the Russian Federation) and their accomplices who are committing outrages in Eastern Ghouta?” - said Rudskoy.

He also said that the United States could strike government facilities and Syrian troops, declaring them to have used chemical weapons. “These provocations should serve as a reason for the United States of America and its allies to launch attacks on military and government targets in Syria,” the colonel general noted.

Earlier on Saturday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with the television and radio complex of the President of Kazakhstan that special forces from the United States, Great Britain and France are secretly working in Syria.

To what has been said, we should add one more message made the day before.

A significant deployment of British Army troops was seen at the American military base at Al-Tanf, including Challenger tanks, Cobra helicopters, and a total of we're talking about about the deployment of approximately 2,300 British troops.

Thus, it seems that Britain has sent more than just special forces to Syria.

Naturally, we do not have accurate intelligence data on where, what and how much has been deployed, but the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Federation said a lot:

“Strike groups of naval carriers of cruise missiles have been created in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea, in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea.”

When striking Shayrat airbase last April, the Pentagon used 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from two destroyers.

Not one, or even two individual destroyers are a ship group; the group includes at least 3 ships. As the general lists the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, then it turns out there are already three groups. If each group includes three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, each of which carries up to 56 Tomahawk missiles, then we can talk about the simultaneous launch of about 400 missiles.

In addition, the US has Indian Ocean There is an airbase on the island of Diego Garcia, which has seen unusual movements since 2016, from the transfer of a huge number of bombers to the area to the arrival of convoys with ammunition. According to eyewitnesses, so many steamships arrived that they stood in the roadstead for weeks awaiting unloading, and additional bombers had to be placed in places not intended for parking, since the regular parking areas were all occupied.

After the April strikes last year on Syria, information from Diego Garcia is blocked and we do not know what is happening there, however, during the previous Gulf Wars, the base was used very actively. On their first flight, the bombers fired cruise missiles, and on their next flight they carried a bomb load. When attacked by cruise missiles, bombers do not even come close to the coverage area of ​​Syrian air defense systems. The B-52 carries 20 AGM-86 ALCM cruise missiles, so with just 5 aircraft, the US could launch a strike with hundreds of cruise missiles.

Thus, if the United States is planning an attack on Syria, then it can fire 500 missiles without creating any particularly powerful strike groups. If desired, this number can be increased to 1000 or more.

Earlier, over the course of several weeks, we witnessed the systematic escalation of anti-Syrian and anti-Russian hysteria in the media. They used the poisoning of some agents in Britain, attacks by some Russian hackers on American nuclear facilities and transport systems and so on, they even found a North Korean air base in Syria. Thus, a formal “reason for aggression” has already been created for the United States and its allies. Forces and means have been deployed. Everything is ready to strike and the only question remains: when?

We have already done extensive analytical material on this topic: Will the United States start a world war on March 18, 2018?

We, of course, do not know the plans of the villains, however, as we explained in the above material, in the period March 18-22 there will be a very favorable astrological window for the US military operation. Other signs listed in the material also indicate this date, in particular the end of the Olympics. Finally, on March 18, elections will be held in Russia, and for Moscow, March 18 will not be the most convenient moment to react to certain extraordinary events.

Hence, we believe that if the United States has planned for the near future either some kind of war, or some kind of global provocation with the aim of starting a war, there is a very high probability that all this will happen in the next 24 hours.

The Syrian conflict, which began back in 2011, still remains the No. 1 topic for all world media. And although a lot has already been written and said about the situation in this country, AiF.ru decided to ask a few naive questions to the expert in order to better understand the essence of the problem.

1. Why do some radical Islamists fight with others, because these people seem to be fighting for the same cause?

Leonid Isaev, lecturer at the HSE Department of Political Science: In fact, these people have completely different interests. Each radical group wants to come to power in Syria, which gives rise to fierce competition between them. Of course, sometimes militants can unite to fight a common enemy. Over the past 5 years of the Syrian crisis, many similar coalitions and alliances have been formed. But for obvious reasons they are short-lived. Globally, everyone is trying to achieve their own selfish goals, which have nothing to do with religious slogans. Where did the idea of ​​fighting infidels, which radical Islamists use as cover, come from? At a certain point in time, Muslims began to wonder how to explain that the Muslim civilization, “having sanctified the whole world with dazzling splendor,” had faded away and was in the darkness of darkness, and how they could regain their former greatness. It was clear to many that this “golden age” of Islam was characterized primarily by high intellectual level development, when the Middle East was one of the world's scientific centers. But there were also those who took a different point of view, preferring to blame all their troubles on conventional infidels, no matter who they were, seeing them as the root of all the troubles of Muslims. Unfortunately, such reasoning arises due to high level ignorance that reigns in many countries in the region.

2. Who sponsors other terrorists who are fighting the Islamic State?

You can support the ideas advocated by various terrorist structures in different ways: someone prefers to take up arms and shoot those whom he considers an apostate, someone engages in propaganda among the population, someone recruits supporters for in social networks etc. At the same time, there are a lot of people in the world who share the idea of ​​the existence of infidels, but at the same time they are not ready to cut their throats with their own hands and for various reasons do not want to be affiliated with terrorist structures. But they can provide support to their like-minded people with weapons in their hands - money. From Morocco to Indonesia, there are a huge number of “sponsors” who sincerely believe that the message carried by certain terrorist structures is close to them, which means that the militants need to be supported in their fight for a “just cause.”

War for peace. Is the US supplying weapons to Syrian rebels?

At the same time, I want to note that it would be incorrect to say that countries at the state level sponsor terrorist groups, which we now hear very often. Material support is provided through various funds and other structures. Perhaps among the people in power in a particular country there are people who support some kind of terrorist structures, but they are far from being the embodiment of the entire state. Among those who sympathize with the militants, there are also those who oppose them.

3. How did it happen that all terrorists, peoples and conflicting parties appeared within the borders of one country?

Syria has always had a very complex, multi-confessional society. It is naive to think that Alawites, Christians or Muslims of various denominations appeared in Syria by chance, out of the blue, during the civil war. Of course, there are mercenaries and visitors, but for the most part those who are part of the moderate and immoderate opposition structures opposing each other on the territory of Syria are the Syrians themselves, who have lived there for centuries. The eclecticism of Syrian society has led to the fact that the composition of the warring parties is very heterogeneous, and the range of their ideological and political preferences is quite wide.

The relationship between them also always left much to be desired. No matter what anyone says. Problems were either shelved or resolved by force.

The “Arab Spring” in this context became a kind of “trigger” for Syria. In Iraq, this happened in 2003. There, the “trigger” was a military operation of the NATO coalition, although the root cause of the civil conflict that flared up later was the Iraqi government, or rather, its reluctance for decades to listen to the demands of various ethno-confessional groups living in this territory. The general situation that existed in the region in 2011: the fall of regimes, protests, instability, unrest, spread from one country to another and ultimately affected Syria, as if stirring up all the existing problems there, which for a long time existed in a kind of latent state. How many times have the Kurds asked for autonomy? But the authorities refused to listen to them. If they resorted to more active actions, they received harsh rebuff, and there are many such examples throughout the history of modern Syria. No wonder we ended up in complete chaos.

4. What is the strategic importance of Syria?

In this country, the interests of many players intersect. Of course, if a conflict on a Syrian scale had flared up, for example, in Yemen, Libya or Mali, then no one would have paid such close attention to it. There is so much savagery going on in Africa that the Syrian crisis seems like baby talk in comparison. There are also endless civil wars, remember Somalia - people kill each other in such brutal ways that the Islamic State would envy them.

I repeat once again that the interests of many states collide in Syria: Turkey, the USA, Russia, Iran, Israel, Europe, China, etc. Each of them has already “invested” enough in the existing crisis and is now counting on its “piece of the Syrian pirogue".

5. Islamic State - Syrians? If not, then why did they choose Syria for their deployment, and not Libya, for example?

The Islamic State exists in Libya, Nigeria, Yemen, etc. There are a lot of militants everywhere. They originated in Iraq, when fertile soil for them appeared there - a civil conflict, then gradually spread their influence to other countries. To carry out their activities, they choose the so-called failed states, where they feel like fish in water. As soon as they appeared on the political map of the Middle East and North Africa, they immediately began to enter the field of view of the Islamic State. Therefore, the appearance of this terrorist organization in Syria is just a coincidence.

6. Why does the Islamic State use a variety of methods to exterminate civilians, such as hydrochloric acid, executions, and cutting throats?

This is one of the elements of PR. They can’t just quietly cut off someone’s head without witnesses. It is important for them to show their atrocities and sophisticated methods of reprisal to the whole world, since such stories arouse great interest from the media. Black PR is also PR. The militants understand this very well. Attention can be attracted either by military successes, which has now become much more difficult, or by bullying the civilian population. As long as they don’t leave TV screens, they are interesting, new people come to their ranks, they are financed. As soon as people stop talking about the Islamic State, it will turn into an ordinary terrorist structure. Militants constantly need to come up with more and more new ways to attract attention, because for them it is a matter of “effective” existence.

7. What are the Kurds seeking in the Syrian conflict?

The minimum task is that the Syrian Kurds want to gain a certain amount of independence in resolving issues that arise in their territory of residence. They are trying to negotiate with the center on the redistribution of powers in their favor. The maximum task is to get your own state. It is a paradox that an ethnic group as large in number as the Syrian Kurds still do not have it. There is nothing like this anywhere else in the world.

Today the chances of achieving autonomy are high. But I note that if the current regime shows its obstinacy in this issue, there is a high probability that the Syrian Kurds may move to more radical ways to solve this problem and try to unilaterally secede from the country.

8. Why does Erdogan dislike the Kurds so much and who does he protect in Syria?

First of all, Erdogan protects his own interests and, accordingly, those political forces in Syria that in one way or another depend on him can somehow help him in solving existing problems.

He doesn't like Kurds for a very simple reason. This is an integral, rather impressive part of the Turkish state, which wants to have more independence and be full participants in the political process. But official Ankara prevents this. Erdogan perceives the Kurds as the most important destabilizing force.

9. Who is participating in peace negotiations on Syria, which parties?

On this moment Three parties are participating in the Geneva peace talks, which are united in the so-called groups - Riyadh, Moscow and Cairo. Since in last group the majority were Kurds, and the question of their participation in Geneva was questioned; they decided to partially boycott these negotiations and joined the Moscow group.

There is also now a question of whether the “Khmeimim group” should join the negotiations in Geneva as an independent recognized force. These are precisely the same political and public figures in Syria, which Russian base Khmeimim agreed to create their own opposition structure.

I note that all groups are built on the same principle. They include people who are recognizable abroad, one way or another integrated into the world community, and representatives of groups directly involved in the struggle for power in Syria.

10. What are the goals of other Islamic countries in Syria?

Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Iran are interested primarily in realizing their geopolitical ambitions in Syria and spreading their influence there. Each of these countries would like to “recoup” the resources previously spent on participating in the Syrian crisis. They need to at least break even, that is, if they don’t win anything, then at least they don’t lose anything. And yet, it is desirable to achieve larger dividends compared to those they had before the Arab Spring, i.e. before 2011. Otherwise, a logical question arises: “What have we been doing there all this time, why have we invested our resources there?”

For Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, the Syrian conflict is relevant, first of all, because of the need to achieve stability on the borders, to ensure their own security, in order to protect themselves from the spread of destabilization processes in their territories.

11. Will Syria fall apart as a result of the war?

In fact, today Syria is not a single state, although formally boundaries exist. Let me remind you that one of the key characteristics of any state is the ability to control its territory within certain boundaries, ensure law and order there, the operation of laws, the collection of taxes, etc. But in modern Syria, all this does not exist. I would formulate the question differently: will it be possible to reunite Syria into a single state?

We will be able to see a united country only if we succeed in resuming the negotiation process and the parties are ready to compromise. Alas, today one of the most uncompromising parties is the Syrian regime. He rejects any attempts at any serious, structural reform of the country. If they agree with someone, they do so formally. Enough to remember parliamentary elections in April of this year.

However, given the current situation, absolutely everyone will have to sacrifice something. Including the Syrian regime. He will definitely have to lose some of his powers in favor of the regions and other political forces. The Ba'athist monopoly on power must end. Of course, no less questions arise for the opposition. But still, the outcome of the situation in the country depends on the government.

12. Why do Americans support Islamists?

I wouldn't phrase the question that way. For example, they do not support the Islamic State or Jabhat al-Nusra. Although some groups that in the future aim to establish Sharia law in Syria may receive American support. First of all, the States are interested in structures that they consider more promising for themselves, and indeed sometimes Islamists are found among them. In any case, in this matter, various ideological things fade into the background, only pragmatic calculations come to the fore.

13. Where did the Islamic State come from?

From Iraq. This is one of the structures that fought against the Shiites, the American presence and the new government in the country. The Islamic State is the result of unresolved internal conflicts. Once these problems are eliminated, terrorist organizations will cease to exist. There is no need to think that the Islamic State is someone’s project aimed at destabilizing the situation in the region. In a strong state, such things do not appear, even if there is a desire to destabilize the regime from the outside. Remember how many times the Americans tried to “shatter” the regime in Cuba. But to no avail, because there we see a monolithic regime that completely controls the situation. But in Syria and Iraq, the state rotted from the inside; there was no need to make any efforts to destabilize the situation.

An organization whose activities are prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation.

• © / Sergey Osipov
• © / Sergey Osipov
• ©