диссертация (1169605), страница 23
Текст из файла (страница 23)
Still the Obama’sorder did not mention arms delivery to the opposition. In December 2012 the206Cooper H., Landler M., Rubin R. Obama Allows Limited Airstrikes on ISIS. The New York Times, 7 Aug. 2014.Web. 1 January 2018. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/obama-weighs-military-strikes-to-aidtrapped-iraqis-officials-say.html?_r=0.207U.S. Airstrikes Hit ISIS Targets inside Syria - CNN.com.CNN. Cable News Network, 23 Sept. 2014.
Web. 1January 2018. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/22/world/meast/u-s-airstrikes-isis-syria/.93United States officially recognized the “National Coalition of Syrian Oppositionand Revolutionary Forces” (established in November 2012 in Doha, Qatar unitingvarious groups of Syrian opposition) as the “legitimate representative” of theSyrian people and as the leading governing structure of all opposition forces.However there was no mentioning of arms delivery to the “opposition” in theforeseeable future, though arms were always supplied to the terrorist groupscovertly threw Turkey and with the funding of the Gulf countries under thesupervision of the United States despite Washington not officially acknowledgingit.Radical shift in the American policy came with the new administration of D.Trump.
After the chemical attack on April 4, 2017 in Idlib (north-west of Syria)when according to figures presented by the World Health Organization (WHO)more than 80 people died and more than 500 suffered, the American administrationchanged position towards the Syrian conflict. President Trump said that Syriacrossed the red lines. On April 4 State Secretary R.
Tillerson also declared that thechemical attack “violated UN resolutions, international norms and agreements”between Russia, Syria and all other members of the UN Security Council. Theadministration blamed the Syrian government for the chemical attack and warnedthat the US was working to make a serious answer to the Syrian government.And the answer followed: on April 7, 2017 there was a severe air-strike onthe Syrian base in Shayrat. According to Syrian Information Agency SANA, 9people died (4 children among them). The US representative in the UN N. Haleydeclared that the United States do not see any possibility of achieving peace inSyria with the government, and American aim is not only this regime change butalso destruction of the Islamic state (DAESH) 208.The Russian scholar M.
Braterskiy points out that the United States uses twotypes of policies towards to various countries: deterrence and involvement.Deterrence means international isolation by establishing political coalitions whichsupport and pursue American policy; introducing sanctions; using military208Эволюция позиции США по сирийскому кризису. Досье // http://tass.ru/info/5125589.94methods to prevent any reciprocal actions or/and to force it to change its policy.
M.Braterskiy also states that the United States can use radical methods – “strategy ofthrowing back” aimed at changing the political regime by supporting theopposition, by conducting special operations and even military intervention209.Policy of involvement has the same aims – to influence policies of certaincountries. However methods are different: engage the country in international tradestructures, develop humanitarian ties (culture, tourism, etc.), integrate the countryinto existing system of international organizations and agreements.
In this case thecountry, understanding the benefits from this kind of involvement, gradually willgive up any offensive plans and change its policy towards Western countries210.The United States used policy of deterrence towards Syria using full list ofrepressive methods.The Daesh development is thus the epitome of the US strategy inoverthrowing the Syrian government, and it’s not unlikely that it could bereplicated against other governments as well. It allows the US to not only retain adegree of ‘plausible deniability’ in pursuing regime change, but one can argue thatit’s even an attempt to make America ‘look good’ while doing it too, since it’ssupposedly only engaged in an ‘anti-terrorism’ campaign.
The dangerous coverthat the US is using to ‘legitimize’ its direct intervention opens up near-limitlessopportunities for exploitation and conflict escalation, and it’s truly a Damocles’sword intended to strike fear and uncertainty in the hearts of the targeted decisionmakers. Be that as it may, the Syrian government remained confident and calm,avoiding the trap that the US set up for it, but the situation continued to be criticaland extreme caution was obviously being observed.Approximately one year after the US began its “anti-Daesh” bombingcampaign in Syria, the Syrian Arab Army and allied pro-government forces werebeing worn down by the terrorists’ advances.
Instead of stemming the tide ofБратерский М.В. США и проблемные страны Азии: обоснование, выработка и реализация политики в1990-2005 гг. М.: Московский общественный научный фонд; Институт США и Канады РАН, 2005. C. 113.210Бирюков Е. Этапы и инструменты внешней политики США на Ближнем Востоке //https://mgimo.ru/upload/iblock/d07/biryukov.pdf20995Daesh advances, the US bombing campaign clearly coincided with a rapidenlargement of the group’s holdings, thereby furthering the argument that the USwasn’t trying to fight the terrorists but was instead indirectly aiding them thisentire time per the strategic ‘corralling’ policy which was earlier described.
Thesituation became so dire by September 2015 that it appeared to many outsideobservers that the capital of Damascus might fall to the terrorists by the end of theyear, though it was during this most dire and darkest moment of the war thatRussia began its celebrated anti-terrorist operation in Syria. This operationseriously impacted on the US and NATO conventional military operations in Syria.Almost exactly two years after the 2013 chemical weapons false flag attacknearly led to a conventional American War on Syria, President Putin spoke at theUN General Assembly. The situational backdrop had considerably changed in theperiod since, and while the risk of a Libyan-like NATO campaign on Syria haddiminished, the terrorist threat inside of the country had remarkably spiked. Thiswas all the more ironic because the US and its allies had supposedly been bombingDaesh and other terrorists over the past year, though that campaign was more of aneffort to ‘corral’ them in the direction of shared interests than to undertake anysincere effort aimed at destroying them.
In that respect, the American “antiterrorist” campaign in Syria was a success because Daesh had grown in the pastyear and was rapidly gaining the strength necessary to threaten Damascus andtopple the Syrian state 211.It was with this context in mind that President Putin addressed the UNGA onwhat would soon turn out to be the advent of Russia’s first military interventionoutside of the former Soviet Union since the end of the Cold War. The RussianPresident described the international situation that led up to the crisis in the Arabiccountries and Syria and questioned why the world had let it get to as dangerous ofa point as a terrorist group being on the brink of taking control of an entire country.President Putin drew effective parallels to the World War II Allied coalition211Kemp T.
ISIS in Damascus: Fighting in Syrian capital a new threat. CNBC. 7 Apr. 2015. Web. 27 January 2017.http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/07/isis-in-damascus-fighting-in-syrian-capital-a-new-threat.html96against the fascist threat and argued that a modern-day equivalent is necessary inorder to defeat terrorism. It was a principled proposal to make, especially bearingin mind how it was presented at the UNGA.
The contrast between the West’scomplicity in destabilizing the Mideast – which President Putin brilliantlyexplained in detail during his speech – and Russia’s efforts to restore peace andstability through its forthcoming anti-terrorist intervention were very prominent212.The Russian Strategic Missile Forces officially began their anti-terroristintervention in Syria on 30 September, 2015, and forever after altered the course ofthe War on Syria and the future of the Middle East.The whole world was taken off guard by Russia’s direct militaryinvolvement in the war, and it unexpectedly threw a wrench in the US plans forusing Daesh, Al Nusra, and other terrorist groups as on-the-ground proxies foroverthrowing the legitimate government of President Assad.
The Russian ForeignMinister S. Lavrov commenting on the first anniversary of Russia’s anti-terroristoperation said: “We have more and more reasons to believe that from the verybeginning the plan was to spare al-Nusra and to keep it just in case for Plan B orstage two when it would be time to change the regime” 213. As the Foreign Ministerhimself recognized, while the US continued to rely on jihadist proxy mercenariesin Syria, it also modified its ground campaign to incorporate the use of Kurdishmilitias, albeit to a different stated end than the Islamists.One of the first major responses that the US made to Russia’s conventionalinvolvement in Syria was to support the creation of the so-called “SyrianDemocratic Forces” (SDF), which are a composite ‘rebel’ fighting group led by theKurdish PYD-YPG presiding over a minority of Arab fighters 214.
The Kurds hadhitherto earned a legendary reputation in Western eyes for their American-assistedanti-terrorist resistance to Daesh around the northern Syrian town of Ayn al-Arab,212Putin V. 70th session of the UN General Assembly. President of Russia. 28 Sept. 2015. Web. 27 January 2018.http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50385.213US ‘spare Nusra for plan B’ to change regime in Syria – Lavrov. RT. 30 Sept.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
