диссертация (1169605), страница 33
Текст из файла (страница 33)
At presentthere are 3 “cantons” with partly-Kurdish population in Syria – Jazira, Eufrat andAfrin defined as the “Democratic Federation of Northern Syria” (DFNS) (in thepast – “Rojava”). These regions are rather independent having their military forcesand local governing bodies. D. Okrest writes that there are Arabic leaders in Syriawho support the idea of federalization considering that this model can “unite allSyrian citizens” despite their religious, ethnic and national differences makingSyria a “really democratic country”276.
So, we can see that there are differentscenarios for the Syrian crisis settlement, suggested by specialists in internationalrelations and in the Middle East. Some of them can be discussed, but some of themare not acceptable for Syria, taking into consideration that much will depend on thesituation on the ground as well as the conflicting interests of the involved partieswho will act according to their general view of the world and regional situations.For Russia the security situation close to its borders is of vital importance, so itwill have to put more efforts and skills, diplomatic and military, to bring mostfavorable solution to the conflict.***The analysis shows that despite noticeable achievements in Syria first of alldue to the Russian military actions, though there are certain agreements achievedby the main outer players, there remain problems that require further discussionКак собрать Сирию заново // https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2018/02/26/751947-sobrat-siriy.Сирию ждет выбор между кантонизацией и федерализацией // http://www.ng.ru/problems/2018-0418/13_441_siria.html?print=Y.275276135and compromise.
The most important issue is the future of the Syrian state, andsuggested plan of federalization is not fully accepted by the Syrian government andpeople, though one cannot deny the fact that the Kurdish problem should besolved. One of the main obstacles to the solution is the American policy in theMiddle East and its global strategy aimed at consolidating US domineering role inthe world. Despite the fact that D. Trump promised to cut expenses for foreignpolicy and to bring more money to the American citizens, administration policyafter the elections of 2016 is different. Ambitious American policy will continueadded by a new cold war with Russia 277.
Arrogant and uncompromising behaviorhas a visible impact on the Syrian situation, complicates the situation for Russiafighting terrorism and trying to bring peaceful solution as soon as possible.The War on Syria is at a fundamental crossroads. The US and its Kurdishled SDF proxies are in a strong position to defend their on-the-ground gains andpush forth their desired political solution to the country’s crisis, while Russia isstill the top military actor in the theater and is capable of preventing the dissolutionof the Syrian state at the negotiating table provided that it has the will to do so.Russia must make sure that its hard-fought gains in Syria aren’t reversed at eitherAstana or Geneva, and the key to safeguarding its successes is to moderate itspolitical outreaches to the Kurds and not get too far ahead of itself in trying toappease their demands.277National Security Strategy of the United States of America.
December 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov136CONCLUSIONThe analysis of the American policy in the Syrian crisis allows to make thefollowing conclusions:1.Contemporary American strategy has incorporated ideas presented byrepresentatives of different theoretical schools: neoliberalism, neorealism,constructivism. It demonstrates quite realist aims at consolidating the US centralposition in the international order that is being constructed with the activeparticipation not only of the United States and its allies, but also of Russia, China,India, Turkey and some other actors.
The American strategy is characterized byhistoric and conceptual continuity and is directed at projecting power (military,economic, ideological) in the world, and keeping influence in the states andregions that are included into spheres of its interests where Middle East occupiesan important place. Neoliberalism is quite visible in the declarations of all strategicAmerican documents about promotion of “democratic values and institutions” tothe countries “lacking democratic political systems” or “violating basic democraticnorms”. Though this “democratic promotion” policy and establishment of theworld liberal order has not been successful, the American administration continueseven more adamantly to follow the declared strategy, and Syria is in the center ofthese American efforts.2.US policy in the Middle East and in the Syrian crisis in particularshows that the United States continues its hegemonic strategy and is ready to useall methods, including military, to achieve its goals.
Detailed examination of thestrategies and actions of several American administrations after the end of thebipolar world order demonstrated this kind of continuity, neoconservatism hasbecome the official American ideology.3.US policy in the Middle East and in Syria proves that events of socalled “Arabic Spring” are related to “color revolutions” in some post-Sovietcountries. The technology of regime change revolutions developed by G. Sharp,has been actively used by the United States in various countries. Application of137this technology brought instability to the countries – objects of the Americanpolicy, and it was very clearly seen especially in the Arabic countries.
In SyriaAmerican efforts to carry out regime change were not successful, so the decisionwas made to start a limited military operation (practically – war) against thiscountry.4.“Hybrid war” in Syria, started by the United States, was accompaniedby establishing a “conflict of identities” – national, ethnic, religious.
Very visiblerole in intensifying all kinds of conflicts and growth of extremist tendencies andsentiments among various groups of population was played by Daesh (ISIS) – socalled “Islamic State”. It was necessary to analyze how the US and other outerplayers fought against it, and whether the results were really decisive for the futuresurvival of Syria. The conclusion was that the decisive role was the beginning ofRussia’s military campaign that brought visible results in fighting terrorism andDaesh.5.Analysis of the American and NATO strategy in the Middle East andin Syria demonstrated dual character of their actions.
Prevailing importance wasgiven to the regime change in Syria, to the transformation of its political systemaccording to the American vision and concept while real fight with terrorism wasnot effective, and some positive results were visible only after Russia interfered.6.Besides the United States there are other outer players who try toinfluence the situation in Syria each with their own view of the region and to thebenefit of their interests. Among them there are Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, andRussia which plays the decisive role in the settlement. However, Russia has tocoordinate and take into account interests of regional actors, especially Turkey.7.The change in the situation in Syria and the actions of the several mostimportant players compelled the United States to employ the new “hybrid warfare”tool of trying to “federalize” the country.
This project is not accepted by the Syriangovernment and the vast majority of the population, though some Kurdish armedgroups who purport to represent this minority (which constitutes 12-13% of thetotal population) and control part of the state’s territory are in favor of it. This138means that the settlement of the Syrian crisis will remain on the agenda of theUnited States, Russia and Turkey who are most actively working for thesettlement.The research has proved that the presented hypothesis was correct. TheAmerican strategy in the Middle East is of hegemonic character, and its policy inSyria has been pursued according to this paradigm. American policy was aimed atdestabilizing the region and Syria in particular in order to establish and consolidatecontrol over the region, strategically important for the United States, and Syria as astrong, geopolitically important and rich in resources country.American policy towards Syria is one of the central defining factors of the21st century thus far, especially in the present moment.
It may not have been soimportant decades ago during the Cold War (although its significance during thatperiod shouldn’t by any means be underestimated), but it’s just that thecontemporary conditions of the emerging multipolar world order following thefailure of the “Arab Spring” theater-wide Color Revolutions and subsequentrevival of Russian leadership in Greater Eurasia created the conditions whichpushed Syria to the forefront of global geopolitics.
US grand strategy is aimed atdestabilizing the countries and regions of Eurasia in order to control theirgovernments and resources, and the US is targeting Syria in order to overthrow theleadership and reorganize the state into a loose federation of identity-based unitsthat would be easier for it to manipulate. At present there is no conflict morerelevant than Syria’s because its outcome will determine the geopolitical future ofthe Middle East, which in turn will shape the balance of power in Eurasia andthenceforth the world.The study demonstrated the influence that the three traditional theoreticalinterpretive schools of International Relations have on the US policy formation,reasoning that the interplay between them forms a unique goal-oriented patternwhich sees Neorealist geopolitical ends disguised by Neoliberal “humanitarian”and “democratic” rhetoric in order hide the Constructivist utilization of identitycentric warfare.
This forms the basis of the US Hybrid War on Syria, which can be139conceptualized as the phased transitioned from the failed “Arab Spring” theaterwide Color Revolution to the Unconventional Warfare of Daesh, Al-Nusra, andother terrorist groups against the democratically elected and legitimate governmentof the Syrian Arab Republic. Throughout the course of the dissertation, it was alsoexplained in more practical terms how the geopolitical theories-visions of the“New Greater Middle East” and “Blood Borders” served as the final end game thatthe US wanted to achieve, which were pursued under the rhetoric of “spreadingdemocracy” and “protecting human rights” though advanced on the groundthrough proxy sectarian Hybrid Warfare via a broad anti-Syrian “Lead FromBehind” coalition.
These are advanced through conventional intervention (20032011 War on Iraq) and Hybrid War destabilizations (post-“Arab Spring” after2011).The research strove to uncover the evolution of American policy in theSyrian conflict, looking back to the Cold War past for clues about how and why itprogressed as it did into the post-“Arab Spring” present. The outcome of thisacademic investigation was that the reader was presented with the changinggeopolitical motivations behind why the US continually targeted Syria for regimechange destabilization across more than half a century, though interestinglyillustrating that the same geostrategic determinants remained in place this entiretime.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
