Korotchenko: The West will send Syrian armed insurgents to the CIS countries

The semicentennial reign of Assads in Syria had a blistering and dramatic finish. As a result of a sledge attack by the opposition forces, the central government lost control over the country, and Syria found itself at the threshold of a new political reality.

To analyze the current situation and to try to forecast the future, Vesti.Az turned to Igor Korotchenko, the General Director of the Caspian Institute for Strategic Studies (Russia).

– What kind of political reality developed in the Middle East upon the fall of Assad’s government in Syria?

– The situation in Syria has changed drastically: the reign of Bashar Assad actually collapsed, and Syria ceased to exist as a centralized state. The Syrian army lost coordination, became disarmed, and many of its representatives changed into civilian clothes and scattered. The armed forces of the opposition, the significant part of which is represented by international terrorist groups invaded Damascus and other main cities of the country.

Thus, a new geopolitical reality developed demonstrating complete destruction of the former national government.

Currently the territory of Syria is effectively divided into several parts.

The first part is controlled by Israel, who expanded its area of influence. In addition to the Golan Heights, Israel established control over the adjacent areas of the Syrian territory by sending its ground forces including armored motor and tank units. Benjamen Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, declared these territories to be part of Israel from now on, and the Agreement of 1974 regulating the status of the Golan Heights being no longer relevant in the context of disappearance of the former Syrian state.

The second part is under control of the United States maintaining their military footprint and subordinate forces in the territory of oil fields. Washington declared its intent to toughly suppress the attempts to change the current status-quo including striking blows against the breachers.

The third part of Syria is effectively controlled by Turkey, and the Turkish armed forces are deployed there. By all appearances, Ankara intends to secure its regional presence by controlling the zones it used to view as the security areas.

The remaining territories including the capital city of Damascus came under the control of the armed insurgents.

There are no centralized government bodies in Syria any more, and the governance of the country comes down to local stakeholders. The transitional government is likely to be formed in the near future, and the remaining power of the former Syrian government will be vested on it. They will be in charge of developing the new government structure based on the consensus between different groups.

– What does it mean for Russia?

– For Russia the current situation is a new geopolitical reality. Despite the dramatic changes in Syria, Moscow has maintained its military presence so far and its waiting for the future of its two military bases becoming clearer. However, the developments will become more understandable in the next few weeks. Judging by the fact that the new Syrian authorities having slaughtered the Iranian embassy did not undertake similar action against the Russian embassy and even initiated certain contacts with Moscow, we can assume there are certain agreement or bargaining points, which may define the further scenarios.

Russia remains an important player in the Middle East despite the destruction of the Syrian state system. Its stable relations with the key regional powers – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Egypt – continue to play the role of a stability factor. These countries continue to balance their relations with the West by supporting their contacts with Moscow providing for Russia to maintain certain influence in the region.

As for Syria, it is obvious that its existence as the centralized state is over. The territory of the country effectively has been divided into four zones. Israel de-facto annexed its controlled zones including the expanded territories of the Golan Heights. In future it will be de-jure formalized despite the contradiction with the standards of the international law, but in accordance with the Israeli legal framework.

The remaining part of Syria is likely to be governed according to the Iranian model. Within the formal national unity, Damascus will lose control over certain territories. These zones will be administered by the forces supported by the USA and Turkey. As for Damascus, it will become the power center of the armed opposition now being in control of the city. The local government functions are most likely to be performed by groups relying on external support.

Hence, Russia will remain in the region, but its role in the new Syrian system of government is questionable and will depend on the forthcoming negotiations and decisions at the international arena.

– The questions on support coming from Turkey in the recent Syrian events are really of interest. How will the relations between Moscow and Ankara be developing in this new reality?

– The recent decade proved that despite periodical challenges and contradictions Moscow and Ankara are mutually interested in maintaining constructive dialogue and strengthening their economic ties. Turkey comprehending the low probability of its accession to the European Union and facing internal contradictions within NATO is striving for balanced relations with Russia. The economic pragmatism remains the key factor underpinning these relations.

Based on public statements of President Erdogan, in the current situation Ankara has no intentions to aggravate the relations with Moscow. The Turkish leader emphasizes the importance of dialogue and demonstrates the intent to avoid confrontation with Russia, especially against the background of the new geopolitical situation.

We can assume that the Russian party will have the same take and will continue to develop its cooperation with Turkey. This approach corresponds with both economic and strategic interests of the two countries providing the platform for further cooperation despite the challenges and changes in the region.

– What are the risks and threats that the post-Soviet area is facing?

– We need to take into account that the Western secret services will attempt to channel the terrorist activities from Syria to the FSU area. Emigrants from certain countries of this region upon having acquired terrorism skills will return to their homes and may serve as a catalyst of new threats.

The key challenge is to develop an efficient mechanism of interaction between the security agencies of the CIS member states. It is necessary for fast identification and prevention of the attempts to infiltrate the countries with insurgents and terrorists, as well as for prevention of the threats associated with their activities. I support the statement made by Sergey Naryshkin, the Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia, warning about the plans of the UK and the USA to destabilize the FSU area by re-directing the terrorist activity from the Middle East. This is a common threat requiring the consolidation of efforts by all the countries in the region.

Special attention should be paid to preventing the attempts of the color-coded revolutions. These scenarios are often accompanied by sabotage attacks targeted at overthrowing legitimate authorities. Today, such technologies represent a threat absolutely for all the post-Soviet states.

The current situation in Georgia may be an example, where the opposition does not recognize the results of the democratic elections and uses the methods of pressure similar to those used in the course of the color-coded revolutions. Such attempts did not bring any results in Belarus or in Serbia, but the threat is still relevant.

The activity of the embassies of certain Western countries is another important destabilizing factor, as they actively support the opposition with their financial and other resources. This activity requires thorough analysis and efficient counteraction to prevent dissemination of chaos in the region.

Special focus should be given to Armenia, who is becoming the subject of the reinforced support on behalf of the Western countries. Financial resources and arms are being pumped into this country turning it into a potential source of instability this creating the risks for the entire South Caucasus. It is crucial for the responsible regional stakeholders to combine their efforts to counteract these negative trends and to strengthen the stability.