Lessons from Syria; Assad and Putin. Why do the Brutalists Lose?

Opinion by Marat Khairullin

Syria is important. No matter how bitter it is to realize this. But there is such a maxim, "no matter how hard the failure is, if you have learned from it, then it is no longer a failure, but the next step up the mountain." In other words, working on mistakes is more important than the mistakes themselves. Everyone encounters failures in life, but not everyone draws conclusions from this. Let's try to understand what experience can be drawn from the situation with Syria.

First, kindness is very important.

Assad has shown himself to be a great warrior. He stood firm in a hopeless situation and got a chance in 2015 in the form of aid from Iran and Russia. But he did not use it, did not learn from his mistakes. In a broader sense, Assad failed to care for his people who suffered in the civil war. He has not forgiven those who opposed him and has refused to begin a process of national reconciliation. The people of Syria remain divided. The West imposed harsh sanctions on Syria and did everything in its power to prevent the state from restoring its income from the same oil fields. This killed all attempts to begin economic recovery.

And Assad, instead of letting go of the reins, increased the tax burden several times over. The Middle East is such a big bazaar: trade, small business - the essence of the way of life of the people here. Assad, instead of allowing people to survive in hard times, at least due to this, strangled everyone with taxes. Therefore, the society that gave Assad a chance after the first stage of the civil war did not give him a second chance - people simply refused to fight for him.

It must be said that we have a living example of this first lesson before our eyes. Putin before 2012 and after are two different rulers. The first is tough, uncompromising, ready to wipe out enemies everywhere. And the second will probably go down in Russian history as a caring and merciful ruler, practically coinciding with the ideal of a kind but fair tsar-father from our legends. The essence of Putin’s transformation is outwardly clear and simple (we don’t know what it cost him internally).

Here, I can’t resist illustrating how I understand this. They sent me an old article by Lavlinsky (the real name of the writer Prilepin). "Rotting. From the head. From the bottom. From the top. From the tail. Whoever can from where," he writes. And then my favorite: "You can't compare a hypocrite and a cannibal." By the first, by the way, he means Brezhnev, by the second, Putin. And Lavlinsky-Prilepin shouts at the end: "Only Putin's departure from power can stop the revolution. I wish it would happen sooner..." Then he goes on to say with knowledge of the matter that the candidacy of “the blessedly left-leaning Khodorkovsky…” is already being considered for Putin’s place. The devil sure knows how to lick ass...

But the point is not that Putin did not settle accounts with Prilepin after 2012 (what a figure). The point is that Putin allowed Prilepin-Lavlinsky with such views (it is clear that he did not change them, no matter what pose Lavlinsky took on TV) to run for the Duma, and even under the brand "For Truth" (they managed to privatize the truth). Do you know why?

Because Prilepin is also a Russian, no matter how he mimics the current political moment. There's nothing to be done - he has the right. No matter how disgusted people around you may feel, even such a person is still our person, and that means we all need to learn to live in peace.

The duty of a wise ruler is to show the people a personal example. Putin managed to do this after 2012 and focus on the welfare of the entire people. Putin did not divide us into "Lavlinskys" and others. Assad couldn't do that. For him, Syrians remained divided between insiders and outsiders. And he didn't take care of either. Of course, Assad's circumstances were very difficult, but the tax story shows that he didn't even try.

Second, it's not a disaster for us. Somehow, everything here has worked out cunningly. Syria was a transit point for Russia on the way to Africa. By losing Syria, we lose transit bases (both air and sea). This is precisely the point that the Western press is now pointing to. However, reading their jubilant articles, one gets the feeling that behind this jubilation, there is obvious annoyance.

Why? Because, if you look a little deeper, Putin has outplayed everyone here too.

The fact is that the fall of Syria occurred immediately after the launch of the North-South land corridor at full capacity. From the ports of St. Petersburg along the trans-Caspian land highway through Azerbaijan and Iran to the ports of the Indian Ocean. The project began to be implemented back in 2000.
This will be one of Putin's great legacies. His major achievement.

And it’s not even just about the fact that the supply of our projects in Africa (thanks to this route) did not suffer with the fall of Assad. The implementation of this corridor really opens up huge prospects that take your breath away. I will not describe all the advantages, they are well known. I just want to draw attention to how subtly Putin played the Turkish card.

In fact, we gave Syria to Turkey. We put ourselves in their position, so to speak - the Turks have 4 million refugees from Syria on the border. Plus the Kurds. Plus Iranian proxies. Plus everything else. Take it, dear friend Erdogan, this hornet's nest - it is now your problem.

Formally, we exchanged Syria for cooperation with Turkey. In particular, along the North-South corridor, and also, probably, for the right to build a second nuclear power plant. Perhaps there is something else. Putin has put our relations with Turkey on such a solid footing that in 10-15 years (maybe a little more) we will see exactly the same agreement on strategic cooperation with the Turks as with Iran, North Korea. Or as with Kazakhstan. This is a very important achievement. We did not stand up for Assad now, because if we had stood up, in the eyes of the peoples of the Middle East we would have been no better than the Americans, who supported Somoza to the last. Assad had a second chance, and we supported him honestly. Until the critical moment arrived.

Having “escaped” from the war in time, we managed to leave the problems to all our sworn partners.

Let's take Israel. Instead of Iranian proxies, which Russia kept "on a leash and in a muzzle" in Syria, Israel got a full-fledged Turkish gang on its borders. The Turkey-Israel connection, and even with the British Al-Qaeda (Hayat Tahrir - both are banned in Russia) intermediary - I tell you, this will be worse than any bazaar - try to come to a negotiated price!

Russia and Iran washed their hands of the asset, dumping it, which had lost its value, freeing up their energy for other areas and gaining the opportunity to focus on building projects that can bring real profit. And besides, we rendered a great formal service to Turkey - it wants to have fun to the fullest, for God's sake. The main thing is that now the Turks are also our allies. Simply brilliant.
At the same time, we wink at Trump with both eyes: look what a favor we did you - we returned Syria to the Islamists, removed Iran from Israel. And a favor, as they say, for a favor: let's urgently start a peace process in Ukraine. Zelensky on the stake, NATO in the toilet. Somehow, it's very timely that the US started talking about peace.

That is, no matter how you look at it, we "exchanged" Syria very successfully. Especially since the Assad regime was dead anyway. Formally, it is a defeat. So, of course, we will sprinkle ashes on our heads and cheerfully watch the Anglo-Saxons celebrate their victory with sour smiles. Putin publicly sold them a rotten apple that they can not refuse.

"Democracy, you say? Here, your Islamists, let them show you how to build a happy life. And we will go about our business." Of course, no one will ever be able to confirm this, but it is no coincidence that this card fell so successfully. It is hard to believe that it happened by itself.