I usually visit Marat’s VK site daily, but didn’t yesterday, so I missed his Ukraine Front update, This morning I was surprised to find this very important essay of his that serves as a counterpoint to my somewhat superficial analysis about policy failure and backstabbing which is what I saw on the surface. He calls it, “Lessons from Syria: Assad and Putin. Why do brutals lose?” At first, the title made no sense, but that was soon explained. Marat’s experience as a very perceptive observer and participant in the Soviet then Russian drama and his contacts make him a very credible source. And since many cannot access VK, I’m mirroring it here for Gym readers to chew on. Another commentator brought forth another angle I hadn’t considered related to the Pipelineistan aspect of the initial attempt to oust Assad—with the severance of Nord Stream and other Russian energy supplies to Europe, the Outlaw US Empire’s destruction of Europe’s economy is done and there’s nothing any new gas pipeline project can do to rectify that reality. Now we have Marat’s “Lessons”:
Syria is everything. No matter how bitter it is to realize it. But there is such a maxim – no matter how hard the failure is, if you have learned from it, then this is no longer a failure, but the next step uphill. In other words, working on mistakes is more important than the mistakes themselves. Everyone faces failures on the path of life, but not everyone draws conclusions from this. Let’s try to understand what experience can be learned from the situation with Syria.
First. Kindness is very important. Assad has shown himself to be a great warrior. He survived the 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 draw conclusions from his mistakes. Broadly speaking, Assad has not cared for his people, who have suffered from civil war. He did not forgive those who opposed him and refused to start a process of national reconciliation. The people in Syria remained divided. The West imposed tough sanctions on Syria and did everything in its power to prevent the restoration of state revenues from the same oil fields. This killed all attempts to start economic recovery. And Assad, instead of letting go of the reins, has significantly increased the tax burden.
The Middle East is such a big bazaar: trade, small business are the essence of the way of life of the local peoples. Assad, instead of allowing people to survive in difficult times at least due to this, strangled everyone with taxes. And 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 before our eyes.
Putin before 2012 and after are two different rulers. The first is tough, uncompromising, ready to kill enemies everywhere. And the second one will probably go down in the history of Russia as a caring and merciful ruler, practically coinciding with the ideal of a good but just tsar-father from our legends. The essence of Putin’s transformation is outwardly clear and simple (we do not know what it cost him internally). Here I will not resist and illustrate how I understand this. They sent an old article by Lavlinsky (the real name of the writer Prilepin). “Rotten. From the head. From below. Above. From the tail. Who came from where,” he writes. And then my favorite: “You can’t compare a prude and a cannibal.” The first, if anything, means Brezhnev, the second Putin. And Lavlinsky-Prilepin shouts at the end: “Only Putin’s departure from power can stop the revolution. Hurry up already…” And then he knowingly reports that the candidacy of “the blessed left-leaning Khodorkovsky” is already being considered to replace Putin. He knows how to lick asses, devil.
But the point is not that Putin did not get even with Prilepin after 2012 (also a figure for me). The bottom line 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 much he mimics the current political moment. There is nothing to be done—he has the right. No matter how disgusting it may cause in others. But even such a person is still our person, which means that we need to learn to live in the world. The duty of a wise ruler is to set a personal example for the people. After 2012, Putin managed to do this and focus on the good of the entire people. Putin did not divide us into “Lavlinskys” and others. Assad could not do that. For him, the Syrians remained divided into friends and foes. And he did not take care of either of them. Of course, Assad’s circumstances were very difficult, but the history of taxes shows that he did not even try.
Second. For us, this is not a catastrophe. Somehow everything turned out to be cunning here. For Russia, Syria was a kind of transit point on the way to Africa. By losing Syria, we are losing transshipment bases (both air and sea). It is this point that the Western press is now pointing to. However, reading their jubilant articles, one gets the feeling that there is an obvious annoyance behind this jubilation. Why? Because, if you look a little deeper, Putin has beaten everyone here too. The fact is that the fall of Syria occurred just a few months after the launch of the North-South land corridor at full capacity. From the ports of St. Petersburg along the Trans-Caspian land route 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 serious achievement. And it’s not even 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 will take your breath away. I will not describe all the advantages, they are known. I just want to draw attention to how subtly Putin played the Turkish card. In fact, we gave Syria to Turkey. The Turks have entered their situation, as they say, with 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 and North Korea. Or as with Kazakhstan. This is a very important achievement. We did not fit in for Assad now, because if we did, in the eyes of the peoples of the Middle East, we would be no better than the Americans, who support Somoza to the last. Assad had a second chance, and we honestly supported him. Until the critical moment came. Having “escaped” from the war in time, we managed to leave the problems to all our sworn partners. Take Israel. Instead of Iranian proxies, who were held “by the leash and muzzled” by Russia in Syria, Israel received a full-fledged Turkish gang on its borders. A Turkey-Israel link, and even with a gasket from the British Al-Qaeda (Hayat Tahrir – both are banned in Russia) – this, I tell you, will be worse than any bazaar – try to negotiate.
Russia and Iran washed their hands of the asset that had lost its value, freeing up energy for other areas and getting the opportunity to focus on building projects that can bring real profit. And besides, they have done a great formal service to Turkey – it wants to have fun to the fullest, but for God’s sake. The main thing now is that the Turks are also our allies. Simply brilliant. At the same time, we wink at Trump with both eyes: look what a favor we have done you – Syria has been returned to the Islamists, Iran has been removed from Israel. And a favor, as they say, for a favor: let’s urgently start the peace process in Ukraine. Zelensky is impaled, NATO is in the toilet. Somehow they started talking about peace in the United States at the right time. That is, no matter how you look at it, we “exchanged” Syria very successfully. Moreover, the Assad regime was dead anyway. Formally, this is a defeat. Therefore, of course, we will sprinkle ashes on our heads and have fun watching how the Anglo-Saxons celebrate the victory with sour smiles. Putin has publicly sold them a rotten apple that they cannot refuse. Democracy, you say? Here are your Islamists in the face, let them show you how to build a happy life. And we will mind our own business.
Of course, no one will ever be able to confirm this, but it is not for nothing that this card fell so well. I can’t believe that by itself. [My Emphasis]
Well, as I suggested: Chew on it. Marat’s Russian audience will understand the comparison-contrast he makes. My take is Putin learned and grew a great deal during his time as Russian Prime Minister. There’s also the very mysterious shift from active defense of the SAA to a very determined diplomatic track that was well supported by Turkey and the apparent agreement with the Turks about the sanctity of Russia’s military bases on the coast.
It’s Heroes of the Fatherland Day. I’m rather certain Marat’s wish for peace is because he’s witnessed so much slaughter. Only time will tell if Marat’s analysis holds true. Mine is most certainly undergoing modification.
