In Syria, Putin Acts as Conflicted West Preaches (Le Figaro, France)

Allowing the Rest of the World to Speak Directly to Americans
Promoting Peace, Diplomacy and Cross-Cultural Understanding

Home

Archives

About Us

Non-U.S. Newspapers

[Click Here for More Le Temps Cartoons]

In Syria, Putin Acts as Conflicted West Preaches (Le Figaro, France)

"The main explanation for Putin's support of Assad – for whom he has no particular sense of friendship – is that he doesn't want to see an Islamist victory in Syria since that would have immediate repercussions in the North Caucuses. … What's striking is the naivety of positions in the West, which continually conflate moral choices and those that should be guided by our interests. Should we act, hand on heart, as if we are the only ones with a conscience - and while Saudi Arabia is human rights lawman at the U.N.? This isn't serious. It is time to act in accordance with our own well-understood interests." -- Le Figaro geostrategist Gérard Chaliand

Translated By Martyn Fogg

October 5, 2015

France – Le Figaro – Original Article (French)

An interview of Le Figaro geostrategist Gérard Chaliand [photo, right] conducted by Eléonore de Vulpillières. Chaliand is a specialist in the study of armed conflict and international and strategic relations. He is the author, with Michel Jan, of Vers un nouvel ordre du monde (Toward a New World Order), Seuil 2013.

Le Figaro: What's your analysis of the way Vladimir Putin has assumed a leading role on the Syria issue?

Gérard Chaliand: While chancelleries are unhappy about Putin's involvement - he will be working with the West. There is a difference between a general appreciation of the Russian action, which we share, and a manifestation of that appreciation. The West does a lot of hand waving, sometimes delighted with Russian firmness in the struggle against Daesh [Islamic State], at other times critical of its overly pro-Assad position. Evidence that Putin has become an unavoidable player on this issue is the visit paid him in Moscow by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [videos below and right]. He went to make sure that there would be no missiles fired at Israel or weapons supplies to Hezbullah.

Putin seeks to contain and weaken Daesh and the other Islamist movements – a fact that must not be overlooked. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are essentially pressing al-Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front and movements working with them Northern Syria.

Le Figaro: Barack Obama has denounced support for "tyrants like Assad." Contrary to Obama, Putin wants to work with Assad in order to fight Deash. Why?

Gérard Chaliand: In fighting the Islamists, they [Russians] reflexively back the Assad regime. From the beginning - Putin has openly supported Assad. From his point of view, there are many advantages to offering that support. Assad is an old ally. Since 1971, Russia has had privileged access to the port of Tartus, which is not only Russia's only access to the Mediterranean, but the location of its only military base outside the territory of the former USSR. In particular, the main explanation for Putin's support of Assad, for whom he has no particular sense of friendship, since in politics, personal considerations do not exist, is that he doesn't want to see an Islamist victory in Syria since that would have immediate repercussions in the North Caucuses. Some of the men fighting Assad's regime are from the Caucuses where they could return later in great numbers. Russia fears an Islamist surge that would affect the Caucuses and the eastern borders of the Commonwealth of Independent States and Central Asia. The fall of the Assad regime would be synonymous with a rise in Islamism and terrorist attacks on Russian territory.

Following the same logic, Putin proposed support for Afghanistan in its efforts to stabilize - because a Taliban victory would have a highly negative impact on Russia.

Posted By Worldmeets.US

Le Figaro: How can we explain why this stalemate has persisted for four years?

Gérard Chaliand: The United States is fighting Daesh more half-heartedly than they fought and bombed Kosovo and other places. They are afraid of causing the least collateral damage - which would provide material to Islamic State to produce anti-Western propaganda. In the United States, the effectiveness of bombing is disputed.

Yesterday we posted a column from Polish columnist Tomasz Bielecki, who called the notion of a Vatican-Kremlin...
Posted by WorldMeetsUS on Friday, June 19, 2015

Le Figaro: Which of the two positions is likely to triumph - the Russian or American?

Gérard Chaliand: Sooner or later the Assad regime is doomed. Would that mean a slaughter of Alawites coming on top of a civil war between competing Islamist movements? Or will the war of attrition go on for a while yet?

Le Figaro: What are the implications of Russia's engagement on the ground?

Gérard Chaliand: We don't exactly know yet. The Russians will provide materiel that will support the regime. Perhaps they'll send Russian pilots in aircraft that will bomb Islamic State. The Americans did something similar in the 1960s and 70s by claiming that it was South Vietnamese forces doing the bombing. These are widespread practices in times of war - which obviously no one ever recognizes.

What's striking is the naivety of positions in the West, which continually conflate moral choices and those that should be guided by our interests. Should we act, hand on heart, as if we are the only ones with a conscience - and while Saudi Arabia is human rights lawman at the U.N.? This isn't serious. It's time to act in accordance with our own well-understood interests.

Le Figaro: France has announced that it wants to make unilateral strikes in Syria. Russia sees in that as a "violation of international law" and has strongly criticized this "conception of self-defense that authorizes aerial strikes targeting a state attacking no one without consent of the latter." What do you think about the reasons [France] puts forward?

Gérard Chaliand: In Le Monde on September 29, Patrick Baudouin wrote that French strikes in Syria would be a "borderline abuse of procedure." Even so, for Putin’s Russia to make this criticism is exaggerated. One might retort that the annexation of Crimea was contrary to international law. This [French bombing] is no more abusive than the way the U.N. mandate in Libya was exceeded - which authorized the protection of the population - by exterminating Qaddafi. In politics, international law is often flouted.

#putin Tweets

MORE ON ISLAMIC STATE:
El Nashra, Lebanon: Charlie Hebdo Black and Bloody
Le Quotidien d'Oran, Algeria: Faulting Charlie Hebdo or Being Algerian are not Terrorist Acts!
Guardian, U.K.: Pope: Climate Change 'Man Made'; Free Speech Not 'Absolute'
Rzeczpospolita, Poland: Europe Unprepared for Next Inevitable Terrorist Strike
Telegraph, U.K.: Paris Attacks: Don't Blame these Atrocities on Security Failures
Sotal Iraq, Iraq: 'Ungrateful' Muslim Migrants Face Post-Paris Fallout
Guardian, U.K.: Jihadists Aren't the Only Ideologues
Rzeczpospolita, Poland: Assimilating Europe's Muslims: 'It May be too Late'
Publico, Portugal: After Paris Attacks: Still Pursuing Voltaire's Revolution
Sol, Portugal: A Religious War ... or a Political One?
Le Monde, France: Dominique de Villepin: Let France 'Resist the Spirit of War'
Kurier, Austria: After Paris, Freedom Writ Large is at Stake
Huanqiu, China: Condemn Paris Attacks ... and Western Cultural Insensitivity
Corriere Della Sera, Italy: 'Europe's 9/11': If this is Islam, here's What We'd Like
Die Zeit, Germany: Charlie Hebdo: Time to 'Impose the Enlightenment' on Islam
Le Figaro, France: War has Come to France - and France Must Win it