Peace
Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo
By Mike Whitney
“This is the beginning of the end of jihadi
presence in Aleppo. After 4 years of war
and terror, people can finally see the end in
sight.”
—
Edward Dark, Twitter, Moon of Alabama
February
05, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "Counterpunch"
- A last ditch effort to stop a Russian-led
military offensive in northern Syria ended in
failure on Wednesday when the Syrian Arab Army (SAA)
backed by the National Defense Forces (NDF) and
heavy Russian air cover broke a 40-month siege on
the villages of Nubl and al-Zahra in northwestern
Aleppo province. The Obama administration had hoped
that it could forestall the onslaught by cobbling
together an eleventh-hour ceasefire agreement at the
Geneva peace talks. But when the news that Syrian
armored units had crashed through al Nusra’s
defenses and forced the jihadists to retreat, UN
envoy Staffan de Mistura suspended the negotiations
tacitly acknowledging that the mission had failed.
“I have
indicated from the first day that I won’t talk for
the sake of talking,” the envoy told reporters,
saying he needed immediate help from international
backers led by the United States and Russia, which
are supporting opposite sides of a war that has also
drawn in regional powers.” (Reuters) De Mistura
then announced a “temporary pause” in the
stillborn negotiations which had only formally begun
just hours earlier. Developments on the battlefield
had convinced the Italian-Swedish diplomat that it
was pointless to continue while government forces
were effecting a solution through military means.
After
months of grinding away at enemy positions across
the country, the Russian strategy has begun to bear
fruit. Loyalist ground forces have made great
strides on the battlefield rolling back the
war-weary insurgents on virtually all fronts. A
broad swathe of the Turkish border is now under SAA
control while the ubiquitous Russian bombers
continue to inflict heavy losses on demoralized
anti-regime militants. Wednesday’s lightening attack
on the strategic towns of Nubl and Zahraa was just
the icing on the cake. The bold maneuver severed
critical supply-lines to Turkey while tightening
the military noose around the country’s largest city
leaving hundreds of terrorists stranded in a
battered cauldron with no way out.
For the
last two weeks, the Obama team has been
following developments on the ground with growing
concern. This is why Secretary of State John Kerry
hurriedly assembled a diplomatic mission to convene
emergency peace talks in Geneva despite the fact
that the various participants had not even agreed to
attend. A sense of urgency bordering on panic was
palpable from the onset. The goal was never to
achieve a negotiated settlement or an honorable
peace, but (as Foreign Policy magazine noted) to
implement “a broad ‘freeze’ over the whole province
of Aleppo, which would then be replicated in other
regions later.” This was the real objective, to stop
the bleeding any way possible and prevent the
inevitable encirclement of Aleppo.
The
recapturing of Nubl and Zahraa leaves the jihadists
with just one route for transporting weapons, food
and fuel to their urban stronghold. When loyalist
forces break the blockade at Bab al Hawa to the
northeast, the loop will be closed, the perimeter
will tighten, the cauldron will be split into
smaller enclaves within the city, and the terrorists
will either surrender or face certain annihilation.
Wednesday’s triumph by the Russian-led coalition is
a sign that that day may be approaching sooner than
anyone had anticipated.
It’s worth
noting, that a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, Michael O’Hanlon– whose plan to
“deconstruct Syria” by using “moderate elements” to
“produce autonomous zones”–advised Obama and Kerry
“not to pursue the failed logic of the current Syria
peace talks but to explore a confederal model and
seek buy-in from as many key players and allies as
possible.” In other words, the main architect of
the US plan to break up Syria into smaller areas,
(controlled by local militias, warlords and
jihadists) thought the peace talks were “doomed”
from the very beginning.
According
to O’Hanlon the US needs to commit “20,000 combat
troops” with “the right political model for
maintaining occupation”. The Brookings analyst
says that “Any ceasefire that Kerry could
negotiate…would be built on a foundation of sand”
for the mere fact that the “moderate” forces it
would support would be much weaker than either the
SAA or ISIS. That means there would be no way to
enforce the final settlement and no army strong
enough to establish the authority of the new
“unity” government.
O’Hanlon’s
comments suggest western elites are deeply
divided over Syria. The hawks are still pushing for
more intervention, greater US, EU, and NATO
involvement, and American and allied “boots on the
ground” to occupy the country for an undetermined
amount of time. In contrast, the Obama
administration wants to minimize its commitment
while trying desperately to placate its critics.
That means
Syria’s troubles could resurface again in the
future when Obama steps down and a new
president pursues a more muscular strategy. A
number of powerful people in the ruling
establishment are as determined-as-ever to partition
Syria and install a US puppet in Damascus. That’s
not going to change. The Russian-led coalition has a
small window for concluding its operations,
eliminating the terrorists, and reestablishing
security across the country. Ending the war as soon
as possible, while creating a safe environment for
Syrian refugees to return home, is the best way
to reduce the threat of escalation and discourage
future US adventurism. But Putin will have to move
fast for the plan to work.
Excerpts from: “Deconstructing
Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless
war“, Michael O’ Hanlon, Brookings Institute.
Mike Whitney lives in
Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK
Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle
edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com. |