Uladzimir Matskevich: War in Syria doesn’t stop Russia from keeping a simmering conflict in Ukraine

Participation in a Syrian conflict can be viewed as one of the latest attempts Russia is making to be a player of a worldwide scale.

Having stuck in Ukraine and having got a prolonged period of stagnation, Russia decided to unleash the knot of problems by meddling in a Syrian situation. A dictatorial Russia has supported Bashar Asad’s regime in Syria; so actions of the Russian army in this Middle-East country can hardly be named a war against ISIL.

Uladzimir Matskevich, the head of the Board of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus”, told about the reasons for Russia’s intervention into the Syrian conflict to the “EuroBelarus” Information Service.

- Russia hasn’t stopped its actions in Ukraine, at the same time hitting Syria from air. Why did Russia need to open a second battlefront, all the more covering itself with anti-terror rhetoric?

- Since Russia doesn’t want to admit its war in Ukraine and all complications with the West caused by the war, it has taken an absolutely illogical decision and transferred the problem to a completely different level through escalation of war. Since old days there is a well-known principle: problems that rulers have are resolved with the help of one little victorious war. It seems that this logic worked out in the 21^st century, too.

Having stuck in Ukraine and having got a prolonged period of stagnation, Russia decided to unleash the knot of problems by meddling in a Syrian situation. A dictatorial Russia has always supported dictatorial regimes. Syria is a knot of problems, a victim of inexpressive international politics and international situation, in which the majority of problems in Arabic countries are caused by indecisiveness and indistinctness of actions of the Western countries, and international institutes like NATO, the EU, and the UN. This is what opens a window for all sort of venturesome actions.

 - Apart from withdrawing attention of the world community from the war in Ukraine, Russia is persecuting one more goal – fight for natural resources in the region, which also includes enhancement of its influence at the Middle East. Is this goal feasible?

- The pile of problems distracts from old problems, but won’t resolve them; accordingly, newly created problems also require solution. Such kind of piles cannot last forever; sooner or later everything will collapse and might significantly damage not only the creators of these problems, but also the big number of countries, too.

The Syrian conflict itself is caused by indecisiveness and indistinctness of policy of the Western countries towards the uprising in Syria. The hot phase of the Syrian situation started after the Arab Spring, which wasn’t similar to a wave of color revolutions. Syrian uprising was separate; Syrian situation doesn’t look like the situation in other Northern African countries. The Asad’s regime was quite strong and reasons for conflict were not that social as in Tunis or Libya, where the wave of people’s anger was able to wipe off weak and not quite influencing government. Asad’s regime relied on the Syrian army, and it didn’t look like a Libyan one, which was created for the political operations inside the country in the first place. Syrian army war preparing for the war.

- Kremlin is talking about the war on ISIL; however, in the middle of the hostilities Asad came to Moscow for negotiations. Obviously, with the only one goal, which is to discuss the tactics of further common actions of Russia and Syrian government. What war did Russia meddle in? This can’t be the war on terrorism.

- These actions can hardly be named war on terrorism.

Russia is trying to save its influence and positions in the Middle East and Mesopotamia region, which is becoming more and more complicated. I don’t think that natural resources in the main priority of control over the region. Whatever the hydrocarbon reserves in the shelf or in Syria are, nevertheless, until Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Iran itself preserve their export possibilities these reserves won’t be playing the decisive role. That’s why military operations in Iraq and on the territory controlled by ISIL rather influence trade, transport, oil transfer, which means fight over redistribution of flows in case the supplies of Middle East oil play the same role they played in the former decades. However, modern energy ecological technologies lessen the role of oil and gas, and shift to the renewed sources of energy leads to the situation when concern about oil supplies will no longer be the decisive factor in the international policy in the near future.

That’s why control over the region and maintaining its position is important for Russia in geo-strategic and geopolitical aspect rather than economic one; and ISIL is a serious factor for changing dispositions in the region. If for the time being the decisive role was given to serious and strong states such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, now with the appearance of ISIL the region becomes dangerously explosive. The balance of power in the region can get seriously changed to an unknown side: the role of Iran is growing; Saudi Arabia starts playing the increasingly important role. On top of everything, if the Kurd factor will explode, this region might become a source of instability for the whole world for a long time.

I think that in the first place, these are geo-strategic factors that make Russia meddle in the Syrian situation. If Syrian problems and Iraqi problems were resolved without Russia’s participation it would mean complete exclusion of Russia as a factor of big international politics; Russia’s influence would be shut within the boundaries of the post-Soviet countries only.

That’s why participation in the Syrian conflict can be viewed as one of the Russia’s last attempts to perform as a player of a worldwide scale.

- Does the start of the war in Syria mean the end of the war in Donbas?

- I have always been saying that Russia, Putin, and Kremlin don’t need the war in Donbas as such, just as they don’t need Crimea.

Russia is leading the hybrid war in Donbas because it needs destabilization in Ukraine, maintenance of chaos in Ukraine and barring it from becoming a strong state with its own independent policyand independent game in the region and international politics. Russia’s victory in Donbas is impossible; Russia has lost this war from the beginning. Nevertheless, it prolongs this war because it doesn’t want to let Ukraine become strong and start resolving its inner political problems: fighting corruption and introducing economic reforms. While there is a glimmer of war, it is very hard for the government to deal with positive constructive actions inside the country.

These are Russia’s calculations in its actions in Donbas. The war in Syria doesn’t interfere with the maintenance of a glimmer of tension in the east of Ukraine. Russia will continue keeping chaos in the neighboring country by any means: peaceful, military, or provocative.

- Russian Deputy Foreign Minister in the 90s Georgy Kunadze said: “Asad still has some place to flee, whereas I don’t know where Putin could still flee to”. Is Putin leading himself to the deadlock or is he fighting for the chance to come back to the world political Olympus?

- I think that Russia and Putin have no such chances today. However, underestimation of dictator’s regimes: Asad’s regime in Syria, Putin’s – in Moscow, and Lukashenka’s – in Minsk, - is a systematic mistake that liberal democratic regimes of the Western countries make. They are constantly underestimating the power and possibilities to self-protection that the regimes have. Well, Putin will never come back to bipolar world; Russia will never be able to play the role that the Soviet Union played in the “Cold War” period. But it doesn’t mean that Russia is automatically losing influence and stops being a factor of international politics. It will continue being a factor of tension for a long-long time still.