“We should take advantage of a ceasefire violation. Once they break the ceasefire, we must launch an offensive. The Donbas troops, supported by our air force, long-range missile systems, such as the Iskander, and cruise missiles, will go on an offensive. It is in fact a Syrian option. When the main infrastructure of Ukraine’s armed forces, including communication, command and air defense centers, and heavy weapons, is destroyed, the Donbas army must undertake an offensive.” Then it is said that all of Ukraine will be immediately swept by uprisings, the Ukrainian regime will “crumble,” and “our sympathizers” will come to power. But we won’t feed Ukraine – they must work themselves.
It is not a retort of somebody like Kurginyan at Solovyov’s regular show of the possessed, which presents every time a competition in frenzy, when each expert delivers a most obscurantist speech he could think up at home in the interval between programs.
A burly gentleman on the TV screen is making a well-considered speech absolutely calmly, quite benevolently, without hysterics, sometimes even with a smile. His pudgy hands lie crossed on the potbelly. The whole figure exudes peace and tranquility – Buddha pure and simple. Millions of people saw this clip in which Mikhail Aleksandrov, a leading expert at the Moscow Institute of International Relations’ Center for Military and Political Studies, presented the plan of a “Syrian option for Ukraine.”
Let us not pronounce naive words about the responsibility of a person whose utterances fall 100 percent under Article 354 of the Russian Federation’s Criminal Code, “Public Calls for Unleashing an Aggressive War.” It is not about a modest Ural blogger, Aleksei Kungurov, who has just been sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for some “aggressive-sounding word combinations.” It is not about a run-of-the-mill blogger, but about a major academic, a doctor of sciences, “our man,” a patriot to his fingertips, a career diplomat who works in the country’s most prestigious higher educational institution. So let us drop silly illusions and take up more important questions.
To what extent realistic is the “Syrian plan for Ukraine” put forward by the dearest doctor of cannibalistic sciences Aleksandrov? There can be no unequivocal answer to this question for the following reasons: firstly, because Putin already brought about something like a “Syrian option” in Ukraine in 2014. Ukrainians know and remember this, while the international community has just received additional evidence in the report of an independent expert group, Bellingcat, dated December 21, 2016. This report comprises the proof of at least 149 instances of shelling the Ukrainian territory from Russian frontier areas in the summer of 2014. Satellite photographs made it possible to spot the places where projectiles landed on the territory of Ukraine as well as the places in Russia, from where the guns fired. Naturally, as expected, the Russian “information troops” immediately responded: “They aren’t there,” “Can you prove this?” etc. This can’t be helped – the people are paid for this.
Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently told the Mir TV channel that Vladimir Putin is “an absolute liberal by his nature.” He is right in a way. But Putin’s absolute liberalism differs from common liberalism by the fact that, for Putin, freedom is, above all, absolute freedom from any moral and legal principles.
And this creates prerequisites for a Syrian option in Ukraine at any moment – to be more exact, the moment Putin decides that the world will swallow it, as it by and large swallowed, in spite of all protests, the “Syrian option” in Syria itself.
Today, a Syrian option for Ukraine seems totally unrealistic and can only exist in the murky minds of people like Aleksandrov. But the situation, when an “absolutely natural liberal” is in power in Russia, always harbors the danger that most outlandish schemes will be put into practice. On the eve of the August 8, 2008, events in Georgia, sober-minded people, such as Leonid Radzizovsky, claimed that Russia would never attack Georgia because it is just impossible. Indeed, what for? What are our interests there? Do we really need South Ossetia and Abkhazia? And what will the West say?
On the eve of the occupation of Crimea, this kind of developments also seemed unreal to many Russians and Ukrainians. Even when occupation became a fact, many believed there would be no annexation but there would be a “gray zone” of sorts, a bizarre unrecognized quasi-state, such as Transnistria or the proverbial “DNR” and “LNR.” Wise people were mistaken again. They swallowed and did not choke so far. The people who rely on common sense in their forecasts won’t grasp the train of thought and the logic of actions of the “absolutely natural liberal.”
There are several factors that prevent the implementation of a Syrian option in Ukraine. Firstly, unlike Syria, Ukraine is in the very center of Europe. Accordingly, the reaction will be immeasurably stronger. Secondly, and most importantly, in case of a full-scale aggression against Ukraine, Putin will be unable to make up even the flimsy excuse he is making now, which, nevertheless, some European and American politicians and experts accept when it comes to bombings in Syria. Indeed, there are IS terrorists in Syria, but it is still to be proved whether or not Putin is fighting against them or some other Arab organizations with odd and scaringly-sounding names. In a word, the East is a subtle matter.
Only a part of the Russian television audience believes the gibberish about a “Banderaite regime in Kyiv” and “Ukrainian fascists.” Therefore, at the moment, exercising a Syrian option for Ukraine will cause the entire world to rally against Putin’s Russia, and the latter will have no allies except for “DNR” and “LNR” bandits – not a single one.
But the world is changing today in a dangerous direction. The shadow of a Munich-type deal is noticeably falling on Europe. The “Chamberlainization” and “Daladierization” of the Western political elite is gaining momentum. Donald Trump no longer considers Russia a threat. The upcoming elections in Italy and France are almost certain to bring to power in these key European countries the people who are taking a very loyal attitude to Putin’s Russia and favoring the lifting of sanctions and the restoration of a full-scale partnership.
The situation in Syria may well reach a deadlock, which will necessitate a new war to switch the Russian population’s attention from internal to external problems. The aggravation of these internal problems is inevitable as the economic crisis is deepening and most of the population is being impoverished rapidly. Protests seem to be utterly impossible in Russia today due to passivity of the population and total ineffectiveness of the opposition. But this may change at a most unsuitable moment for Putin, for example, in the heat of the presidential elections. It will be a good idea to remind those who always expect an inertia-based scenario that Russia sometimes faces surprises which cause centuries-old kingdoms vanish into thin air in a few days. If protests begin, a war can save Putin.
A Syrian option seems to be extremely unlikely for Ukraine today. There is only one way to reduce this likelihood to zero. Ukraine must become so strong that the thought of a war could not occur even to people like Aleksandrov.
