A Marxist Leninist evaluation of the developments in Syria-winners and losers in the short term.
We make assessments based on the factual
knowledge of concrete conditions and situations. We can make correct evaluation of the current phase of the development
based on the known and available data, but can only speculate on what lies
ahead. Because the future of Syria, not only for Syria, but for the entire
Middle East and Arab countries have entered into an unknown, impossible to
predict chaotic situation. We may get a better understanding of its direction
in coming weeks or months.
Unknowns are;
Who will form a government?
That is the key question in order
to understand who the main players are behind and what its direction will be.
Will they be able to form a
government?
It seems that Idlib based,
Turkish Government supported Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) leading the “insurgency”.
HTS was a direct affiliate of al-Qaeda, but later publicly broke ranks with
al-Qaeda and merged with several other similar groups. That is why, it is highly likely that CIA and Mossad has agents and assets within the organisation, however that does not change the fact HTS is largely controlled by the Intelligence Services of Turkey. Its leader Abu Mohammed
al-Jawlani, with his latest rhetoric of” inclusiveness and a rejection of
violence or revenge” is rising and seems
to be accepted as the figurehead of a post-Assad future in Syria. They are well
known with their conflict against other
rebel and opposition groups.
Another key coalition group acting in concert with the HTS
is the Syrian National Army (SNA). SNA, such
as the Sultan Suleyman Shah Brigade, the al-Hamza Division, and the Sultan
Murad Brigade, are closely aligned with and maintains stronger ties to Turkey.
There is another “leftover” rebel
faction under the banner of the “Free Syrian Army” who are present in scattered
part of southern towns and cities. They are, at least their leadership, heavily
under the influence of Israel and the US.
In the west, Syrian desert, there
are pockets of the regions controlled by
so-called Islamic State. Despite all the
hypocrisy, they are US financed and controlled
At the north east, Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF), Kurdish-led forces in partnership with the US.
Under these conditions it is highly questionable if a unified government will be formed. The situation is ripe for new confrontations and chaos or to a division of Syria based on the existing or changing balance of powers after an internal conflict. Forming and/or future of a unified government seems bleak. Considering the fact that each major Jihadist group is backed by different countries; Turkey, US, Israel, Iran they will represent the strategic interests of those given countries, the formed government will be not of and for Syria but of and for the external forces.
Assuming that a government is formed;
What will their attitude
towards the other minorities especially against Shiites?
The Syrian coast is inhabited by
Shiites and is still in Hezbollah's hands. Russian bases, airports and ships
are there. Whether they will dare to
attack Hezbollah here is an important question.
What will their attitude
towards Israel?
We do not and cannot yet know
what their attitude will be towards the
Daraa region of southern Syria, which is within the sphere of influence of
Israel and Jordan.
We do not know what their stance
will be if Israel crosses the Golani and enters Syria.
What will their attitude towards
the Kurds?
If somehow the internal conflict is prevented, and the government is formed with a majority of Turkish backed HTS, it is highly likely that they will want to incorporate the oil and food supply rich region which is currently under the control of SDF. That, mainly for economic reasons, inevitably will be one of the primary goal and target of the HTS dominated Syrian Government. That will beg the question of “how the attitude of the new government to the US-West”. Will the US backstab the SDF making an agreement with Turkiye?
These are the crucial questions
that are hard to answer or even speculate based on the information and available
data on hand. We will have to wait and see the developments in coming weeks and
months in order to be able to make a sound assessment.
We have enough information and
data to make a judgement on the short term winners and losers. Winners and
losers should be determined based on the
assessment and responses to the question of “ what was the objective of the
parties involved and if they have succeeded in their objectives” in
the short term. Which, it should be followed by the responses to the same
question in the long term after enough data available to us.
Another important question is will the US remove the economic sanctions that destroyed the Syrian economy and starved the Syrian people? If and when that decision is made it will be an indication if and to what degree the US has control over the Jihadists, since, if they have the control over them, there will be no reason to impose economic sanctions to its proxy.
Correct responses to those questions, again, will be based on the correct premises from which we proceed for our analysis.
Is Turkiye a proxy of the
US-West or a politically independent country?
As I have noted earlier, proceeding
from the wrong premises will inevitably reach the wrong conclusions. The
assessment of those Marxist Leninist parties, especially in Turkey, proceeds
from the premise that Turkiye is a proxy state of US and cannot act
independently, so its wins are indirectly the wins of the US-West. Nothing can
be more wrong than this premise.
The dialectic of nature is that
nothing is static, everything is in constant change. If we establish the connection
between this law and the law of unequal economic development, we reach the historically
proven conclusion that no country will remain in the same economic structure
and power indefinitely. China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. were
colonial and feudal countries, today they have become politically independent
countries with the largest economies in the world. The Ottoman, Roman, and
British empires like so many others have all collapsed and new ones emerged.
That is the dialectics and that is the law of unequal economic development.
To see Turkey as the Turkey of
the 1950s, to ignore all structural, military, and economic changes, and to see it as a puppet country that is
still dependent on the US - especially after the late 1990s- is an
understanding and assessment that is quite outdated.
People, disregarding Lenin’s
clear separation especially in his critique of Rosa, always confuse or equate political dependence
with economic dependence.
In a world where there are so many countries,
each country is economically dependent on each other to a certain extent in
order to exist, develop and progress. What is important is the political
independence. In order to see Turkey as a puppet country that is politically
dependent on the US, just because it has some economic dependence, one must be
unaware of any developments or changes in domestic and international relations.
In his book which Lenin read, concurred,
and wrote the introduction for, Bukharin
summarizes the transformation of a country and state to imperialist one in its
economic sense. Comparing his analysis with the development in Turkey
strikingly matches. I suggest the interested parties read the book carefully. “The
tendency towards imperialism” he states “ combines economic phenomena with great
political power. Everything is organised on a large scale… The new economic and
social forces require powerful protection both inside the country and outside
of its frontiers; for this purpose, the state creates new organs, great numbers
of officials and institutions… National economy and politics are most closely
interlocked. If state power is generally growing in significance, the growth of
its military organisation, the army, and the navy, is particularly striking… The
immensely growing state budget devotes an ever larger share to "defence
purposes," as militarization is euphemistically termed… for the military
power of the state capitalist trust is the weapon to be used in its economic
struggle… Capitalist society is unthinkable without armaments, as it is
unthinkable without wars… Thus the rule of finance capital implies both
imperialism and militarism. In this sense militarism is no less a
typical historic phenomenon than finance capital itself… The state
apparatus not only embodies the interests of the ruling classes in general, but
also their collectively expressed will… Finance capital has consolidated almost
all of their varieties into one "solid reactionary mass" united in
many centralised organisations. "Democratic" and
"liberal" sentiments are replaced by open monarchist tendencies in
modern imperialism, which is always in need of a state dictatorship.
Parliament at present serves more as a decorative institution; it passes upon
decisions prepared beforehand in the businessmen's organisations and gives only
formal sanction to the collective will of the consolidated bourgeoisie as a
whole. A "strong power" has become the ideal of the modern
bourgeois…. This is an entirely new sociopolitical formation caused by the
growth of finance capital.”
Turkey has gone through the phases of
monopoly capitalism, state capitalism in which all the public industries were privatized, formation of finance capital, export of capital, development of military
industry, militarization, and export of military .. On top, it has invaded a
country and occupying part of its land. In this context, Turkiye is an imperialist
country not only in its economic sense but in its combined, cumulative
definition. Looking at its policies and
practices, It is a concrete fact that when their interests are in conflict it
is different than when it is not with
the other imperialist countries whether it be US or Russia. As a ”little
imperialist “ country, it is using its strategic importance and military power
to seize every opportunity that arises from the conflict among the superpowers and not
hesitating taking huge risks so far which it has been successful at the outcomes of all.
It is of course not because it is powerful economically but because its
strategic and economic importance for the superpowers who don’t want to
alienate them and thus compromise and give concessions for their own strategic
and economic interests despite all the backstabbing and unreliability character. Proceeding from
the premise that Turkey is not a vassal state and acting for its own dominant
class’s interests while backstabbing the others, at least for the short term,
unlike the rest, in my initial analysis the winners and losers;
It seems that the only power
that has truly won in Syria is
Turkey who profited from the game it
played in Syria for primarily one reason that it reached its goal of
toppling Assad through its proxy HTS and SDN . That will give them the upper
hand, a leverage in forming the Syrian government – if it will ever be formed.
However, this development in
Syria will spread fear and anxiety from Middle east to Central Asia, to many Muslim countries
where Al Qaeda is located, to India in where due to its racist discriminatory
policies the Muslim population is being radicalized, and from there to China where
there are many large and small pockets
of Muslim population . This development may come with an affect that encourages
and mobilize all Jihadists and radicals in such countries. Not all of those Jihadists
in Syria are Syrians, but "professional" Jihadists from many
countries and it is highly likely that they
have the intention to return or venture
to another country that is ripe for them to wage their Jihadist war. In this sense too, the ruling class of Turkiye
is winner for it will have blackmailing leverage
in other countries.
In Syria specific, this
uncertainty and possible chaos is also
dangerously valid for Turkey as the primary winner. Paying salaries to these
gangs with the taxes collected from the
people and the profits from the oil
stolen from Syria, supporting, and managing the jihadist is one thing, and remotely
managing and feeding a country that extends to the Israeli border with
these gangs are another thing. Winning
is one thing, keeping what you win and extracting the best benefit out of it, and being in this capacity are two
different things.
The little imperialist Turkiye,
looking at the small picture, is the primary winner, yet considering the big
picture and long term implications, it may turn out to be the worse loser. We
may be able to make some prediction based on the next developments.
Everyone says that Russia is the loser. It is correct to some degree since the Syrian Government it supported is collapsed. However, no one expected that the Syrian army would be so passive and without any serious resistance to the attack. No external country can help in a meaningful way to a country that is not capable of or shows no interest in defending itself. If Russia, despite that fact, kept on fighting in Syria that would be a disaster for them and that is what the US was hoping for. A long lasting war in Syria was expected by the US in where Russia, which was at war in Ukraine, would be stuck in Syria. This did not happen. Turkey, which stabbed Russia in the back with the attack, came to Russia’s aid by providing a “peaceful transition” - and "saved" Russia from this problem- seems like as a “payback” for backstabbing. A common practice of the elite of Turkiye which actually fits in to the common policy of an imperialist hypocritical practice. The US strategy and tactic of a long war in Syria and distracting, extending Russia did not happen. In this sense Russia has come out of it as winner and US came out of it as a loser. Especially it is interesting to learn that the Jihadists gave guarantee to Russia that Russian military and bases will be intact.
Israel's interests was in
the same way in the continuation of the war; the distraction of attention from
the massacres in Gaza, sending of Hezbollah from Lebanon to Syria, Iraqi militias
from Iraq, and Iran to Syria, thus weakening Hezbollah and keeping Iran
busy. Neither the US nor Israel were present at Astana, where this
decision was made and the jihadists were able to enter Baghdad without
fighting. The truth of how much control Turkey has over these jihadists was
fully revealed at the Astana and what came after- HTS marched to Baghdad
without any fighting. Civil war, contrary to the expectation and strategy of US
and Israel, at least for now, has stopped. Thus, the US and Israel are in
the "losers" category in this regard. However, Israel is winner in the sense that it was successful in distracting the attention from the genocide in Gaza and having a Syria with an unknown future and ripe for internal conflicts in it and with no organized army to defend its borders with Israel to challenge Israel to grab more land.
Iran is in the loser category for one, it lost its support channel to Hezbollah that goes through Syria. The Jihadi leader has already repeated publicly his hatred towards Iran and Hizballah and stated that they will prevent any armament going to Hizballah from Iran and other Shiites, including Iraq. However, we do not know yet if any kind of compromise is reached or not at Astana for the transportation of weapons and ammunition from Iran to Lebanon. That would weaken Hezbollah and its support to Iran in case of a war of Iran with Israel. Here too, Israel is a winner.
The biggest losers, as
always are the people, in this case people of Syria.
We will see, or at least have a
better understanding who are and will be the winners and losers in the long run.
Let’s ask some objective questions
that is highly relevant to make a better judgement for the possible winners and losers that will
follow.
If after or during the
formation of new government, or independent
and unhinged from it, HTS and others attack northeastern Syria-to SDF, who will be
the losers and winners? Turkey's appetite and views on northern Syria are well
known and not hidden at all.
Or if they attack to the southern
Syria, Dara region, who will be losers and winners?
Although Israel ground forces are
defeated in Lebanon and Gaza, they still have very affective air forces. As I previously,
before the collapse of Syrian Government, asked the question “Is Israel getting
ready to invade southern Syria and extend its Golan Heights occupation deeper
in Syria?” What will happen then and what the response of new government of
Syria and/or HTS will be?
The responses to “ who is losing
and who is winning should be determined
by looking at the big picture and considering possible developments, not to the
"small picture".
Only then can we have a clearer idea of whether this prospected new government is a puppet of Turkey or of the US. However, since, based on all the indications, the "peaceful transformation" is a product of Russia, Turkiye and Iran with the participation of Syrian envoy - without any participation of US- West and Israel, it reinforces the assumption that the "agreements, or better the "compromises" made behind the close doors" excluded their vital interests or at least are made based on the interests of the participants. The scattered news came out before the Astana Forum that Iran, Hezbollah and Iraqi Shiite militias stopped sending the troops actually was an indication of a compromise between the participant countries. If we look at the subject from the perspective of politics, we can say that Astana participants won and rest lost at the current "nonconflicting" situation. For the simple reason that Astana group reached it primary objectives, US did not.
In short, making evaluations and
comments by looking at a small part of a big picture is not a valid and correct
approach for critical and questioning minds . Especially proceeding from the wrong premises for the assessment will
inevitably arrive to the wrong
conclusions.
It is not possible to make a future judgement without knowing what the developments will be in this chaotic and unpredictable situation in Syria. The question is very complicated and tied to the very existence of Syria, Israel, Hizballah, Lebanon in particular and to the future of countries with large Muslim populations. That again is tied to the conflict between a declining hegemonic ex-unipolar world order; US-West, and new arising multipolar world order; Asia , Russia, and Collective South. The developments in Syria definitely will affect the conflict between the two but will not stop, or even slow down the transition.
Assessment and commentaries based on learned by rote and sloganized theories and their constant repeat at each case without detailed explanation tell nothing to the masses and do not inform and help them to develop a critical mind.
Erdogan A
December 9, 2024
Hong Kong
.jpg)
No comments