Included in the Munich agreement between the US and Russia, announcing a ceasefire in Syria, where civil war and humanitarian aid to the victims, not promising hope for a lasting truce, and even more so for a quick end to the conflict – experts say.
According to commentators agreement confirms the weakness of the administration of US President Barack Obama, helpless against the cynical and brutal policy of Russia, successfully supporting arms dictatorial regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose resignation Washington demanded for several years.
(Thursday’s Munich provisions ws. Syria – agreement between the US, Russia and several other countries: a truce to be reached within a week, already this week will be intensified humanitarian aid ; video: ENEX / x-news)
There is no way to implement the agreement?
“agreed” interrupt walk “freeze territorial gains Syrian regime and Russia around Aleppo (in the north-west of Syria.) it is easy to foresee the collapse of the agreement, there is no neutral body which would monitor its implementation. Even if moderate forces represented in the (opposition) High Negotiating Committee (HNC) powściągnęły their fighters, there are plenty of other militants in Syria, including those related to the Islamic state (iS) and Al-Qaeda, who will continue to fight, “- said Daniel server specialist. Middle East, from the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of the US Johns Hopkins University.
“this agreement is not worth the paper on which was written” – tweeted another expert. Middle East, Salman Shaikh.
“the contents of them under the pressure of the dramatic situation in Syria, but it has no real political dimension “- said in turn newspaper” Washington Post “Emile Hokayem of the think tank International Institute for Strategic Studies in Bahrain.
Assad and Russia did not halt combat operations
the plan presented Thursday by US Secretary of state John Kerry and Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov promises to “interrupt walk” during the week, and then a formal ceasefire. Temporary truce is intended to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid to the civilian population in the regions of Syria occupied by the rebels but surrounded by the army of the regime.
If the truce came into effect, it would be the first formally announced ceasefire in the Syrian war, which began in 2011, the uprising against the Assad regime. Experts, however, pay attention to the gaps and ambiguities agreement. It is not known whether all the rebel groups agreed to his conditions, or whether it will abide by the regime in Damascus. Assad announced that he would continue the fight against “terrorists” – as defined by the rebels – also during the negotiations.
The agreement excludes outside of the ceasefire against IS, linked to Al-Qaeda Islamists from the Front, al-Nusra and other “terrorist groups.” Meanwhile, Russia has already announced that it does not cease bombing of such groups, which makes anticipate that its air force will continue shelling the moderate opposition groups fighting Assad.
“Russia suggests truce, by Assad could win “
” the agreement is hypocritical. The Russians believe that the forces of the regime prevail, so do not propose a truce in order to stop their offensive, but in order to further spoil the ranks of the opposition, while the Russian air offensive is to lay the groundwork for the victory of the regime, “- said Hassan Mneimneh from the resort analytical Middle East Institute in Washington.
this assessment was confirmed by the fact that Lavrov proposed a cease-fire only from 1 March and until the result of negotiations with Kerry agreed that it happened in a week.
a longtime British correspondent in the Middle East, Robert Tait compared the agreement in Munich to the infamous agreement concluded in the same city in September 1938, when the Western powers gave way to Adolf Hitler, agreeing to occupation by the third Reich, the Sudetenland and daring him thus further conquests.
“the preliminary agreement announced by Kerry and Lavrov did not seem to presage peace more than the arrangement contained in Munich before the second world war” – wrote Tait.
“the US agree on everything, allowing you to keep your face”
the commentators interpret the conflict in Syria and the ongoing diplomacy around him in terms of a confrontation between the US and Russia. According to the “Economist” agreement in Munich it is a “reflection of the cynicism of the Russian and American weakness.” “An expression of the bankruptcy of a timid policy of Barack Obama to the war in Syria is the fact that the US seem ready to agree to any proposal Lavrov, which will allow them to save face. Even though Kerry does not look like someone who believes in the system, since he says that it is agreement + only on paper + “- writes the British weekly.
In an even harsher words, criticizing the agreement Professor Claremont McKenna College, Andrew Peek, calling them” bloody farce. “
” There is nothing more humiliating for the US than the Syrian peace process. Conducted in the framework of negotiations is pure deception. (…) Kerry pretends that the US have a sufficient impact on the situation on the front to negotiate, but after years of hesitation, or retrofitted Syrian rebels, they have nothing, “- says Peek at the New York newspaper” Daily News “.
As a result of the offensive supported by the Russian air forces of the regime in the north of Syria, Assad’s forces are close to cut off the rebels from the border with Turkey. According to experts, this could bring the regime to complete victory.
In Munich, Kerry said that if the peace process will collapse, “it is possible invasion to Syria of additional ground troops.” USA, however, preclude sending to Syria such troops. willingness to introduce them to Syria expressed Saudi Arabia, but to fight with IS, which also struggles with the regime of Assad. even if the troops Saudi skierowały weapon against the forces of Assad, can not cope supporting them forces of Russia, because – as he says Daniel server – “Americans show no desire for it to allow the Saudis to use Syrian anti-aircraft weapons or other weapons of high quality. “
” Assad thinks he will win the war “
“the only way to talks on Syria were important, it would be a reversal of the course of events at the front to Assad he thought he could lose the war. it’s hard to guess why the Obama administration does not want to acknowledge it and continue negotiations. Only when the Russians and the Syrians recognize that gain more peace than in war, will negotiate in good faith “- says Peek.
Obama’s reluctance to deeper involvement in Syria, met with increasingly tough criticism in the US. Refusal greater support to the opposition – is the main objection – has created a vacuum which has benefited Russia, and also prolonged the war, which claimed more than 250 thousand. lives and triggered a wave of refugees that flooded Europe. “Capitulation of America in Syria is complete, with terrifying results,” – he wrote in “The New York Times’ Roger Cohen.
There was no one to trust?
Politics President has, however, also defenders. Leading specialist. Middle East Aaron David Miller argues that the US is not responsible for the exacerbation of the crisis, because Obama was right to fear that support the rebels, even in the early stages of the conflict would be too risky.
“The belief that disaster Syria could to stave off by anything this administration or its critics were willing to do, is wishful thinking. It results from an erroneous assumption that the United States have the will, skill and strength to fix the country that was falling apart in the region experiencing a systemic crisis. (…) The efforts of the US to help the Syrian opposition have been hampered by the break, and also because some of its fractions proved hostile to American interests. It made providing them with ultra modern weapons such as surface-to-air missiles was too risky, “- wrote Miller in the” Wall Street Journal “.
PAP / agkm
No comments:
Post a Comment