Syria: a battleground between Russia and the US

The evolution of the Syrian civil war as regional conflict, to the participation of the organization Islamic state, is drawing the scenario in a more direct involvement of nations, which had been limited, but that with the entry of Russia, is likely to connote more broadly the international significance of the theater of the fighting. Prior to current developments on the international framework Syrian conflict was dominated by the United States, which has attempted to exercise its role of world policeman more nuanced; Washington's actions are distinguished by a deep uncertainty and several errors, also shared with the United Nations, they have, in fact encouraged, a permanence, albeit reduced, Assad in power and the growth of fundamentalist formations. Not that the US should solve all the world's problems, but the attitude taken justifies a reduction on the international level, also because the main allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, have proceeded independently, not only is not coordinated with the House white, but even opposed, by financing the fundamentalist militia, then escaped their control, that gave birth to the caliphate. The tactic of the Pentagon was to operate through exclusive air strikes only against the Islamic state and letting Assad's forces bombed areas occupied by the democratic opposition, which was only offered training and a reduced supply of armaments. Without the entry of Russia into the field, this strategy was fine to stall pending the entry of some elements favorable to their own purposes, but this wait-and proved counterproductive, as well as short-sighted, and has encouraged the regime in Damascus, which is He managed to maintain dominance on the most prized part of Syria, the one with the major industrial sites and with the outlet to the sea. It must be recognized that Assad was good and patient in the conduct of the war, earning gradually the role of element bulwark against the Islamic state and sure now, almost with certainty, with the presence of Russian and Iranian staying in power. Moscow has undoubtedly brought an upheaval in the Syrian War and a new element, with which the US will have to deal, but, also, the repetition on a larger scale, of what happened with the intervention turkish. Ankara's entry into the war over to bomb the Kurds, which fears the birth of its own sovereign state on its borders, that the Islamic state, the same appears to Moscow, with the aim, rather than the positions of the Caliphate, those groups democratic opposition to Assad and formally allied with the United States. This means that in Damascus most fear internal opposition, made up of lay movements can express a political proposal and strong alternative to Assad, the Sunni extremism, considered untrustworthy in their political future projection on the plane. Moreover, the democratic opposition has not recently stated that they have no intention of dealing with the Damascus government, whereas previously he had always made it clear they do not like the interference Russian, always an ally of Assad. The problem for Americans is that Russia has taken the initiative against their own groups on which Washington was aiming for the transition of power in Damascus and an attack against these movements could amount to an implicit declaration of war by the Russians. This possibility does not seem to be highly regarded by analysts and the press, however, that Moscow is making has profound similarities with what is put into practice in the Crimea and in eastern Ukraine, which takes place only on land much more important for the balance world. The Kremlin is trying military means to gain international positions and break the isolation, this strategy could be provided by the Americans, but it did not happen, and you are likely to get to dangerous consequences. Even the possibility of a diplomatic exchange between Washington and Moscow over Ukraine and Syria, though they may have some foundation, appear too forced for the balance in the game, involving other actors, such as the countries of Eastern Europe and the European Union itself. What alternatives have now the US? Hit Assad's forces directly appears impossible for the Russian presence, this strategy was pursued first with indirect actions designed to cut off supplies to the forces of Damascus, defend the democratic opposition groups seems the logical choice, but a means to open even armed confrontation with Russia, even though this might be understandable to rebalance things, however, the American attitude adopted towards Turkey, when he bombed the Kurds, it was indifference and this could continue with the Russian actions . What emerges is that the scenario is changing rapidly alongside the priority of the fight against the Islamic state, the White House now has to face the bully reappearance on the scene of Assad, who is no longer a target of the second floor, and the ' bulky presence of the Russians. To come out well from the situation the United States must, first of all to prevent its allies, democratic groups and the Syrian Kurds are still affected, assuming the defense in person, then define the practice Islamic state in the shortest possible time, also involving the Russians in the war, and finally find a diplomatic understanding for the future of Syria, which now will also rely on the presence of Assad. Washington can design a solution to divide the country by accepting that the areas currently under the sovereignty of Damascus remain as such and that those occupied by pro-democracy groups, together with those won at Islamic State constitute the formation of a new state, where the United States will, however, be present with permanent military forces and with adequate support for economic investment. Only then the US will not have to be scaled internationally for Russia.