Russia under pretext of "legitimacy of its existence" divided Syria

In every new event on the Syrian scene, more and more vague facts about the role of some countries in Syria are presented to unite on one thing is the interest and the special agendas, without any concern for the future of the Syrian people or creating and securing stability.

Russia under pretext of "legitimacy of its existence" divided Syria
19 April 2018   17:32

KEMAL

In recent years, it has been archival events only. Those who contribute to the further escalation of war and conflict can work to create the ground through which they can move towards a solution or as they speak, agree with minimal results.

Russia every time says and declares that it exists in Syria by a legitimate decision of the Damascus government and has the right to work and cooperate with the regime to consolidate its existence and restore stability as it claims, but what actually appears is contrary to the state of legitimate presence on the one hand and also contrary to what is announced from the Russian positions towards the situation in Syria

The legitimate presence of Russia how can it be justified and Russia itself tries to consolidate the reality of division in Syria sometimes by creating the Turkish presence and imposing it on the Syrians and this in itself an occupation if the subject is dealt with from the point of view of legitimacy and illegitimacy as claimed by Russia by justification of its presence in Syria and sometimes there reality that Russia is working on and establishing new and dangerous facts through it is the process of screening it is doing through its negotiating program with the terrorists in Gauta, Douma, and before that in the eastern of Damascus. This move lies in the transfer of terrorists, who have been allowed to develop and assemble their forces over a dangerous period of time, their transport and weapons, and to leave for another Syrian region. Formality as if paving the way for the next stage in which Syria and the Syrian people have one option is to accept this without discussion.

Those who watch the Russian policy, even if they have headlines, will undoubtedly notice that the process of indirect confrontation with America in Syria takes place through the regime's paper, which is a legitimate umbrella spoken by Russia in Syria and by Russia, on the other hand, provoking the Kurds - the allies of the United States - through some positions and exchanges with Turkey, which was actually made in Afrin and by working to provide the Kurds that the main reason for the programs are not for the benefit of the Syrians, although this is contrary to the practical positions of Russia, which is contrary to the position of the Kurds on the ground.

The cooperation with Turkey, which Russia described a few years ago as a major supporter by revealing the operations of satellite trade and oil deals and the like, in addition to the unprecedented Russian cooperation with Turkey, which is found illegal in al-Bab ,Jrablos , Azaz and Afrin in relation to deals are the result bartering on these areas to get out of Russia and be the biggest beneficiary of the chaos and war and the welcome occupation deals with Turkey could be the beginning of transformations in the region may not be as good as the case in the Russian - Turkish - NATO member - the process of public supply to Turkey with S - 400 missiles system which explains to us today that the US threats.

And the striking operations against Syrian regime, which is in substance represented by Russia and therefore America when it says that it will strike the regime is undoubtedly a blow to the Russians at the lowest estimate, the Russian role today is increasing negatively on the Syrian reality, even if Russia did not intervene in Syria and left the regime, although the regime is missing hope and hope but it would have been better than Russia at least that it would have stooped to the various factors influencing Syria, including acceptance of facts and transformations in the field that would limit its role and force it to accept the Syrian people's attitudes in exchange for what the regime has been looking for years.

This role is not formal or similar to what happened in Egypt and Libya, Tunisia and Yemen. what I would like to clarify is that Russia plays a bad role in Syria and that its recent and close history in the region explains that in the end it can save the face of the regime itself after it runs out of power in the investment process that Russia is offering in Syria to achieve its interests and create a front be a trouble to America

A H

ANHA