This content is available for viewing on PCs and tabletsGo to main page
MOSCOW, June 09. /ITAR-TASS/. Almost 90% votes that Bashar Assad received in the presidential election was a totally predictable result of the electoral campaign in Syria — a result that cannot be called in question in any way but can only be rejected as a whole, the way the West is rejecting it.
The West’s problem, however, is that it does not steer the processes in Syria. The harshest versions of ‘color revolutions’ and direct military intervention failed to deliver the goods on Syrian soil, and there is an explanation to it.
All the revolutions that broke out in the format of the ‘Arab spring grew out of the contradictions along the divisions lines between the urban and rural areas, and modern/ultramodern. In spite of all the slogans demanding freedom and democracy, emphasis was made on awakening the most primeval and archaic motivations for crushing a new civilization of modernized Islam.
The paradox, however, is that the recipes went faulty precisely in Syria although the lines of division existing in Syrian society today are quite plausible between separate religious communities, city and village dwellers, as well as people of different nationalities living in the country,
The answer to the exclamation ‘But why?’ should be sought in Syria’s most recent history, which is linked in the most immediate way to the Assad family, which consists of talented people and unconventional statesmen.
Syria’s second unique feature is the boldness of its state power. Although the country belongs to the third world, it managed to secure a place for itself in the bipolar world of the Cold War era and to get an international status after the collapse of the latter.
The Syrian government conducted an authentic policy both inside and outside of the country in the knottiest imaginable circumstances. Quite naturally, it was the independence and boldness of Syrian state power that became the driving motive of a war unleashed against the Syrians.
Hence one should not take any surprise over the fact that the outcome of the current elections was predestined. The Syria of today has a real, tangible leader and any other outcome of the election simply would not be possible.
From a purely political angle of view, this election rounds up the political reform, which Bashar Assad launched in 2012. As for the situation on the practical plane, the election does not change much. The likelihood of Bashar Assad’s starting to reshape the entire course of the country is extremely small, although he can do some technical reshuffles in the cabinet and elsewhere.
The main task that Syria continues solving at present is to expel the intruding terrorists and militants from its territory, to eliminate the paramilitary formations, and to establish dialogue with anyone who is prepared to settle problems by any means different from the striking power of weaponry.
No one will dare today to predict any deadline by which the task will be resolved but everyone familiar with the situation at least tentatively does not have any doubts that this is just a matter of time.
The fall-apart of the coalition that sponsored the war only confirms that its constituents do not see any prospects for continuation of the hostilities anymore, even though Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey continue solving a range of tasks of a lower level — and rallying the assistance of the yet existing paramilitary groups along the way.
Yet there is one more player who does not rejoice at the situation at all. It is the US, which is ready to go on supporting this highly unpromising war, since its termination on the conditions differing from the American ones will deal a heaviest blow to the US foreign policies.
ITAR-TASS may not share the opinions of its contributors