Four years of raging bloody war in Syria. What began as a democratic uprising against the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a tangle of conflicts, fueled in part by the brutal, semi-open confrontations between Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia for supremacy in the region. That conflict, as the war in Yemen has shown, can potentially destabilize the entire region. During this time, Russia, thanks to the military intervention carried out on behalf of Assad, is trying to strengthen its status as a superpower by opposing the West (and especially the United States).
The conflict in Syria is developing, at least, on three levels - local, regional and global. Having allowed it to turn into a growing boil, already 250.000 people, according to United Nations estimates, have become its victims. This year, the UNHCR estimated the number of refugees from Syria at 4 million; another 7,6 million inhabitants left their permanent residence but remain in the country. In addition to all that, the wave of Syrian refugees arriving in Europe has become one of the biggest challenges the European Union has ever faced.
The civil war in Syria also led to the emergence of a dangerous breeding ground for Islamic terrorism, as demonstrated by the ISIL terrorist attacks in Ankara, Beirut and Paris, as well as the explosion of a Russian passenger plane over the Sinai Peninsula. By shooting down a Russian military plane, Turkey increased the risk of involving major powers in a direct conflict. Finally, Turkey is a member of NATO and is entitled to military assistance from the Alliance in case it is attacked.
Because of all this, the Syrian war must be ended as soon as possible. Practically every day, not only the scale of the humanitarian disaster, but also the threats to security created by that war are increasing.
After the terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, a new chance has appeared to end the Syrian agony, because all the key players (not counting ISIL) are now ready to sit down together at the negotiating table. But, although all the players agree that the fight against ISIL is a priority, as before, it is not clear whether they will actually lead that fight.
The Kurds in northern Syria and Iraq are the most effective fighters against ISIL, but their national ambitions collide with Turkey's interests. Iran and Saudi Arabia are primarily fighting each other for regional dominance, relying on non-state actors. Russia is fighting for global status and is against any models of regime change.
With that, Russia became an ally of Iran, supporting the Assad dictatorship. For its part, Iran pursues its own geopolitical interests, helping its Shia ally in Lebanon, Hezbollah, to whom the reliability of the Syrian hinterland is very important. France is very serious about the fight against ISIL, and Germany and other European countries feel obliged to help it, as well as to stop the flow of refugees from the region.
But the action of the USA was stopped by the handbrake. Until the end of his powers, President Barack Obama will, above all, avoid the country's entry into another war in the Middle East. As the world's major power remains on the sidelines, an extremely dangerous power vacuum inevitably emerges, which Vladimir Putin tries to exploit.
Partly due to the refusal of the US to assume a leadership role, as well as due to Europe being militarily too weak to influence events in Syria, the threat of a European de facto alliance with Putin's Russia has emerged. It would be a serious mistake, because any form of cooperation with Russia will not help to stop or end the war in Syria. In fact, there are reasons to fear the opposite result: any military cooperation with Assad - and that is Putin's goal and price - will push the majority of Sunni Muslims into the hands of radical Islamists.
This tendency is already visible in Iraq. The Shiite-dominated government of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki played a major role in radicalizing Iraqi Sunnis and encouraging them to support ISIL. It would be incredibly stupid to voluntarily repeat the same mistake in Syria. In addition, such an agreement has nothing in common with the principles of realpolitik because the war in Syria cannot end as long as ISIL or Assad are on the scene.
In any form of cooperation between the West and Russia, two possible consequences must be avoided: linking the Syrian issue with the Ukrainian one (negotiations with Iran on limiting its nuclear program succeeded without this link) and military cooperation with Assad. Instead, we should try to link the military intervention against ISIL, carried out under the agenda of the UN Security Council, with the agreement on the political transition process that assumes the transition from the ceasefire to the government of national unity of Syria and the end of the Assad regime.
There is another problem looming in Syria. Iraq's descent into chaos, closely linked to the Syrian tragedy, threatens to turn into a new arena of conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. If this struggle for regional hegemony is not stopped, the next wars under the patronage of strong states - with all the risks associated with them - will be inevitable.
Ultimately, the main battle with Islamic extremism will be fought within the Sunni community. Which form of Sunni Islam will prevail - the Saudi variant of Wahhabism or the more modern moderate variant? That is the main issue in the fight against ISIL and its ilk. In this context, an important factor will be the attitude of the West towards its own Muslims - whether they will be perceived as desirable citizens with the same rights and obligations or as eternal foreigners and fodder for those who recruit jihadists.
Bonus video:
