Six consequences of the American strike on Syria

“Eurasia Daily” has published an article by Dmitri Evstafiev- Professor at the National Research University “Higher School of Economics” -entitled (6consequences of the American strike on Syria) that says: Let us highlight the six main political aspects that emerged during the preparation and implementation of the US attack on Syria.

  • First, the situation around Syria demonstrated the limits of American military capabilities. It seems that the modern American armed forces are not capable of operations in the format of a “major regional conflict”

  • Second, regardless of the growing internal elite pressure, Donald Trump is creating a system for important political decision making in Washington, built on the concentration of power in his hands, So far the sole decision-making concern only foreign policy issues, but this will have significant strategic implications including in terms of building US relations with Russia and other Eurasian countries. These relations are becoming much more unpredictable than ever in history.

  • Third, the United States were not able to truly draw the support of any Middle Eastern countries for its operations. This indicates doubts about the American ability to be an effective stabilizing force in the region, besides this dialogue can bring the end of political and institutional destruction, linked with the so-called “Arab Spring”.

  • Forth, the United States presently do not have an economic “agenda” in Syria at all, neither in the short term nor in the long terms. It is doubtful whether the United States have an economically motivated action plan and, in general in the Middle East, as Washington is beginning to speak openly. This may indicate that the United States is politically ready to play out a scenario of controlled chaos in the Middle East, aimed in the medium term against Iran, and the only factor that still holds Washington from drawing this scenario is the fear of rapprochement between Russia and Saudi Arabia.

  • Fifth, there is the creation of a “narrow NATO”, that is, a group of nations, which supports the US in everything or almost all issues. This group of nations consists of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and Canada. The “collective West” exists politically, that is, on the level of ideological constructs and declarations, but undergoes serious erosion from the operational point of view.

  • Sixth, the situation around Syria has clearly demonstrated the dominance of propaganda motives in Washington’s foreign policy. This manifested itself in full in the global media’s coverage of the preparation for the attack on Syria and the attack itself. Regardless of the complete controversy, it was the American-British version of events that dominated despite the great doubts about the motives.

Source: Arabic.rt

 

 

اترك تعليق

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of
avatar
wpDiscuz