By DIOGO FAGUNDES*
The swift and stunning defeat of Bashar al-Assad's regime indicates more of a kind of internal implosion than a military defeat.
We live in times of disorientation and chaos. The world order built after the end of World War II has collapsed and nothing has taken its place. The United States, dominated by imperial hubris, after the end of the USSR, was unable or unwilling to create a stable global environment capable of encompassing the interests of other powers. Unipolar exclusivity has made any viable architectural arrangement unfeasible. In the meantime, between the old that is dying and the new that is struggling to be born, as Antonio Gramsci said, monsters are being produced. Here is a panoramic view of two key locations for a possible global conflagration: the Middle East and Europe.
Síria
The swift and impressive defeat of Bashar al-Assad's regime indicates more a kind of internal implosion than a military defeat. The Syrian rebels swept everything in one fell swoop, taking Aleppo, Hama and Homs in a very short period of time. It is worth remembering that these cities were the scene of a fierce and tenacious struggle during the war from 2011 to 2014, with neighborhood-by-neighborhood, inch-by-inch fighting. The comparison between the two events is striking. It indicates the total failure of Syrian Baathism. States that are sustained only by external aid, without internal support, have no chance whatsoever of being viable in the long term.
All this has to be understood in light of the country's rather unique state after its (unlikely, it is worth remembering) survival, with decisive help from Russia, Hezbollah and Iran. In practice, it was a state that was not entirely sovereign, with the US occupying the east of the country – where there is a lot of oil –, hostage to the geopolitical game, target of heavy economic sanctions, dealing with constant Israeli air strikes and war.proxy“A model of 21st century imperialism: an anarchic zone where jihadist groups, anomie and vast economic and geopolitical interests coexist.
It is quite understandable that many oppressed people see the situation as liberation. Bashar al-Assad was not as much of a butcher as his father, but he still left many people rightly angry. In economic terms, the more “socialist” style was abandoned in the 1990s. However, it is very unlikely that a situation of stability and peace will be consolidated. First of all, because the one leading the insurgency is HTS, a “rebranding” of Al-Nusra (the local branch of Al-Qaeda), which committed so much destruction and barbarity in the region.
Even though the current rhetoric suggests less sectarianism, it is difficult to trust Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, a leader who was ideologically and politically shaped by the most radical sectarianism against Christians and Shiites. I hope that the public relations effort – counting on the Western media – indicating a change in stance towards “pragmatism” is true, but it is wiser to be suspicious. Like it or not, Bashar al-Assad maintained a secular state that was tolerant of the country’s ethnic and religious diversity. This situation could worsen brutally, as we have seen in the past, when the “Syrian rebels” shocked the world with their fanatical massacres.
Who wins? Turkey, certainly. Recep Erdogan's neo-Ottoman geopolitics was the major regional actor in driving local jihadism, including the recruitment of Turkic peoples into the ranks of the rebels, such as the Uighurs. This clearly indicates that Recep Erdogan is independent of Russia, someone who is not very trustworthy, despite his maneuvers and commitments: his own project involves everything from the Caucasus (see support for Azerbaijan) to Central Asia, and the Middle East.
Israel, too. Benjamin Netanyahu, as always not very discreet, has already appeared in the Golan Heights celebrating the fall of Bashar al-Assad, attributing to himself the main role in the victory, for having made the support of Hezbollah and Iran unfeasible with their regional wars. The Zionist country took advantage of the gap to tear up the agreement established in 1974 and expand its territory in Syria.
At the moment, it is bombing Damascus, demilitarizing its enemy. It may seem counterintuitive, but the presence of extremist jihadists is not necessarily bad for the country, after all, their main objective is to destabilize rival states, and for this purpose these groups are very useful (in the previous war, it was reported that Israeli hospitals even treated wounded ISIS members).
It is quite likely that the country will undergo a chaotic “balkanization” in the style of Libya, without any central authority. This is great for the enemies of Iran and Russia, who are the big losers of the day. So much Russian effort to keep Assad only to end up with such a result? It is unlikely that the suffering Syrian people will find any redemption in the unfolding of events, especially if HTS’s tolerant promises are just lip service. It is instructive to see the West’s reaction: they treat Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorists, but they are understanding with the people of Al-Qaeda, infinitely more sectarian, violent and “fascist”. When the Taliban managed to expel the US from Afghanistan, they thought any celebration was absurd, after all, they were an extremist group, but now they can?
In any case, the outlook is bleak. The triumphalists of multipolarity, who believe that Russia is the unbeatable leader of a new world order, have seen their narratives collapse with the fragility of the fall. The truth is that, while the Atlanticist bloc led by the US is in fact decadent and is currently suffering a major defeat in Ukraine, the Russian-Chinese coalition is far from being as solid as they portray it to be, mainly because it depends on regimes that are little loved by their respective peoples.
The most likely scenario is that the war between the two blocs, in the form of agents “proxies“, will only end in hellish destruction and suffering. Currently, nothing regulates this confrontation: we are in a situation much worse than the Cold War, with a much lower level of awareness of the dangers on the part of humanity. International law is over. It is already part of public discourse to consider the tactical use of nuclear weapons. This situation is unlikely to end well.
Where is Europe going?
Emmanuel Macron, after ignoring the results of the polls and forming a government excluding the winning coalition, has given France the fastest-serving prime minister in history. The reason for his downfall? The legislature’s rejection of the excesses of austerity and authoritarian ambition, the only religious dogma still in force in Western societies. Meanwhile, on the foreign front, he says he will refuse to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he sets foot on French territory, even after the conviction of the International Criminal Court, whose jurisdiction the French state supposedly recognizes. Complete demoralization of international law, this pillar of the “rules-based international order”! How can anyone still take this seriously?
In Germany, in the midst of an economic crisis resulting from stupid policies against Russia motivated by US-friendly attitudes, a policy of fierce persecution of anyone who dares to disagree with the actions of the State of Israel exposes the deep intolerance of real dissent amid the lure of liberal rhetoric about tolerance and respect for diversity.
In the face of the first-round electoral victory in Romania of a candidate (with reactionary positions, it is true) who is not aligned with the positions of the European establishment, the result is canceled by a judicial coup based on a TikTok campaign (?!). No one thinks this is abnormal, the game goes on. After all, elections are held to consecrate the right, acceptable candidates. A concept that is already in force in the relationship between capitalist powers and the Third World is imported into European territory: military coups in Egypt or Algeria, against the results of the polls, were accepted since the victors were on the wrong side.
Democracy is becoming increasingly discredited. After the “popular will” supposedly enshrined in the suffrage was crushed for economic and financial reasons (as was the case with the European Troika’s reaction to Syriza’s electoral victory in Greece in the middle of the last decade), clearly indicating who was in charge of these democracies, there is now a more profound stage of rejection of any political heterogeneity, in a true dictatorship of single thought.
* Diogo Fagundes he is studying for a master's degree in law and is studying philosophy at USP.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
