Syria joins Russia in recognising two small Caucuses states
Today, the Syrian Arab Republic officially established diplomatic relations with the Republic of South Ossetia and the Republic of Abkhazia. The two republics were formed after Russia saved their inhabitants from an attempted ethnic cleansing by the Georgian regime in 2008. Since then, the two Caucuses states have been recognised by Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru and now Syria.
Syria’s move was clearly a well intentioned attempt to show solidarity with Russia, as Russia was the first country to recognise the sovereignty of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and perhaps more importantly, it is Russia which in 2008 assured the survival of the citizens of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, just as Russia has in recent years played a vital role in assuring the survival of Syrians against a Takfiri terrorist onslaught.
However, due to the limited recognition of both Caucuses Republics, Syria may have accidentally set a precedent for the United States and “Israel” to recognise a self-proclaimed radical Kurdish regime in northern Syria, the so-called “Rojava” entity as a state.
It is widely acknowledged that since US, “Israeli”, Saudi, Qatari and European attempts to remove the legitimate government of Syria have failed, Washington and Tel Aviv are keen on instead moving to a ‘plan B’ of partitioning the Arab Republic. As Takfiri forces continue to crumble, Washington has pivoted its resources and neo-imperial aspirations in Syria towards radical Krudish terrorist groups including the Syrian branch of the PKK, the YPG.
The YPG now forms the core of the US proxy force SDF which continues to occupy much of north-eastern Syria, particularly in oil rich regions. While the US recognition of a Kurdish regime as a ‘state’ would likely lead to a point of no return for already abysmal Turko-US relations, if the US decided that partitioning Syria using Kurdish terrorists was more important than resurrecting relations with Ankara, Washington with “Israeli” support could recognise the “Rojava” regime as a state, as many in Washington have already demonstrated that their goal of Turkey is not to restore relations but to undermine President Erdogan’s staunchly independent government by the funding and aiding of anti-Ankara groups including the notorious Fethullah Terror Organisation (FETO).
No two formations of new states or the reunification of one entity with an existing state can be compared, but this has never stopped governments and even scholars from drawing such comparisons and then using these comparisons to attempt and set new precedents in international law.
For example, the NATO occupation and recognition of the occupied Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija can in no way be compared to Crimea re-joining its historic Russian homeland for the following reasons:
–An ethnically diverse Kosovo and Metohija was severed from the rest of Serbia by a violent KLA terrorist campaign followed by a NATO aerial war. Kosovo and Metohija remains an impoverished and violent place while no bright future appears forthcoming.
–By contrast, the overwhelmingly ethnic Russian Crimean peninsula democratically voted to re-join its historic mother country in overwhelming numbers without a hint of violence. Today, Crimea is seeing more investment than at any time in decades while Crimean residents remain content with their restored Russian status.
In the case of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both republics were forced to become independent as the country of Georgia which the former Soviet entities were erroneously assigned to after 1991 were frequently at war with multiple regimes in Tbilisi. In 2008 the Georgian regime attempted a full scale ethnic cleansing, the practicable incompatibility of South Ossetia and Abkhazia living within Georgia became clear. For South Ossetia and Abkhazia it was a matter of sovereignty with limited recognition or living under the constant cloud of war and for obvious enough reasons, the leaders of both regions choose the option of sovereignty with limited recognition.
Back to Syria
In Syria, the ethnic Kurds of the north are legally entitled to the same civil rights, the same citizenship and the same economic rights as all other peoples in Syria, just as ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija were in Yugoslavia. Likewise, just as in the 1990s many happy Yugoslav citizens who happened to have ethnic Albanian roots joined with their Serbian neighbours to oppose the KLA’s brutal terrorist campaign, so too are many Syrian Kurds happen to be Syria, just as in Turkey the majority of Kurds are not PKK supporting terrorists but happy Turkish citizens.
However, history has shown that the US in particular is willing to take the radical agitations of violent terrorist groups and use these minorities to agitate for separatism against states that Washington has poor relations with.
Because of this, Syria has given the US one more fake justification in its attempt to carve out an illegal Kurdish statelet on Syrian soil.
I have no doubt that Syria’s move was a magnanimous attempt to show solidarity with a peoples recently besieged by violent western funded war. Likewise the move was an attempt to show that Damascus is grateful for Russia’s assistance in its war against Takfiri terrorism. However, Syria may have unintentionally given the US a further weapon in its bag of tricks to try and fool the world into accepting a radical Kurdish statelet in Syria, one that Syria’s sworn enemy “Israel” supports against the wishes of every Arab and non-Arab power in the region.
Just because some new states like South Ossetia and Abkhazia were formed out of necessity while a would-be Kurdish statelet on Syrian soil would be a wilful act of imperialism, this does not mean that a country like the US will not twist this reality for its own gain. Ultimately, might makes right but the mighty still seek to draw false parallels to whitewash their aggression in the age of 24 hour online media.
In this sense, Syria may have accidentally handed the US a small but perhaps one day meaningful victory in the wider global infowar Even more tragically this was partly due to the fact that Damascus is keen to show Moscow that it perhaps regrets not signing up to the Russian efforts for a political settlement to the conflict sooner.