American policy in Syria

The latest round of talks in Geneva ended with minimal progress. In General, the negotiations were consistent with the changes of the military situation in Damascus, Hama and the region of al-Jazeera. At the same time, it should be noted that the negotiations began against the backdrop of the failure of the meeting in Astana, during which the representatives of the armed groups refused to sit at the negotiating table with the Syrian government.

Compared with the previous round of recent talks in Geneva was a political challenge — no matter what was actually achieved. Moscow has a consistent policy: it has made great efforts to the organization of the Geneva talks, and later sent a Deputy foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov to intensify the negotiating process faced difficulties in the first stage.

However, it seems that in fact the negotiations depends on the nature of American politics and the ability of Washington to manage the alliances in the battle for Raqqa in the East of the Euphrates as a whole. Perhaps the actions of the Americans in these areas is much more important than all violations carried out by armed groups. On the eve of talks in Geneva, the regional alliances were caught off guard. So, Turkey failed to identify the future role of Kurds in the political process in Syria, and Saudi Arabia has been unable to take a balanced, in terms of their interests position despite the military successes that it has supported armed groups.

On Syrian territory to support the so-called “Democratic forces in Syria,” Washington is using its military forces, whose number in the country is insignificant. This fact has three meanings:

1. End of discussion regarding the compromise between the Kurds and Turks, which was the signal directly for the Pentagon on the need for military operations in raqqa and in turn prompting Turkey to announce the completion of the operation “shield of the Euphrates”. Thus the United States wanted to create a situation that does not depend on the traditional forces within the Syrian opposition.

Previous experience of US involvement in the conflict in Syria was limited to action in the shadow of regional players that are now pushing Washington to take the initiative in their own hands despite all the problems associated with the management of the trump, as well as to define new priorities that are not dependent on the goals of armed groups. All this is strong evidence.

According to the statements of U.S. Secretary of state regarding the situation in Syria, there is no need to make big changes in American policy, but need to find a new purpose, different from the previous one, which was tied for first place with Iran.

2. The intention to establish serious contacts with Russia. On the banks of the Euphrates converge key players, which means the need for compliance with rules, as well as finding a balance between them. Apparently, Moscow quietly refers to the increasing U.S. presence in the region, and this calmness reflects her serious attitude.

US actions in Syria are concentrated today to the East and West of the Euphrates, have to turn the tide in this country, in order to reduce Russia’s role in the establishment of a middle East system of international relations based on agreements with Iran and Turkey. This is what the parties sought at negotiations in Astana.

However, Washington managed to exclude from this process Turkey, due to situation in al-Jazeera. Now the U.S. is trying to exert pressure on Russia to also exclude from the game Iran. Giving final shape the Middle East according to the American vision — the problem is not regional, and international level.

Thus, cooperation with Russia in Syria is an attempt to achieve balance, because American politics is faced with certain difficulties. However, at the same time, it seeks to impose on the region its own rules, even if they are not spread to Moscow.