The backlash of Aleppo

One fundamental trait of analysts who fail to persuade people by reasoning is to appeal to their emotions. We have seen this used ever since the Arab Spring morphed into the darkest period of the region's history, culminating in the Syrian civil war. The newspapers are filled with photos of babies, who are suffering from the power struggles of the adults, while not showing the photos of the adults who are waging the power struggles. The reason is because of two incidents which happened back to back.

Recently Assad's forces, backed by Iranian mercenaries and heavy Russian air power, managed to strike a deal regarding the evacuation of Aleppo. It was regarded as the biggest victory in the Syrian civil war for the Assad government as Aleppo has been the symbolic resistance movement, and the longest siege of modern times. News agencies all around the world were talking about the heroic rebels having a last stand; however the reality is a little bit different.

Aleppo was defended by Jaish Al Islam, an offshoot of the Islamist Jihad and ideologically aligned to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. After the "liberation" there were people on camera complaining to Reuters how these "rebels" didn't allow civilians to eat even a morsel of bread, instead they stockpiled all the food for the siege for themselves. The day the evacuation started, the "rebels" burned down five busses meant for the evacuation thereby hampering the effort. All this proves that there is much else than the black and white story being constantly permeating in media. The rebels are not some heroic bunch of modern outlaws who are fighting a gigantic monstrous regime. The reality is, as usual a lot more complex.

The second thing that happened was the murder of the Russian ambassador to Turkey at the time of writing this piece. Ambassador Karlov was shot from the back when he was lecturing in an art gallery and the gunman, even though the details are sketchy, seemed to shout the Islamic prayer, and say that Aleppo was the cause of his murder. Russia already announced it as a terrorist attack, as has Turkey, attributing it to a Gulenist plot.

One thing is certain though; the fact that Turkey and Russia had a rapprochement, or Russian backed forces are winning in Aleppo is an anathema to a lot of extremists who want to foil both the developments. It is a simple calculation. Turkey and Russia have historical problems. This is due to the civilizational crossroads of the Middle East, with Turkey also being a member of NATO. The last Russian ambassador who was murdered was also killed at the hands of Islamists, in Tehran in the 19th century at the peak of Russo-Ottoman conflicts. In modern times, the last time a Russian ambassador was attacked was during the Lebanese civil war. Swift retaliation by the KGB brought that to a speedy end.

This time it is unlikely that Russia and Turkey will come to blows. The tension between the two powers has died down, especially after the coup attempt, as Erdogan found himself to be lonely on the international stage. Both sides indicated that the meetings between the two countries will go on as usual and it is expected that Russia will take this opportunity to crack down on Islamists further.

Unfortunately, it poses more and more strategic questions for the West, as everyone is coming to an uncomfortable understanding that the people the West supported are essentially not good. The rebels are fragmented, and even the most moderate of them are extremely brutal and Islamist, and therefore either not sufficiently qualified to provide any alternative to the Assad government, or actively dangerous to the stability and geopolitics of the region.

In light of that, the only policy that is available for the West and particularly for Donald Trump, is one of a tactical alignment with Russia. Predictably after every tragedy or terror attack there will be a rise of calls for intervention, as if only Obama bombed Assad to smithereens, like the U.S. did with Gaddafi all this wouldn't have happened. That is mono-causal analysis, and intellectually dishonest at best.

Sumantra Maitra is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/SumantraMaitra.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors only, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.