COMPLEX PARADIGM

The situation in the Middle East, which deteriorated sharply in recent months due to the offensive of the notorious "Islamic state" (IS) in Iraq and Syria, is strained to the limit. The maelstrom of events has totally overwhelmed the world's leading centres and regional powers, and therefore, the subsequent events can develop unpredictably.

The battle for Kobani and the position of Ankara

One of the epicentres of military action is the Kurdish-populated city of Kobani in Syria near the Turkish border. Kurdish militia fighters managed to repel an IS attack, which became a surprise for the reason that in recent weeks, the initiative on the Syrian front seemed to have been seized by Kurdish military forces. The latter liberated several population centres and came very close to the town of al-Raqqah, which the IS regards as its main stronghold in Syria. However, the offensive of the jihadists could upset all the plans of the Kurds and the forces of the international coalition who support them with air strikes. They managed to repel the IS attack only at the cost of heavy losses, including among the civilian population. Meanwhile, the Kurds and the international camp that sympathizes with them began to promote through the world media the question of why the surprise attack of the IS was possible. And as the answer there was a theory that the unexpected attack of the jihadists became possible thanks to help from Turkey.

Ankara is really anxiously watching the military successes of the Syrian Kurds against the IS, as the Kurdish movement as a whole, relying on military-political and financial support from the West, is seeking to create an independent Kurdish state in a portion of Syrian territory. This factor, along with the actual sovereignization of Iraqi autonomy in northern Iraq and the growing separatist sentiment among the Kurds in Turkey, of course, is a threat to the security and integrity of the latter. However, Ankara flatly rejects the accusations that in their opposition to the Kurdish movement, they are trying to use the IS. At the same time, Turkey makes it clear that it will not accept any accusations from outside, which cast a shadow over its efforts to protect its own independence and territorial integrity.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu directly warned: "If there is any sudden threat to Turkey's border security and if we understand that peace in our country is in danger, we will be ready for any eventuality. We will take all necessary measures to reduce the risks associated with cross-border security." And President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, speaking at a regular meeting of the National Security Council, was more specific: "Turkey will never allow a Kurdish state to be established on its southern borders in Syria. Ankara will make every effort to ensure that this plan is never carried out regardless of the price of the issue."

In other words, Ankara makes it clear that it will not allow certain forces in the world to turn the campaign against the IS into support for the Kurdish movement that openly threatens the interests, security and territorial unity of Turkey. This is largely the reason for Turkey's intention to create a 110-km "wall" or "safe zone" along the border with Syria. Although this initiative is officially motivated by the need to protect the country from IS insurgents, the presence of the same Kurdish component in the Turkish approach is obvious. In this context, the probability of Turkish troops invading Syria, the idea of which is often voiced by representatives of Turkey, can be considered in the same context. Although the "Syrian" initiatives of Ankara are dictated by the persistent desire to secure the departure of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from the political scene, it is obvious that all talk about the invasion of Syria largely comes from the internal political situation in Turkey. It is, above all, the increased influence of Kurdish organizations, one of which - the People's Democratic Party - made it into the Turkish Parliament in the recent elections.

American calculation and Iranian motifs

Meanwhile, the United States is openly dissatisfied with Turkish obstacles to the strengthening of the Kurdish factor in the Middle East. Washington hopes to rely on the Kurds as existing and potential allies of the West in building a new regional configuration that meets its long-term interests. From this point of view, information about the Pentagon's intention to station a unit of US Special Forces in the territory of Iraqi Kurdistan soon, which spread in the world media, is revealing. It is curious that the Americans are negotiating on the deployment of military forces not with Baghdad but with the Kurdish autonomy. And this is another argument in favour of the fact that Washington is willing to continue to promote the Kurdish card, without even considering the opinion of its regional allies, whether it is Ankara or Baghdad. In the case of Iraq's central government, things look totally depressing: the policy of this overseas power is that a breakup could expect this post-Saddam country with all the ensuing consequences for the people, whom American soldiers brought "prosperity and democracy" on their bayonets in the not too distant past.

It is therefore not surprising that the United States expressed its disagreement with the planned creation of a security zone by Turkey in Syria. Washington does not see the need for the creation of such a zone, because the coalition forces are currently conducting military operations against IS militants. At the same time, the White House and the US State Department are in no hurry to explain how the "Islamic state" that appeared from nowhere in Iraq, which was under American occupation for 10 years, is getting stronger day by day, attacks neighbouring countries and fights the US-led coalition forces.

It is no secret that the Americans and their allies have supported for many years the armed Islamist radicals that operate in a number of Arab countries and traditionally express disagreement with the policies of the West in the Middle East. For this reason, the Assad regime in Syria, which has been virtually given to international terrorists for sacrifice, has received a "black mark" in the United States. But if for the US the Turkish plan to invade Syria is unacceptable mostly in the context of the interests of the Kurdish element, the ally of Damascus - Iran - is criticizing Ankara's activity because of its desire to put an end to the rule of Bashar al-Assad.

Tehran believes that any violation of the territorial integrity of Syria will undermine international efforts to maintain peace and stability in that country. But seeing Turkey as a potential strategic partner in the settlement of Middle East conflicts, Tehran also expressed interest in cooperation with Ankara to oppose the burgeoning terrorist threat represented by the IS.

Muallem in Moscow and the Russian initiative

In the Syrian scenario, we should not discard the Russian factor that is traditionally present in it. During the recent visit to Moscow by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated his desire to continue to be one of the key players in Middle East geopolitics. The visit denied the rumours that Moscow was supposedly going to weaken support for Damascus. In any case, Walid Muallem expressed his belief that the Russian leader "fully intends to continue to provide assistance to Syria in the political, economic and military fields".

But Putin's initiative to unite the efforts of all countries in the region "to deal effectively with terrorism" appeared much more spectacular. "All our contacts with the countries of the region, and we have very good relations with all countries without exception, say that with an organization such as the so-called Islamic State ... everyone is ready to contribute to the fight against this evil. This also applies to Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. And in this regard, of course, we invite all our friends, including Syria, to do everything to establish a constructive dialogue with all countries interested in the fight against terrorism," Putin said at a meeting with the Syrian foreign minister.

It is noteworthy that all the countries mentioned by Putin are suspected of having links with the IS in varying degrees. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are often cited as countries that sponsor radical Wahhabism in general. Jordan is suspected of questionable links with the IS because of its far-reaching political plans with respect to Syria and the Middle East settlement. Finally, Turkey is persistently accused of purchasing oil from Iraqi regions seized by the IS. Not surprisingly, Muallem was very sceptical about Moscow's the idea of interaction between Russia, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan in the fight against the IS. At a joint press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Muallem ironically remarked: "President Putin and Russia under his leadership have achieved real miracles, but to form a coalition with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United States, we will need an even greater miracle."

However, it is naive to assume that the Russian leader, mentioning possible cooperation between the countries in the above combination, is so naive not to understand the difficulty in achieving such an anti-IS alliance. It is just that for the Kremlin it is important to somehow prevent the further uncontrolled influence of Western geostrategy in the region and at the same time, to show support for Syria again. To this end, Russia declared its readiness to make the seemingly impossible possible, namely, to try to reconcile Syria and regional countries, which have been trying to bring down its government so hard, but unsuccessfully in recent years. Moscow, apparently, believes that the prospect of this initiative is conditional on the original message - the need to eliminate the IS, the threat of which is objectively able to open the road for more or less fruitful cooperation between all countries of the region.