PROSPECTS FOR COLLECTIVE OPPOSITION TO THE ISLAMIC STATE

M. S. KHODYNSKAYA-GOLENISHCHEVA

Candidate of Historical Sciences

Employee of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the UN and other International Organizations in Geneva

Keywords: Syria, "Arab spring", terrorism, "Islamic State", multipolarity, foreign policy

The crisis in Syria and the resulting surge in radicalism and the unprecedented rise of the global terrorist international have raised questions about the need to develop a unified, collective strategy based on international law to counter jihadists. The operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS), which began on September 30, 2015 and caused damage to the potential of terrorist groups operating in Syria-the Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nusra and others-has certainly become a factor that will largely determine the vector of developments around Syria and the Middle East in the near future.

On October 30, 2015, in Vienna, 19 States - countries of the region and world powers, as well as regional organizations-adopted a Joint Statement on Syria, one of the points of which set the task of defeating terrorist groups operating in ^the country1. This is the first internationally agreed document since the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012, which combines steps to resolve the Syrian crisis with measures to eliminate the main threat to Syria - terrorism.

At the same time, Russia and the United States began agreeing on a "single list" of terrorist groups that are not included in the relevant lists of the UN Security Council, but are de facto terrorist or acting jointly with jihadists. Thus, we can assume that there is a chance to translate into practice the initiative of Vladimir Putin to create an international counter-terrorism front.

RUSSIA'S POSITION AND THE WEST'S REACTION

The Russian position on Syria, which focuses on the urgent need to unite the efforts of all interested players to fight terrorism, did not appear today or even on the eve of the start of strikes by the Russian Aerospace Forces against terrorist targets in this country.

Thus, as early as in 2011, in fact, since the beginning of the Arab Spring and, in particular, the internal conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR), Russia has consistently pointed out that the spread of terrorism is a challenge to stability and security in the ^region2 and that all states - regardless of their attitude towards Bashar al-Assad-should not be allowed to continue we need to unite and fight the jihadists.

The Russian position, however, was not understood for a long time. Obsessed with the goal of overthrowing Bashar al - Assad, many countries - both Western and some regional-acted "according to the Libyan patterns" and relied on radical forces that opposed official Damascus. This led to the fact that Western members of the UN Security Council blocked Russian initiatives aimed at condemning terrorist attacks in the Security Council.

Nevertheless, the phenomenon of the "Islamic State "(IS), the seizure of vast territories by the militants of this group in Iraq, Syria and Libya, the destabilization of the situation in the Sinai Peninsula3, ^the brutal executions carried out by the IS, terrorist attacks in Europe, the risks of gaining access to weapons of mass destruction, the merging of terrorism with the illegal arms and drug trade the unprecedented wave of migration to Europe from Libya, Syria, and Iraq (those countries where the Islamic State "settled") and the penetration of jihadists4-all this forced some opponents of Bashar al-Assad to correct the situation.

their views in favor of taking into account the factor of terrorism in politics in the Syrian direction.

REASONS FOR THE" BIFURCATION " OF THE US POSITION

These changes made it possible to adopt, at Russia's initiative, a number of important UN Security Council resolutions-2170 and 2178 (2014) and 2199 (2015), designed to put a barrier in the way of further expansion of jihadists. These decisions have formed the basis for international cooperation in the fight against terrorism. However, it was not possible to move to really effective cooperation in countering extremists at that time. This was due to a number of factors.

First of all, it affected the disinterest of the states of the region that sought to overthrow the regime in Syria-Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia - to engage in the process of cooperation in the fight against the terrorist threat. After all, this could devalue the resources invested in the goal of removing Bashar al-Assad and damage the line of promoting the "Islamic project" in the region (in the case of Qatar and Turkey - oriented to the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, with Saudi Arabia-to the Salafi doctrine*).

Washington's position was one of the main reasons for the inability to organize effective collective counteraction to the terrorist threat after the adoption of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. The fact is that by showing a willingness to cooperate in the Security Council in developing solutions to combat terrorism, the United States has not got rid of its selfish approach to this issue. The American line remained "split": the United States could not abandon, especially publicly, the task of overthrowing the Assad regime and did not dare to take steps that could be interpreted as helping the "regime", even if it was the fight against terrorism.

In the fight against extremists in Syria, the Americans did not want to cooperate with the government, which for several years actually fought alone against this threat. Instead of recognizing the Syrian armed forces as a legitimate ally in the fight against the Islamic State (as the United States did in Iraq, where the coalition led by them conducts airstrikes on terrorist positions and operates American special forces), Washington announced that B. Assad cannot be considered a partner in the fight against jihadists and "must leave." And the United States could no longer move away from this position without losing face.

Thus, when considering steps to counter terrorism, the United States paid special attention to ensuring that this struggle did not lead to a strengthening of the position of Damascus. The words of the American political scientist F. Fukuyama illustrate Washington's way of thinking well: "We don't necessarily want to destroy the Islamic State if it allows Bashar al-Assad to regain control of all of Syria. "⁵

For narrow political reasons, the United States did not want to involve a major regional player - Iran-in cooperation in this area. In September 2014, neither Syria nor Iran was invited to the Paris Conference on Peace and Security in Iraq, where they discussed ways to counter the Islamic State - although a significant part of the "caliphate" that the Islamic State proclaimed was located in Syria, and the Syrian city of Raqqa was declared its "capital". Thus, Washington has impoverished the arsenal of counter-terrorist capabilities," for ideological reasons " withdrawing states from cooperation, without which it is impossible to organize an effective fight against jihadists.

Defeating terrorism in Syria, which the United States probably wanted, and overthrowing the regime, which they continued to seek, were contradictory tasks. It was impossible to effectively fight the jihadists without cooperating with the government of Bashar al-Assad on this issue, just as it is impossible to change the regime without it leading to the victory of the terrorists "in the field" and turning the entire territory of Syria into the arena of a new civil war. In order to successfully counter the jihadist threat in the SAR and the region, a comprehensive strategy was needed that did not allow for discrepancies.

WHY WAS THE "MODERATE OPPOSITION" CREATED?

Nevertheless, the Americans, maneuvering between incompatible goals, developed their own "strategy". Instead of intensifying cooperation based on the norms of international law, first of all, the counter-terrorism resolutions of the UN Security Council 2170, 2178 and 2199, and seeking to unite the forces of the Government of the SAR and

* Salafism is a trend in Sunni Islam. It unites Muslim religious figures who call for focusing on the way of life and faith of the early Muslim community, on the "righteous ancestors" who reject all later innovations, including those introduced to the Muslim world by the West. Salafia-means "understanding religion in the form in which the Prophet and his companions understood it", "returning to the Qur'an and Sunnah" in the interpretation of Sharia provisions. (See: Al-Saffarini M. Lyawami al-anuar al-bahiyah (Sparkling of a beautiful light). Damascus, 1982. Vol. 1, p. 20.)

Washington announced that the "moderate" opposition, which will be formed by the United States, will fight the jihadists on the platform of countering terrorists.

Having failed with the" project " of the Free Syrian Army (from this structure, which the Americans initially relied on, practically nothing remained - most of its combat-ready elements went over to jihadist formations) and not being able to openly promote the Islamic Front, with which Washington previously collaborated, the United States decided to "create" a group of so-called "terrorist groups". "moderate militants" and send it to Syria to fight the terrorists (and after defeating them-with Bashar al-Assad). The Americans called this program "Train and Equip".

The initiative to develop the program (worth $500 million) was announced by Barack Obama on May 28, 2014, in his speech at the West Point Military Academy. ⁶ The goals of helping "moderate" oppositionists were allegedly limited to strengthening the ability to retain territories under their control and counter extremists. In addition to supplying weapons, training and equipping militants, it was also about providing intelligence, providing military consulting and logistical support. It was supposed to train 5.5 thousand militants within 18 months. At the same time, candidates should not be "convinced Islamists".

According to some experts, with the help of the Train and Equip program, the Americans planned to create a force that B. Assad "had to reckon with", a kind of "alternative" to the SAR army. Then, during the political process, the government and the opposition would be on an equal footing.

Another point of view regarding the American plans was that the United States planned to achieve the separation of territories from Syria with the help of these detachments and the establishment of a no-fly zone there, where the opposition "provisional government" headed by A. Tuma, located in Gaziantep, Turkey, would move. Having failed to overthrow the regime, the Americans probably wanted to follow the path of creating a "dual power" in Syria with the subsequent expansion of the territories controlled by the militants. But any opposition must be formed within the country, and it is quite another matter if people are specially trained and armed abroad and sent inside the "undesirable" state for destructive purposes.⁷

In order not to train new detachments of Syrian militants on their own, the Americans enlisted the support of their closest allies. Thus, during the meeting of the so-called "Core Group of Friends of Syria"* in London on November 10, 2014, its members confirmed their support for the "Train and Equip" program, which is designed to combat "extremism and tyranny". That is, both with terrorists and with the "dictatorial regime" ⁸.

The only result of the American program of forming the so-called "moderate armed opposition" was that the militants trained and equipped by Washington after crossing the border began to surrender en masse to the Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist organization or desert.

In September 2015, Congressional hearings on the implementation of this initiative were held, during which the head of the US Central Command admitted that no more than 5 people actually fought "on the ground" out of all the "moderate opposition" trained by the US.9.⁹ On October 9, the White House announced that the administration was ending the Train and Equip program10.

At the end of 2015, Washington made another attempt to create an armed front in Syria. On the basis of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, the Americans formed the so-called "Democratic Forces of Syria". They include Kurds, scattered detachments that were previously part of the Free Syrian Army, and militias of ethnic and religious minorities-Assyrians, Turkomans, and others. Washington has sent advisers to assist the new alliance in planning operations and has begun supplying weapons ¹¹. According to the US plan, the "Democratic Forces "should carry out a number of operations against the IS. This is necessary for Washington, not least from the point of view of demonstrating the" effectiveness " of the US anti-ISIS campaign against the background of the operation of the Russian aerospace forces.

However, there are serious doubts about the feasibility of American plans. The Kurds - the only serious fighting force within the new association - are more interested in protecting the area of their traditional residence and are not enthusiastic about American plans, in particular, related to the storming of the Sunni city of Raqqa controlled by the IS, where the local population may be hostile to Kurdish units. Syrian Sunni rebels and

* Initially, there were more than 100 states in the "Group", but most of them were not ready to contribute to the implementation of the American policy of forcibly removing the regime of Bashar al-Assad and left the association. Only 11 countries remained, and the structure itself was renamed the " Core of the Friends of Syria Groups "(author's note).

international human rights organizations "preemptively" accused the Kurds of carrying out ethnic cleansing ¹². This suggests that the Kurds can use American assistance to further implement their own agenda related to self-determination.

Moreover, Washington's actions to support the Kurds have already seriously complicated relations between the United States and Turkey. Ankara seriously fears that the strengthening of the Syrian Kurds motivates their Turkish counterparts to intensify the struggle for the creation of Kurdistan. There were signs of a proxy US-Turkish conflict: Ankara, Washington's NATO ally, launched strikes against US-backed Kurdish groups.¹³ It can be assumed that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will do everything possible to prevent the success of American-supervised groups.

US MILITARY OPERATION IN SYRIA

But educating militants who "respect international humanitarian law and share Western liberal values" is only part of Washington's counterterrorism strategy. The second block is the bombing of IS positions in Syria by the US-led coalition for more than a year, during which, according to UN human rights organizations, civilians are killed.¹⁴

Unwilling to cooperate in countering the jihadists with their natural ally, the Syrian government, and to apply to the UN Security Council for approval of their actions, the Americans formed a temporary "coalition of interested parties" and, pointing out the "collective" nature of their operation, began to bomb IS positions. The only result was the expansion of the territory controlled by the militants.

Terrorists have learned to respond to bombardments by dividing into small groups and dissolving into densely populated neighborhoods. This was stated at a briefing at the Geneva Center for Security Policy in June 2015 by S. Sivel, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Secretary of State for Civil Security, Democracy, and Human Rights ¹⁵.

Representatives of Russia stressed that the fight against terrorism should be built on the basis of a common strategy. There are all the mechanisms for this, first of all, the UN structures. When practical steps to solve anti-terrorist tasks are taken outside the UN framework, it unwittingly suggests that they are originally conceived by their authors outside international law and pursue additional goals other than those officially stated.¹⁶

Pinpoint strikes by the US-led coalition on the positions of the Islamic State did not lead to the destruction of this powerful group - a well-armed army of fanatics and professional military personnel from among the former officers of the Iraqi army, receiving daily from $1 million ¹⁷ to $3 million ¹⁸ "oil income". At the same time, the bombing contributed to the growth of the popularity of the IG, turning it for the radicals into a kind of "outpost" of confrontation with the West.

And another dangerous consequence of the coalition's actions is the reaction to the attacks of the international jihadist movement. The bombing of IS has led to a certain softening of the attitude towards the group on the part of the world jihad movement. There are prospects for reconciliation between al-Qaeda's Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State until recently. A number of reputable ideologues of radical Islamism came up with a corresponding initiative. In their opinion, the "crusaders" led by the United States, attacking jihadists in Syria and Iraq, commit actions directed against Islam, and not a separate group. We must put aside our differences when "forty countries have come together to wage war against Islam itself." ¹⁹

The bombing, in fact, stimulated the jihadists to overcome internecine strife and unite on an anti-Western platform. Moreover, it was not only about terrorist groups operating in Syria and Iraq. The reconciliation initiative of Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State was supported both in North Africa and in the Arabian Peninsula.

Thus, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula issued a joint statement-the "Chapter of Disbelief", calling on jihadists to unite against a common enemy-Washington. It notes that the United States deliberately pits Al-Qaeda and ISIS against each other. The Ansar al-Din group from Mali has offered to deploy observers to monitor the truce between IS and other jihadist groups.²⁰ The amir of Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent, established in ^September 2014, Osama Mahmud21, also called for uniting against the common enemy and fighting it everywhere. Until some time ago, such a development of events could not have been imagined. The relationship between IS and al-Qaeda has been complex.

The Islamic State was rapidly gaining popularity for a number of reasons. First, the supporters were provided by what IS managed to prove: it is possible to create a "caliphate". Al-Qaeda.

it controlled only limited, small areas and unrelated territories. Secondly, political and confessional factors played a role: in Iraq and Syria, some local Sunni clans supported the Salafists from the IS, opposing Shiite (Alawite) dominance in the leadership of states. Al-Qaeda, which is located in Afghanistan and Pakistan and relies primarily on these regions, has to take into account the ethnic and clan specifics of these countries, where its fighters are a minority and outsiders.

Western intervention without international sanction led to a real prospect of merging Al-Qaeda with the Islamic State, which could be followed by an expansion of the international terrorist alliance, while adding up the competitive advantages of groups operating in various regions-from the Russian North Caucasus to Yemen.

This is a dangerous prospect, including for Russia. An alarming sign is the support for the reconciliation initiative between Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State by the leader of the Caucasus Emirate radical group Abu Muhammad al-Daghestani22. Moreover, the merging of the potentials of al-Qaeda and other groups as a result of a tactical alliance could provide an opportunity for the expansion of Salafists into Central Asian states, what was a threat to Russia's national security.

Terrorism has mutated. From the tactics of one-time actions to intimidate the population and "punish" foreigners, he moved to a clearly constructed concept of Islamist totalitarianism, building a state with all the attributes. The "new terrorism" was challenging statehood in the region, breaking the structure of national sovereignty and eroding the national identity of the Middle East countries.²³

Moreover, the trend of merging terrorism with international organized crime, primarily arms trafficking and drug trafficking, has received an additional boost as a result of Western interventions in Iraq and Libya and the destabilization of Syria. There is a clear risk of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of non-State actors, including terrorists, who today include many well-educated Iraqis from among Saddam's former scientists and functionaries.

The consequences could have been catastrophic. The jihadists would certainly try to integrate everything that they could capture, all the technologies and resources, into the process of building a Takfiri state, a "caliphate". Such a caliphate, built on the principles of fear and strict discipline, and provided with uninterrupted, independent funding (oil, weapons, drugs, etc.), would be viable. At least in a territory where he could fill the power vacuum.

RUSSIA'S ANTI-TERRORIST OPERATION AND THE WEST'S RESPONSE

It was all these factors, which primarily affect Russia's national security, that made Moscow decide to launch an anti-terrorist operation in Syria. Numerous proposals received by Washington from the Russian side to establish a collective counteraction to terrorism, to create a united front to counter Takfiri terrorists, were actually rejected by the United States. Although the United States agreed to them, first of all, to participate in the work of the information and coordination centers created for counterterrorism purposes in Baghdad and Amman, it was objectively in Washington's interests.

The United States, while formally rejecting Russia's proposal, nevertheless recognized the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria. This is evidenced by the fact that the two sides signed a Memorandum on preventing incidents and ensuring aviation flights during operations in Syria. ²⁴ As a follow-up to the understanding recorded in it, on November 3, 2015, a joint training session of the Russian and US Air Forces on the actions of crews and ground services in cases of dangerous approach of aircraft ²⁵ was held.

Russia's actions in Syria involving the potential of the Russian armed forces were painfully perceived in Washington. Many in the American elite saw this as a direct threat to the" exclusivity " of the United States, its leadership in the region and in world affairs. After all, the thesis that it is Washington that should determine the strategy on the most important world issues dominated both in public statements and, in fact, in the actions of the United States in the international arena. It has become an integral part of American foreign policy thinking. The operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria was perceived in the United States as a geopolitical challenge, which Russia threw at the usual coordinate system for Washington, and gave rise to discussions about whether to use the Russian Air Force in Syria.,

* Takfiri is a radical ideology of Islamism. The Takfiri principles and ideas are based on the assumption of the right to accuse Muslims of disbelief and punish them - up to murder (author's note).

what should the United States do under these conditions?

Obviously, America cannot simply join the operation conducted by the Russian Aerospace Forces. This would mean the transfer of "leadership" in Syria to Moscow. B. Obama cannot allow this for domestic political reasons. Washington is also unable to openly oppose Russia's actions, both for "image" reasons (this would mean de facto resisting the fight against terrorism) and for purely pragmatic reasons: weakening the combat capability of terrorists is in the interests of all states without exception. At the same time, there are high-level emotional calls in the United States for the development of a comprehensive strategy to counter Russia. ²⁶ Therefore, US actions in the context of Russian Aerospace Forces operations were "split".

On the one hand, this is a kind of "reflex" negative, on the verge of aggression, reaction to any actions of Russia that do not suit the United States. In fact, immediately after the start of the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria, Washington-controlled NGOs and media began a campaign to demonize it in public opinion using "proven" technologies. So-called human rights NGOs, both Western and serving the interests of the Syrian opposition, reported that Russian airstrikes allegedly killed civilians and used prohibited weapons.²⁷

Then these" news " were picked up by the media. Western employees of the UN human rights structures then managed to make this information part of the UN Secretary-General's report on the humanitarian situation in Syria dated October 22, 2015. ²⁸ Materials of the Russian Defense Ministry on the airstrikes of the Russian Aerospace Forces, as well as official denials on each of the cases of "civilian deaths" or "destruction of infrastructure", including photos and videos of video ²⁹, not taken into account.

Another thesis that was adopted by the opponents of the Russian operation in Syria was that Moscow, by bombing terrorist positions, is playing on the side of the Shiites.³⁰ Moreover, they did not hesitate to promote this absolutely perverse interpretation not only in the press, but also at the official level. For example, the Permanent Representative of Great Britain to the UN, M. Rycroft, at a meeting of the UN Security Council on October 22, 2015, stated that "Russia will have to defend its actions before the Security Council and before Sunnis around the world." ³¹ And this despite the fact that the US-led so-called coalition against ISIL was bombing the territory of Syria by that time. Since September 22, 2014, its goals have also been officially listed as countering terrorism.

The official reaction to Russia's operation in the United States was also quite chaotic. US Secretary of State John KerryKerry then welcomed the action

If they reflect a sincere desire to defeat ISIS, ³² he expressed concern that"they may provoke further escalation and lead to the loss of even more innocent lives. "³³ Although the Americans and their allies have publicly criticized the Russian anti-terrorist campaign in Syria, in fact, they have not been able to stop it. denying Russia the right to pursue an independent policy in the region, in fact, it seems that it was the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in the SAR that became a catalyst for the activation of cooperation between the international community on Syria.

RUSSIA AS AN ORGANIZER OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SYRIA

It was after the launch of rocket and bomb attacks on terrorist positions on September 30, 2015 and the subsequent visit of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to Moscow on October 20, 2015. Despite the public "nervous" reaction from the United States and a number of "regionals", the process of finding compromises on Syria has begun. Exactly one month after Russia began bombing terrorist positions in Syria, a meeting of the so-called "Syria Support Group" was held at the level of foreign ministers with the participation of 19 countries and regional organizations. Despite the conscious transfer of "leadership" to the Americans by the Russian side in organizing this event, in fact, for the first time, the conditions that Russia has long put forward were met-how international cooperation should be organized to resolve the conflict.

The main one is to involve Iran in the negotiations. Russia's principled political position, multiplied by its military actions in Syria, led to the necessary result: October 30, 2015 Iran, along with other regional states that Moscow insisted on participating in (Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates), attended the meeting of the Syria Support Group in Vienna, which resulted in the adoption of the Vienna Statement by consensus. It is known that the United States and personally J.Kerry, at the request of Russia, worked with Saudi Arabia in favor of obtaining Riyadh's consent to Iran's presence in Vienna.

On November 14, during the second meeting of the Group, a new document was adopted in follow-up to the statement of October 30, 2015. It detailed the steps taken in the framework of the Syrian political process (including elections), and also stated the need to establish a ceasefire that will not apply to terrorist organizations. An important point: the Group members agreed to expand the list of terrorist organizations operating in Syria to include those that are not included in the UN Security Council lists, but are de facto jihadist. And this is also a demand of Russia.

Another condition of Russia, which was met , is the absence of ultimatums against Bashar al-Assad. From the very beginning of the conflict, Moscow has stated that the fate of the country's leader, as well as the future of the state as a whole, should be determined by the Syrian people. And there is not a single word about Bashar al-Assad in the Vienna Statement. Also, the thesis promoted by the states interested in regime change in Syria that the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people should be the emigrant opposition National Coalition created after the conflict began was finally written off into history. The Vienna Statement clearly indicated that inter-Syrian negotiations should be held between representatives of the Syrian government and the delegation of the Syrian opposition.³⁴

Finally, there are prospects for implementing the initiative put forward by Vladimir Putin to create a broad anti-terrorist front to fight the Islamic State, which would include the armies of Syria and Iraq, the Kurdish militia and the moderate armed opposition, ready to cooperate in saving Syria from the Islamic State.

The most important "breakthrough" step in this area was the establishment of contacts by the Russian military with field commanders of a number of anti-government formations, who, despite the confrontation with the Syrian army, were ready to take joint actions against terrorists. Russian aircraft began attacking terrorist positions, the coordinates of which were transmitted by field commanders.³⁵ It is obvious that without receiving a" green light " from the relevant special services in charge of them, the structures of the Syrian opposition would not have taken such a step. A number of countries in the region - Iraq, Egypt, Algeria - openly supported the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in the SAR.

It was Russia's decisive steps in the Middle East region and, first of all, the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces against terrorists in Syria that became a catalyst for the activation of the political process of resolving the Syrian crisis and steps towards the formation of an effective international coalition to fight the Islamic State.

PROSPECTS FOR COMBATING TERRORISM

It is clear that there are still many challenges to overcome in achieving these goals. It will require coordinated cooperation between Russia and the United States. However, it wasn't enough. It was also necessary to connect influential "regionals" - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, etc., who can have a significant impact on the situation "on the ground". This implies that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, while declaring their commitment to the fight against terrorism, should not play a "double game" by supporting anti-government forces to overthrow the regime in Syria for opportunistic reasons.

The involvement of European states is also in demand, which, as the terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015 clearly demonstrated, are also at risk due to the presence of large Muslim diasporas. The latter are continuously replenished by a hitherto unprecedented wave of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa and continue to serve as a supplier of potential jihadists to conflict zones in the region. It is obvious that the tragic events in Paris influenced the position of the French elites, forcing them to push back the demand for the departure of Bashar al-Assad and pushing them to practical close cooperation with Moscow in the fight against ISIS, including by combining the efforts of the naval forces of Russia and France in the Mediterranean Sea. It is noteworthy that Paris moved closer to Moscow in the fight against terrorism even after the Russian leadership announced that the Russian Aerospace Forces were stepping up their combat operations in Syria as a result of the terrorist attack on the Kogalymavia passenger plane that crashed in Sinai on October 31, 2015.

This is an important feature of the new post-unipolar world order: solving the complex problems of our time will require close cooperation of at least two world powers with the involvement of regional states and the creation of "flexible" coalitions. It is also important that the" power " component of resolving the crisis is based on the readiness of the Syrian government to implement long - overdue reforms, and the Syrian political opposition to participate in the inter-Syrian dialogue in Geneva.

The role of the UN is still very important. Efforts by all players are needed to implement the Organization's global counterterrorism strategy.-

decisions of the Security Council, the use of the potential of the Security Council, including in such urgent areas as the suppression of the financing of terrorism and the activities of foreign fighters.

Russia has long proposed that the UN Security Council conduct a comprehensive study of the underlying causes of the surge in extremism, as well as continue to develop the tasks of countering the terrorist groups that have gained special strength - ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra, "including by eliminating their sources of funding.

The Russian initiative to consolidate the efforts of the international community on the platform of the fight against ISIS could become a catalyst for cooperation between regional and international players to resolve the Syrian crisis and achieve the broader goal of stabilizing the situation in the Middle East. If, of course, this initiative meets with an adequate reaction from the West.

¹ Joint statement on the outcome of the multilateral Meeting on Syria, Vienna. 30.10.2015 - www.mid.ru

² Interview of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with Reuters. 23.12.2011 - www.mid.ru

^{Kirkpatrick D.} 3 Militants in Egypt Say the will Ally with ISIS // The New York Times. 11.11.2014.

^{Byman D., Shapiro J.} 4 Homeward Bound? Don't hype the threat of returning Jihadists // Foreign Affairs. Vol. 93, Number 6. 2014.

^{Fukuyama F.} 5 Friendless Obama needs Middle Eastern Allies of Convenience // Financial Times. 24.9.2014.

⁶ Remarks by the President at the United States Military Academy Commencement Ceremony. U.S. Military Academy-West Point. West Point, New York. May 28, 2014 - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/28/ remarks-president-united-states-military-academy-commencement-ceremony

^{Borodavkin Alexei.} 7 La Russie Veut la Securite en Europe. C'est l'OTAN Qui Vient Nous Menacer // Tribune de Geneve. 1.8.2014.

⁸ Meeting of Senior Officials of the 'London 11' Core Group of the Friends of Syria, 10.11.2014. Foreign & Commonwealth Office -https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/meeting-of-senior-officials-of-the-london-11-c ore-group-of-the-friends-of-syria-10-november-2014

^{Gould J.} 9 Was Syria train-and-equip effort always a "Mission Impossible"? // Defense News. 21.09.2015 - http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/09/21/syrian-train-eq uip-program-mission-impossible-start/72376560/

^{Shear M., Schmitt E.} 10 Obama Administration ends efforts to train Syrians to combat ISIS // The New York Times. 9.10.2015.

^{Rogin J., Lake E.} 11 U.S. Airdrop in Syria ends up arming the Kurds // Bloomberg View. 15 October, 2015 - http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015 - 10 - 15/u-s-airdrop-in-syria-ends-up-arming-the-kurds

^{Loveluck L., Samaan M.} 12 Syrian rebels accuse Kurdish forces of 'ethnic cleansing' of Sunni Arabs // The Telegraph. 15.09.2015; Syria: Us Ally's razing of villages amounts to War Crimes // Amnesty International. 13 October 2015 - https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2015/10/ syria-us-allys-razing-of-villages-amounts-to-war-crimes

^{Chappell B.} 13 Turkey's jets fire on Syrian Kurds allied with U.S. against ISIS // National Public Radio. October 27, 2015 -http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/27/452192207/turkey-s-jets-fire-on-syrian- kurds-allied-with-u-s-against-isis

¹⁴ Rule of Terror: Living under ISIS in Syria. Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. 14.11.2014.

¹⁵ Under Secretary of State Dr. Sarah Sewall is in Geneva Speaking on US Efforts to Counter Violent Extremism... -https://twitter.com/TheGCSP/status/610396823015026689

¹⁶ Speech and answers to questions by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov at an open lecture on topical issues of foreign policy of the Russian Federation. Moscow, October 20, 2014 - http://www.mid.ru

^{Almukhtar S.} 17 ISIS finances are strong // The New York Times. 19.09.2015.

¹⁸ Experts: ISIS makes up to S3 million daily in oil sales. 28.08.2014 - http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/analysis/2014/08/28/Experts-ISIS-makes-up-to-3-m illion-daily-in-oil-sales.html

^{Shaldonskiy D. D.} 19 On possible reconciliation between the "Islamic State" and Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups / / Institute of the Middle East - www.iimes.ru

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Ibid.

^{Akhmedov V. M.} 23 Iran and the "Islamic State": dialectics of mutual relations // Middle East Institute-www.iimes.ru

²⁴, the Russian Defense Ministry and the US Department of Defense signed a Memorandum on incident prevention and ensuring aviation flights during the operation in Syria. 21.09.2015 - http://syria.mil.ru/news/more.htm?id=12061345@egNews

²⁵ Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Colonel-General Andrey Kartapolov, spoke about the results of the Russian air group's activities in Syria. 3.11.2014 - http://syria.mil.ru/news/more.htm?id=12062538@egNews

^{McFaul M.} 26 The myth of Putin's strategic genius // The New York Times. 23.10.2015. '

²⁷ Russia/Syria: Possibly unlawful Russian air strikes // Human Rights Watch. 25.10.2015 - https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/25/russia/syria-possibly-unlawful-russian-air-strikes; Syria: New Russian-made cluster munitions reported // Human Rights Watch. 10.10.2015 - https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/10/syria-new-russian-made-cluster-munition-reported

²⁸ Report of the Secretary-General on the Implementation of Security Council Resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014) and 2191 (2014). 22 October 2015. UN Document S/2015/813.

²⁹ Results of check of the claims concerning the supposed air strikes against civil objects on the territory of Syria. 3 November, 2015 - http://www.slideshare.net/MoRf4/results-of-check-of-the-claims-concerning-the-supposed-air -strikes-against-civil-objects-on-the-territory-of-syria

³⁰ Putin, Champion of the Shias // Economist. 17.10.2015.

³¹ Statement by Ambassador Matthew Rycroft of the UK Mission to the UN at the Security Council Open Debate on the Middle East. 22.10.2015 - https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/we-remain-convinced-that-a-negotiated-two-state-s olution-is-the-only-way-to-resolve-the-conflict

³² Remarks at a Meeting on International Peace and Security and Countering Terrorism. 30.09.2015 //' U.S. Department of State -http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/09/247639.htm

^{Binnie I.} 33 John Kerry: Russian support for Syrian President Bashar Assad could raise risk of confrontation // The Huffington Post. 23.09.2015.

³⁴ Remarks and answers to media questions by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a joint press conference with the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Syria, Antonio de Mistura, following the talks. Москва, 4.11.2015 -http://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJЕ02Вw/content/id/19173 02

³⁵ Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Colonel-General Andrey Kartapolov, spoke about the results of the Russian air group's activities in Syria...

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: