Responding to reports in the Middle Eastern media claiming Russia's attention to Syria was flagging due to its preoccupation with Ukraine, and a reduction of Russian forces in Syria, Alexander Lavrentyev, Putin's Special Representative for Syria, categorically denied these reports. In an interview with Kommersant reporter, Marianne Belenkaya, Lavrentiev stated that Russia would not stand in the way of a Turkish special operation in northern Syria, but such an operation would not do Turkey any good. He also claimed that Russia's promise to remove Iran and its proxies from the Syrian portion of the Golan Heights, was contingent on an American undertaking to withdraw from the Al-Tanf base.
The interview with Larentiev follows below:[1]
|
Alexander Lavrentiev (Source: Tass.ru)
Going by the results of the "Astana Format" meeting, you stated that so far you have failed to persuade Turkey not to conduct a military operation in northern Syria. However, negotiations on this subject continue. What options does Moscow offer and to whom in order to prevent military action?
Russia proposes the option of seeking a peaceful solution, including harnessing Damascus' capabilities, intensification of the negotiation process between the Kurds and Damascus, persuading the Kurds to actually stop attacks on Turkish units, which, unfortunately, do happen.
Since the beginning of this year more than 20 Turkish soldiers have been killed and many more wounded. these are frequently sneak attacks conducted behind the backs of Turkish checkpoints, strikes are carried out against Turkish units and passing cars. But in principle, we believe that all is not yet lost; one can find mechanisms that will make it possible to avoid resorting to a solution of force. It's difficult, we have to work on it, because the negative consequences that can happen, provided the military operation would be launched, naturally, could lead to very bad results. But I hope for another factor that has yet to play its role, Arab solidarity. I believe that if the Arabs came forth with a message to Turkey rejecting its plans then I would consider it a sobering moment. We shall see.
Russia proposes the option of seeking a peaceful solution, including harnessing Damascus' capabilities, intensification of the negotiation process between the Kurds and Damascus, persuading the Kurds to actually stop attacks on Turkish units, which, unfortunately, do happen.
Since the beginning of this year more than 20 Turkish soldiers have been killed and many more wounded. these are frequently sneak attacks conducted behind the backs of Turkish checkpoints, strikes are carried out against Turkish units and passing cars. But in principle, we believe that all is not yet lost; one can find mechanisms that will make it possible to avoid resorting to a solution of force. It's difficult, we have to work on it, because the negative consequences that can happen, provided the military operation would be launched, naturally, could lead to very bad results. But I hope for another factor that has yet to play its role, Arab solidarity. I believe that if the Arabs came forth with a message to Turkey rejecting its plans then I would consider it a sobering moment. We shall see.
Will Russia maintain a military presence in the areas of Tell Rifaat and Manbij, from which Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan plans to start the military operation?
The Russian military has checkpoints in these locations, however, mostly Syrian soldiers are stationed there.
On Thursday, the Turkish media reported that the Russian [troops] had withdrawn from Tell Rifaat, which was perceived as inevitable sign of the military operation start.
We cannot put the lives of Russian servicemen at risk, depending on Ankara's military operation. However, so far, I have no information that Russian checkpoints have been removed. The Syrians are staying there anyways. And the Syrians are very determined, judging by our talks here with the Syrian government delegation. They say they will defend every meter of Syrian land. We believe that, certainly, they can show resistance, but still, after ten years of fighting, the Syrian army's fighting capabilities are rather depleted, unlike the Turkish one. So we wouldn't want it to come to an armed confrontation.
A theory appeared in the Turkish media that Russia was ready to agree to a Turkish operation in Syria, but not in areas that are strategically important to it, like Tell Rifaat and Manbij, but where there are American forces are stationed.
No, that's not true. There is no bargaining on this issue. And the area that Erdogan has designated now, has been long in the plans of the Turkish leadership, which includes Tell Rifaat, Manbij, Kobani, as well as the creation of a 30-kilometer buffer zone and an effective union of the two enclaves that they occupied during previous operations in northern Syria. As I said, the Turks possess [sufficient] forces, this is the second largest army in Europe, which have some experience, and good equipment. For Syrian army to resist such an onslaught would be, certainly, difficult. It would simply lead to unnecessary human casualties.
So, nothing will stop Ankara, the Turks will just occupy these areas?
I want to stress that they can occupy certain areas, but they won't solve their main task, i.e. elimination of the threat to Turkish national security. One can move the border 30 km [away from the previously drawn one], or 40 km away, but there will still be shelling, both on Turkish territory and at the Turkish units stationed in the created buffer zone. Consequently, they will sustain losses.
There is a theory that President Erdogan decided to go for a military operation based on domestic political considerations, in order to demonstrate his determination and ability to achieve concrete results. Naturally, it's possible to achieve a result in the form of a buffer zone, but what will be the consequences of all this? The Kurds will become embittered; this fact can be predicted unequivocally. Furthermore, terrorist activity, including in Turkey, could increase many times over. This is the fact of which we warned the Turks about. And then what will the Turkish people say?
The Kurds, represented by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), have already said they are ready to coordinate their actions with Damascus. But do they agree to the deployment of Syrian government forces at the border with Turkey and in areas in contact with Turkish forces?
This is exactly the main issue. Provided the Kurds will transfer their forces deeper [in the country], for example to the vicinity of Raqqa, or somewhere else, and transfer all the territories where they are now to the control of the Syrian government forces, the Turkish operation could be prevented.
Will they go to such talks?
As far as I know, no results have been achieved so yet.
In late May, in an interview with "RT Arabic" media, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov said that thanks to the measures deployed, there were no provocations against the Syrian army and Russian bases on part of Idlib. However, literally two weeks later, the Russian Center for Reconciliation in Syria reported a deterioration in the situation. What had happened? Was it related to Turkey's preparations for a military operation in northern Syria?
I believe there is no connection. The situation has actually improved as a result of the Russian military's actions. Apparently, the militants had realized that any attack on our facilities would lead to unavoidable consequences, thus they have drastically reduced the number of attacks.
What has changed in two weeks?
It could just be a seasonal spike, a "spring aggravation."
It looked like a hint to Ankara on Russia's part that Turkey was not fulfilling its obligations regarding Idlib, in response to Turkish accusations that Moscow hadn't fulfilled its promises on the Kurds.
Turkey is in fact not fulfilling its obligations regarding Idlib. The Turks reproach us that we are not fulfilling the agreements on the zone located in the north of the country. In turn, we cite the agreements of March 2020, according to which the Turkish border posts and the armed opposition were to be withdrawn from Idlib off the M4 highway. But unfortunately, the fact remains that a large number of terrorist groups are still in Idlib.
We have heard from our Turkish partners today that situation is calm in Idlib, there are practically only moderates left (i.e. the opposition. - Kommersant). The process of stabilization continues and life is improving. However, we know that this is not entirely correct. Out of 18 thousand militants, approximately 11.5 thousand can be called moderates, but the remaining 6,500 are radicals.
Of these, about 1,500-2,000 are staunched jihadists, including natives of the former Soviet Union, who continue to pose a very big threat to us. Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, and Uighurs got a stronghold there. They, incidentally, pose a threat not only to us, but also to China and many other Central Asian republics. The Idlib issue has to be somehow resolved. We will continue to work with the Turks in this direction.
On Thursday, it was reported that an international coalition headed by the US had detained a senior leader of the ISIS terrorist group; previously, the Americans had also eliminated the group's leaders. I haven't heard for a long time any news about the Russian military conducting such operations. What is Russia doing in Syria if, judging by the news, the Americans end up fighting the terrorists?
What do you mean by "operations against the 'Islamic State'"? There are mainly dormant cells there, which mostly conduct raids from Iraqi territory. Catching ringleaders is not our method. True, when information is received about the location of the ringleaders of terrorist groups in Idlib, we launch strikes at these areas. Yes, the intensity of Russian air force strikes has decreased many times recently, a fact that was acknowledged by the armed opposition during the talks in Nur-Sultan. Naturally, this is done not to the direct detriment of the fight against terrorism itself. As for the Americans, they sometimes play for publicity when they talk about destroying the ringleader. They have destroyed one, and another will come to replace him. How do such actions change the situation fundamentally?
The terrorists have no shortage of personnel, any person can be appointed [to the top position]. We need to scrutinize this issue and engage in operations to destroy the terrorist structure itself, and work to ensure that the population doesn't support these groups.
Unfortunately, in Iraq, in Anbar Governorate, there is still very strong support from the population for these fighters. During the daytime they aren't militants, but at night they move into Syrian territory and carry out operations.
You said that Israeli strikes on Syria are unacceptable, but is Russia making any effort, other than verbal one, to prevent this? The Arab media reported that after the last attack, which resulted into suspension of the Damascus airport's operations, the Syrian military and politicians have a lot of complaints against Russia, claiming that it can't protect Damascus.
The Syrians have Russian-provided air defense systems, whose calculations are trained to come into play for repelling the attacks. The work of these calculations is quite effective, they can cope with the equipment provided to them and shoot down almost 80% of the missiles fired by the Israelis. True, we are often criticized for not using the S-300 complexes that we supplied to Syria.
But do you have any idea how can Russia use the S-300 complex? [I mean], we can shoot down one, two, three, four planes, but where? The Israelis don’t enter Syrian airspace, they fire all their missiles mostly through Lebanese airspace, sometimes through Jordan, and go straight back to their own territory.
It takes time for the missile to be launched, it has to find a target and hit it. It could be struck over the Lebanese territory, or over Israeli territory. What will be result of such actions? – Yet another escalation of the conflict? Naturally, the use of the S-300 could have a sobering effect on enemies, but if one weighs the pros and cons, one would refrain from such a decision. I believe that our military leadership is making the right decisions in not yielding to temptation.
As for the Israeli attacks, I believe that this is a sort of a signal to Damascus and the pro-Iranian forces to stop some activity in the region on part of Israel. However, we believe that such attacks are unacceptable and that this pernicious practice has to stop. We emphasize this fact in our contacts with the Israelis.
Is the attack warning mechanism that was agreed upon with the Israelis still operating?
It works, but not as much as the Russian side would want it to. Usually they warn about 30 seconds to one minute before the attack, when the fighters are already in the air at the firing position, they launch missiles, and warn later.
How many minutes did the arrangement prescribe?
We put forward a minimum limit of 10-15 minutes, but the Israelis are not comfortable with this, and they still have not agreed to it.
Israeli strike on Damascus airport (Source: Korrespondent.net)
Is there any way Russia can allay the fears of the Israelis? After all, there were agreements that pro-Iranian forces would withdraw from the border with Israel, that Damascus airport wouldn't be used to bring in military supplies...
We've tried several times to dispel Israel's concerns about the negative developments in the Golan area. At one time, as you may recall, we even reached agreements on the withdrawal of pro-Iranian units from the border area. They were withdrawn not even for 75 km., but 100 km away. However, it was understood that in return the Americans would withdraw their troops from the Al-Tanf base in southern Syria.
When that didn't happen, when the Americans said, "No, we didn't agree with you one that, it was just a verbal agreement, not ratified by specific commitments." Iranians responded with, "If that's the case, we are free of our commitments," and began building up their presence in that area again. Therefore, the issue is solvable [in principle]. It's up to the US. By the way, they [the US] are again actively using Al-Tanf base to train radical fighters, arming them and giving them tasks to carry out terrorist attacks in Syria, including in the central regions.
I keep reiterating that the main destabilizing factor in southern Syria, which maintains tensions and preserves an ongoing threat to Israel's security, is the US.
If Israel would've convinced the US of the need to reach a package deal on the withdrawal of Iranians, Lebanese Hezbollah, and other pro-Iranian formations, then the issue could've been considered settled. But Israel still perceives the presence of Americans in al-Tanf base as a stabilizing factor that prevents Iran from supplying weapons from Iraq to Syria.
Not only the Israelis have raised concerns about the growing Iranian presence in Syria, but also Jordan. They attribute this to Russian contingent withdrawing from the south of Syria, while Iran is 'filling the [power] vacuum'.
No, this is not the case. Russian military police are still present there, including in the Golan Heights, according to the previously reached agreements. And we can witness that the population residing in southern Syria, incidentally, welcomes the presence of Russian units there. The majority of the policemen deployed are from the North Caucasus, who are Muslims, and this arouses very good feelings on the part of the Syrians.
As for the Jordanians, we are engaged in talks with them. They, like us, believe that the Rukban refugee camp (located in the vicinity of the American base at Al-Tanf) should be dismantled. At the same time, their point of view so far coincides with that of Israel, regarding the fact that the presence of the Americans at Al-Tanf base is a stabilizing factor. We cannot convince them otherwise yet.
And yet, there is a widespread opinion in the Middle Eastern media that since the launch of hostilities in Ukraine, the number of Russian troops in Syria has decreased, while the servicemen are being replaced with pro-Iranian forces. Can you confirm the curtailment of Russian forces in Syria?
No, there is zero truth. This is most likely a special information fake disseminated in order to drive a wedge between us and the Iranians, between us and Damascus. We maintain very close contact directly with the Syrian leadership. True, there are certain issues with the redeployment of units, with rotations, especially since now our military is facing certain logistical difficulties due to the closure of Turkish airspace for our planes. Now all these actions are being done through the territory of Iraq, and also via the sea. Be that as it may, it's not a question of reducing our troop contingent. Our grouping is still there, along with air defense equipment and aircraft. And all of this will be used if necessary.
During the press conference on the results of Nur-Sultan talks, you recalled that the UN Security Council resolution on the mechanism of cross-border humanitarian assistance to Syria expires on July 10, and none of the Western countries has so far contacted Russia to propose a solution to this issue. Can Moscow come up with any proposals on its own?
Let me tell you something, we are fed up with various promises that are simply not being kept. Russia is a big enough power, we shouldn’t be taken for fools, offering some pipe dreams of Syria's renewal in exchange for extending the mechanism [of cross-border humanitarian assistance] for another year. Therefore, Russia itself won't offer anything. If they want to, the ball is in their court.
Marianna Belenkaya (Source: Rudn.ru)
[1] Kommersant.ru, June 17, 2022.
