Vol 3 Chapter 819: The interests of small countries equal the bargaining chips of big countries

In the game between big countries and big countries, don't expect big congresses to sacrifice their own interests in exchange for other interests.
It is often the interests of small countries themselves, which are sandwiched between the interests of big countries, as the bargaining chip for the interests of big countries.
Perhaps in the eyes of all naive people, how can the United States and Russia behave like this, saying that they betrayed the countries they previously supported, which is simply unscrupulous.
If the game between big powers can be moral, then the world will not have war every day.
The political game between countries is the most primitive and cruel. There is no sympathy, no morality, and only principles that are directly related to national interests.
There is a famous saying: Russia has no permanent strategic allies, only strategic partners.
This sentence seems to be similar, but in fact, it speaks out the most fundamental point of the game between great powers.
Strategic allies are also political and comprehensive military alliances. For the country, that is the existence of two sides.
The strategic partner, to put it simply, when I need you, you are my partner, and when I don't need you, you are nothing.
Russia now has no allies, only some strategic partners. In hotspots, it has certain common interests with Russia.
The best representative of such a country at present is Iran, and this time Russia withdraws its troops, it also proposed that Syria can implement a federal system. In fact, it is selling Iran’s interests from the side, but the focus is still on Syria’s Assad regime. , Completely sold out.
However, this kind of betrayal by Russia also depends on the situation, and the Russians did not say anything. The so-called suggestion that Syria should adopt a federal system is actually a very flexible policy.
If the United States repents in the future, wants to restart the Ukraine issue, goes back, and reverts to the Ukraine issue, which affects Russia’s core interests, then Russia can also revert to the Syria issue and continue to block the United States.
It's not that we should treat a gentleman like a villain, but that the relationship between countries is like this. Contracts can be torn up at any time. It is even more said that this kind of private exchange of benefits that is not publicly disclosed.
Even if you regret it right away, maybe the United States is willing, and tomorrow Ukraine can directly join NATO, and the EU can also accept Ukraine.
It is no longer a Russia that has been cheated by the Americans once or twice. Naturally, it is impossible to trust the Americans.
Therefore, when selling out Syria's interests, Russia is still ready to do a good job.
Because the whole world knows that NATO and Saudi Arabia, the recent new targets, all intend to divide Syria into three countries.
One is the Kurdish area in the northwest, the Assad regime is dominated by key cities and political areas, and the other is the opposition forces that Saudi Arabia mainly supports in the northeast.
In these three areas, the United States supports the Kurds in establishing a sovereign state in Syria, Russia supports the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia supports the opposition.
In the beginning, it was not so troublesome. It was nothing more than to overthrow the Assad regime. However, after years of civil war, the Assad regime remained stable, and the plan to split Syria was reworked.
The classification of Syria and Iraq is what Saudi Arabia hopes most, and it can almost be said that it is the core interest of the United States in the Middle East.
Had it not been for the emergence of Cai Ruichen, the United States would probably not change this long-term strategy until now, or even decades to come.
Russia's proposal of this federal state is actually splitting out part of the state power that the Assad regime now possesses.
In the future, if the Syrian Federation is really established, it will actually be three countries. Although the three countries will also come up with a central government, they will still be one country in name. In fact, Assad’s power has fallen and the country has been completely divided.
For such a result, the United States is acceptable because it has achieved its goals.
Although Saudi Arabia is not very willing, it can barely accept such a result.
If the exchange of interests between the two sides can continue, it will really solve the tragedy of the Syrian war.
And such a proposal can only be effective if it is put forward by the Russian side. For this kind of behavior of dividing the Assad regime, only Russia, which has always supported Assad, has the ability to make Assad helplessly accept it.
After all, Assad has to weigh himself. If he leaves Russia's support, his ultimate destiny will not even have a chance.
As soon as Russia spoke, Assad had to agree even if he hated the Russians. This is the sorrow of a weak country. Otherwise, there is only one way to perish.
However, it is not a three-year-old child. If the United States firmly uses Ukraine’s interests as a bargaining chip, it will ultimately not continue to affect the problems here in Syria~EbookFREE.me~ But if the United States returns, Assad’s The opportunity has come again. Federalism has two results. One is similar to the current India, and that is, the central government is left behind.
Another phenomenon is that the central government is highly centralized. Once the federation is formed, Assad will inevitably become the prime minister or presidential candidate of the central government. At that time, Russia can fully support Assad and once again control the central government in Syria.
What's more, the withdrawal of Russia does not mean that all its troops are withdrawn. It is only a simple withdrawal of the air force. Ground troops and anti-aircraft missiles are all still in Syria.
Russia's influence here in the Middle East will not be weakened in any way because of its withdrawal.
It is also relative that if Russia returns in Syria, the problems of Ukraine will resurface.
Whether it is Russia or the United States that the wind changes suddenly, making such a decision also directly shows that in fact, both sides have already committed the incident and continue to persist.
Russia's dispatch of troops to Syria is a unilateral act of burning money. What's more, the current economic situation in Russia simply cannot support Russia's continued long-term military presence in the Middle East.
At best, Russia can barely maintain a military base. When necessary, a large number of Russian fighters can be stationed in Syria as soon as possible within a day.
The same is true for the United States. If it continues to confront Russia like this, the United States itself can hardly stand it.
Although Saudi Arabia is a local tyrant, it is almost the same. After all, Saudi Arabia is now sending troops not only to Syria, but also to Yemen. No amount of money can withstand such consumption.
A suitable solution for the time being is what the three countries that are currently playing together need.