The sudden collapse of Syria, which had applied two months ago to join BRICS, raises questions of whether BRICS can be anything more than a better UN-type talking shop in the absence of having a meaningful military component. BRICS is above all an effort to check and roll back the power of historical colonial powers, whose citizens Putin has called the “golden billion”.
Yet the biggest winner of the successful regime-change operation against Assad is Israel, the modern colonizer of the Middle East. Israel has expanded its occupation of the Golan Heights. Yesterday morning, the IDF was 20km from Damascus and still advancing. Israel had bombed the main arteries from Lebanon to Syria at the announcement of the the Lebanon ceasefire and it is now systematically bombing Syria military installations, apparently so as to deprive the rebel forces of the ability to block current and future land grabs. Israel’s advance into Syria is effectively flanking Lebanon. Even though Iran may still be able to supply Hezbollah, it seems certain that will prove more difficult and hence reduce the level of assistance.
Turkiye’s Ergodan appears to have wanted to push Syrian refugees back into Syria. But since he could have done that regardless, his reasons for being a lead actor in this operation1 seem to be to disrupt the Kurdish enclave in the northeast.2 He has expanded the area under Turkiye’s control on the border. So even though he proved Turkiye’s military and perhaps also subornment chops, it’s not clear that he will achieve any strategic gains. A post by Conor Gallagher earlier today, Did Türkiye Win the Battle, But Lose the War? addresses this question in depth.
A question that will only be answered with time is what this stunning change of fortuen means for BRICS. Turkiye asked to join BRICS in early September, raising eyebrows as to how that could be squared with Turkiye being a linchpin members of NATO, by virtue of geography and having the biggest NATO army in Europe. One has to wonder now, in light of the Supreme Leader of Iran”s warnings to Assad in June, and more urgently staring in September that the West was planning a new push to oust Assad. One has to wonder if the BRICS application was a deception, or alternatively, Erdogan keeping his options open as the plotting unfolded. Even now, Russia and Iran have been weirdly reluctant to finger Turkiye as a key player in this operation. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene has only now called out Turkiye and then in a coded manner, fingering the US and Israel as the masterminds.3
Without belaboring the point, Israel’s gain is a big blow for the Axis of Resistance project. Russia has also lost prestige, having invested successfully to fight off the US-backed effort to overthrow Assad during the civil war from 2011 to 2019, only to have it all come to naught. Although no decision seems to have yet been made, commentators such as John Helmer anticipate that Russia will pull out of its naval and air bases in Syria, ending its long-standing commitment to projecting power in the eastern Mediterranean.
Let us return to what this development means for BRICS. One might try to say “nothing.” But BRICS is in Schrodinger’s cat phase where there are many things BRICS could potentially be when it grows up, and those possibilities will over time coalesce into a mature form. As Frank Herbert observed in Dune, “Beginnings are such delicate times.”
So this shock does have the potential to influence BRICS’s direction, particularly when you read how cautious the Kazan Declaration was.
Now in fairness, many members of the Global Majority have worked up the nerve to defy the illegal5 US/EU/UK sanctions of Russia, even as the US in particular has been working hard at imposing secondary sanctions on those they claim have facilitated sanctions-busting. That stance has become more widely accepted after the initial condemnations of Russia after its invasion of Ukraine after the UK kicked over the preliminary peace deal in Istanbul and it then came out that Poroshenko, Merkel and Hollande had intended from the outset to snooker Russia with the Minsk Accords by using them to buy more time to arm Ukraine.
More and more countries have also been frontally taking the position that they don’t accept the US/NATO premise that they are either with the Collective West or against it. China has told the US that its dealings with Russia are none of the US’ business. India’s foreign minister has repeatedly said he sees no reason to have to pick sides. The Malaysian Prime Minster recently gave a more pointed version of the same speech to Anthony Blinken.
Russia’s accelerating success in Ukraine, many informed analyses finding that a US military confrontation with China would come to a bad end for the US, Israel’s faltering operation in Lebanon and its economic woes, and the big turnout and mood of optimism at the October BRICS summit in Kazan all seemed to confirm that US domination was past its sell-by date.
But anti-globalists, in trying to tune out the bullhorn of Anglosphere messaging, are prey to knee-jerk skepticism that can desensitize them to issues on their side.5 Readers had a robust discussion on how seemingly expert observers, with considerable experience in the Middle East, such as Larry Wilkerson, Chas Freeman, and Scott Ritter (and Professor Mohammed Marandi, who is in Iran), were blindsided by the swift success of the Assad regime change operation. Even though the US and NATO are being found sorely wanting when they try to take on a peer power in Ukraine, Team Collective West has just demonstrated it can still throw small countries against the wall.
We have also seen near-universal condemnation of the genocide in Gaza, yet no grouping of countries has the will and the means to stop it.
Our reader GM early on took a very hard-line position, that a BRICS with no military alliance was doomed to not accomplish much. We had discounted that because GM is a bit too fond of aggressive action, and think Russia has made a big mistake by not striking on a military base or two in a NATO country in response to the NATO attack on Kursk. But he sadly might be proven correct.
Right before the Assad regime fell, reader expat2uruguay wrote:
I don’t know, I don’t think that BRICS, and this includes Iran China Russia and even Turkey can afford to lose Syria to the West. They may not be able to stand up their resistance in the next year, but I think that the road to the Future multipolar includes Syria.
And afterward, Brian Berletic confirmed her instincts:
🇺🇸🇸🇾What is happening in Syria is a major loss for the Syrian people and their allies, including Russia and Iran and ultimately both China and the rest of the multipolar world.
It is a reminder that the US and its proxies remain the greatest threat to human peace and prosperity…
— Brian Berletic (@BrianJBerletic) December 8, 2024
Let us return to the genesis of the current push for multi-polarity: Putin’s speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference. There, he took issue with the fact and desirability of the unipolar world, depicting the hegemon as eventually destroying itself from within as well as anti-democratic, by not respecting the rights of minorities, and contrary to the moral basis of modern civilization. And the reason for broaching the topic at the Munich Security Conference was that Putin called out the US push for absolute dominance as a threat to global security and called for a new global security architecture.
At the outset, Putin focuses on the paramount importance collective safety:
This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”
And Putin later explained how colonialism was dangerous:
And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial financial resources. But to be honest — and many here also know this – linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.
And let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.
So has the evolution of multipolarity wound up becoming Hamlet without the Prince?
For Putin’s effort at Munich, Russia was rewarded with further NATO expansion in 2008, despite initial opposition by France and Germany, via declaring Georgia and Ukraine would join. Georgia soon invaded South Ossetia, leading to a five-day war. Putin has insisted that the West quit threatening Russia’s security interests by installing a Nazi-friendly government in Kiev and persecuting ethnic Russians to the degree that it stoked the civil war in Donbass, leading to the current conflict.
Even though Russia had become something of an autarky by the time of the Special Military Operation, it was still unprepared for the shock and awe sanctions and needed the economic support of other countries via their willingness to ignore or help Russia evade them.
So the real call to action for BRICS-building has been trying to weaken the dollar hegemony, a topic completely absent from the Munich 2007 speech. But as we have repeatedly pointed out, there is still some to-ing and fro-ing as to how to go about it. Initially, many jumped on the idea of creating a new currency. We pointed out, as the Eurozone has shown, that that would entail surrendering a great deal of national sovereignity, particularly in having a central bank outside the control of any member state. We have said that the anti-dollar activists could go a long way in being able to evade sanctions by engaging in bi-lateral trade with settlement in the respective currencies. BRICS has committed to devising payments systems to smooth that process. But the trading-pair countries are exposed to the risk of one party accumulating a lot of the currency of the other, as in much more than it wants even if it invests in the trade deficit country. Keynes proposed the bancor as a remedy, but that too entails surrendering a good deal of national sovereignity (accepting sanctions for running sustained surpluses as well as deficits). So while these countries can get some relief, there aren’t any easy long-term solutions.
Moreover, despite the great sense of enthusiasm at the Kazan BRICS summit, the final statement went to some lengths in salute current US-EU dominated international institutions, calling for them to have a governance structures more representative of current economic and population weights, rather than envisioning BRICS institutions as eventually replacing them. The Kazan Declaration explicitly reaffirms support for the WTO, calls for a global financial safety net with “adequately resourced IMF at its center,” depicts the G20 as “he premier global forum…for dialogue of both developed and emerging economies” and so on.6 While there is no mention of the World Bank, the declaration does back the neoliberal/World Bank promoted idea the document calls “blended finance,” which in other parts of the world goes by “public-private partnership”.
As India and even China (despite aggressive US action) show, countries ex Russia, which close to self-sufficient, need and want to trade with the West as well as the Global South states.7
One factor that may not be sufficiently recognized is that even though sanctions don’t lead to popular revolts and regime change as some enthusiasts hope, the economic cost can blunt the willingness to risk war and suffer a decline in living standards from an already diminished base. That is arguably the case with Iran, where by all accounts it has suffered under sanctions. Some experts have argued that its caution in retaliating against Israel is not just strategic patience but represents serious reservations about kicking off a full-bore conflict. One has to wonder whether the Syria caper would have gone off as planned if Iran had delivered its overdue retaliation for the Israel missile strikes into Iran.
In keeping, a lesson Russia has drawn from the Western sanctions is less, not more, external dependence. From Sergey Lavrov in his interview with Tucker Carlson:
But the more we live under sanctions, the more we understand that it is better to rely on yourself, and to develop mechanisms, platforms for cooperation with ‘normal’ countries who are not unfriendly to you, and don’t mix economic interests and policies and especially politics. And we learned a lot after the sanctions started.
This is all well and good for a resource rich great power like Russia, but what does this portend for also-rans?
The spectacle of the US and NATO being humiliated in Ukraine, by not understanding Russia’s military and manufacturing capabilities, nor the colossal mistake of engaging in a fight on its doorstep (even Obama in the “Russia is a gas station with nukes” days recognized that Russia has escalation dominance in Ukraine) has led too many to discount the US’ other, still considerable, assets. As Hidari at Moon of Alabama put it:
Nuclear debate aside, I think we have definitively seen the overmatch the USA has on China and Russia play out in Syria, actually.
1- Financial power. Neither China or Russia have the US Dollar. Sanctions can hurt both buyer and seller, yes, but the effects of being sanctioned by far hurt more the country being sanctioned. Look at Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and of course, Syria, and how easily its own generals flipped on the promise of some cash. Either as carrot or stick, the US control of the financial levers of the world gives it unparalleled power.
2- Network of Allies. No Match. NATO, Aukus et alii. CSTO?? If the US is a paper tiger, then CSTO is a sad joke. Just ask Armenia. And now Syria. Global South was watching. Who is ever gonna stand up to the USA and think they can rely on BRICS to support them financially and militarily ever again?
3- Network of Proxies. No Match. No Mexicans or Canadians willing to die for China or Russia so far. Same in Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Australia and so on. China and Russia are surrounded by hostile states and non-state actors, in Iran’s case they operate within its borders and perhaps even Gov’t now.
3- Network of Bases. No Match. The US can conduct significant military operations and deployments across every continent it likes. Do you think if China or Russia could have sent troops to Syria they wouldn’t have before this sh1t show played out?
4- Network of Legacy and New Media. No Match. They are the best at propaganda and own all media and social media aside from Tik Tok, which will soon be banned in the West anyway precisely because they can’t control it as they like.
5- Unmatched Intelligence. Satellites and 5 Eyes. No Match. Look at the pager attack for how deep they can get at you at the Intel level. Nordstream blown up, Iran’s own PM was murdered, both covert ops, and no one can even dare admit it, such is the embarrassment and humiliation it would require. ‘And what are you gonna do about it’ is the clearly implied threat.
6- Color Revolutions and NGO networks. No Match. So what if for every 5 attempts 4 fail? Russia and China have proven incapable of exerting the same influence even in their own backyards compared to the USA. Syria’s fall will now embolden further efforts in Venezuela and Iran to revert past failures.
I wish it were not so, but, Paper Tiger my a$$.
That is not to say it will remain so forever, of course, but anyone who can’t see the obvious is just coping too hard and living in fairyland.
Reader vao summarized a cogent, if disheartening, forecast from a Twitter thread. Many are again perhaps too hopefully foreseeing quick karma, with Israel suffering overextension and both Turkiye and Israel, blowback. His scenario seems at least as likely:
Basically, together with the conditions imposed by the cease-fire (whereas ceasing fire apparently only applies to Lebanese forces), Hezbollah will soon be truly boxed-in, its entire territory under constant surveillance by Israel, incapable of operating without being detected. And a large part of Syria, including the capital, will end up likewise.
It increasingly looks as if the current events will lead to an Israeli victory as complete as the 1967 war, and with consequences as momentous:
1) Arab armies wrecked or neutralized — then Egypt, Syria, Jordan; now Syria, Lebanon.
2) Arab territories conquered by Israel — then Sinai, Gaza, West Bank, Jerusalem, Golan; now Gaza, a part of Syria including the whole of Golan, arguably a tiny sliver of Lebanon.
3) Ethnic cleansing enabling Israel to vacate land for settlers — then Palestinians fleeing the West Bank to Jordan, inhabitants of the Golan fleeing to Syria; now Palestinians in Gaza being exterminated.
There are differences though:
4) The 6-days war was a short, sharp conflict; the current one is a long-grind where attrition plays the major role.
5) In 1967 the Israelis achieved victory by daring tactical operations against the armed forces of their enemies; in the current one, by focusing on the slaughter of civilians, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and outright genocide.
6) In 1967, Israel fought alone. In the current conflict, its armouries are being constantly replenished by the USA, Germany, and the UK; the Israeli airforce uses British bases in Cyprus as a backup; NATO spy airplanes have been loitering on the Gaza, Lebanese, and Syrian coasts providing intelligence to Israel; special forces from the USA have been operating in Gaza; and the warplanes of the USA, UK, France, Jordan, and Egypt helped Israel attempt to fend off the missile waves lobbed at it from Iran.
I am sure that, when everything is over, the current conflict will be touted in Israel as yet another example (after 1948, 1967, 1973) of the Jewish State, outnumbered and assaulted by a coalition of blood-thirsty enemies, heroically fighting its way to a costly, exhausting, but nevertheless crushing victory. I suspect that, just like in 1967, we will also see the emergence of Palestinian worldwide terrorism as the sole remaining outlet to fight Israel.
This will also mark the point at which war will be primarily be conducted to destroy not the enemy forces, but the enemy as a whole. Machine-gunning ambulances, bombing hospitals, blowing up protected cultural artifacts, sniping children, killing women and old people, shooting at refugee camps, levelling cities, arasing fields and orchards, sending prisoners to concentration camps to be tortured and assassinated — anything goes. Forget about the Geneva conventions, the Hague conventions, the customary rules of war. No need to dissemble, no need to conceal war crimes, crimes against mankind, crimes of genocide: they can be perpetrated openly — nobody will do or say a damn about it. That kind of approach initiated by the USA in Serbia, pursued in Iraq, taken up by France and the UK in Libya, the Saudis in Yemen, and the Ukrainians in Lugansk and Donetsk, has been now perfected by the Israelis in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
When karma strikes back and the “civilized” nations are subject to the same treatment, of course they will screech like pigs led to the slaughter, but it will be too late. Just look at Ukrainians howling when Russia blasts their energy infrastructure.
So as the Israelis say, “Love your enemy, for you will become him.” Putin’s original vision of multipolarity to create a more just, equitable world put a new global security order, as in understandings about the use of armed force, at its center. Without that, it is an exercise in idealism, too fragile to stand up to the current level of conflict, which seems destined only to become worse as climate change produces more agricultural shortfalls and struggles to secure scarce resources intensify. As I too often say, I hope I am wrong.
______
1 Alexander Mercouris reported on Tuesday that the core cadre of 5,000 came from Turkiye and 1.500 were trained to special forces levels.
2 I trust savvier military minds can explain how that would work, since the Kurds and American are allied in stealing Syrian oil and among other things, supplying it to Israel. Lindsay Graham has already threatened Turkiye with sanctions if it dares more into the northeast.
3 This implies Turkiye was merely the muscle.
4 Only sanctions approved by the UN are legal under international law.
5 Yours truly is a BRICS/anti-colonial sympathizer. However, I have also been on the receiving end of a lot of wrath in making early, accurate, and unpopular calls. In the 2015 Greece bailout negotiations, I concluded Greece would have to bow to the demands of the Troika….because, among other reasons, it already had in agreeing to a mini-bailout in 2015, which committed Greece to accepting an IMF hairshirt program. Greece’s valiant struggles in the end only tightened its noose by managing the difficult task of uniting the entire EU against them. The final terms agreed in July were worse than those on offer in February. Diagnosing a patient as having a Stage 4 cancer does not mean you are rooting for the cancer.
6 Note paragraph 34:
We stress that Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be strictly observed. We condemn illegal foreign military presence that lead to increasing risks of a large-scale conflict in the region. We emphasize that illegal unilateral sanctions seriously exacerbate the suffering of the Syrian people.
How many divisions does the Pope have?
7Do not chide me for using “Global South.” The motto of the BRICS Summit was: “BRICS and Global South: Building a Better World Together”
