Chapter 819 The Interests of Small Countries Are Equal to the Bargaining Chips of Big Countries

In the game between big countries and big countries, don't expect big countries to sacrifice their own interests in exchange for other interests.

It is often the interests of small countries that are sandwiched between the interests of big countries, and serve as bargaining chips in the game between big countries.

Perhaps in the eyes of all naive people, how could the United States and Russia do this? It is simply senseless to betray the countries they supported before.

If the game between major powers could be based on morality, then there would be no wars in this world every day.

The political game between countries is the most primitive and cruel. There is no sympathy or morality. There are only principles closely related to national interests.

**** There is a famous saying: Russia has no permanent strategic allies, only strategic partners.

This sentence seems similar, but in fact, it is the most fundamental point of the game of great powers.

A strategic ally is also a political and comprehensive military alliance. For a country, it is the existence of both sides.

As for strategic partners, to put it simply, when I need you, you are my partner, and when I don't need you, you are nothing.

Now Russia does not have any allies, only some strategic partners, and they share certain common interests with Russia in hotspot areas.

The best representative of such a country at present is Iran, and this time Russia's withdrawal of troops also proposed that Syria can be federalized. , completely betrayed.

However, this kind of betrayal by Russia also depends on the situation, and the Russians did not say anything dead. The so-called proposal for a federal system in Syria is actually a very flexible policy.

If the United States repents in the future and wants to restart the Ukrainian issue, go back on its word, and affect Russia's core interests on the Ukrainian issue again, then Russia can also continue to block the U.S. on the Syrian issue.

It's not that the heart of a gentleman should be judged with the heart of a villain, but that the relationship between countries is like this, and contracts can be torn up at any time, and it is said that this kind of private exchange of interests is not made public.

Whether there is even immediate repentance, maybe the United States is willing, Ukraine can directly join NATO tomorrow, and the European Union can also accept Ukraine.

Russia is no longer a country that has been tricked by the Americans once or twice, so it is naturally impossible to trust the words of the Americans.

Therefore, when selling Syria's interests, the Russian side is still well prepared.

Because the whole world knows that NATO and Saudi Arabia, the recent new goal, all plan to divide Syria into three countries.

One of them is the Kurdish region located in the northwest, the other is the Assad regime dominated by key cities and political areas, and the other is the opposition armed forces supported by Saudi Arabia in the northeast.

In these three aspects, the United States supports the Kurds in establishing a sovereign state in Syria, Russia supports the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia supports the opposition.

At the beginning, it was not so troublesome, it was nothing more than to overthrow the Assad regime, but after years of civil war, the Assad regime remained stable, and then re-enacted the plan to split Syria.

The classification of Syria and Iraq is what Saudi Arabia wants to see most, and it can almost be said to be the core interest of the United States in the Middle East.

If it weren't for the appearance of Cai Ruichen, the United States would probably not change this long-term strategy until now, or even in the next few decades.

Now that Russia proposes this federal system, in fact, it is dividing a part of the national power currently held by the Assad regime.

If the Syrian Federation is really established in the future, it will actually be three countries. Although the three countries will come up with a central government, they will still be one country in name. In fact, Assad will lose power.

The country has been completely divided.

For such a result, the United States is acceptable, because it has achieved its own goals.

Although the Saudi side 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 war in Syria.

And such a proposal can only be effective if it is put forward by Russia. For this kind of behavior of dividing the Assad regime, only Russia, which has always supported Assad, has the ability to make Assad reluctantly accept it.

After all, Assad has to weigh himself. If he leaves Russia's support, he will lose even the slightest chance of his final fate.

As soon as Russia opened his mouth, Assad had to agree even if he hated the Russians to death. This is the tragedy of a weak country. Otherwise, there is only one way to go.

However, the Communist Party is not a three-year-old child. If the United States insists on using Ukraine's interests as a bargaining chip, then the Communist Party will not continue to affect the problems here in Syria in the end.

But if the United States returns, Assad's opportunity will come again. The federal system has two outcomes. One is similar to the current India, that is, the central government loses its power.

Another phenomenon is that the central government is highly centralized. Once the federation is established, 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 of Syria.

What's more, Russia's withdrawal does not mean withdrawing all its troops, but simply withdrawing its air force. Ground troops, as well as air defense missiles, are all still in Syria.

Russia's influence here in the Middle East will not be weakened in any way because of the withdrawal.

It is also relative that if Russia returns in Syria, then the problem of Ukraine will come back again.

Regardless of whether it is Russia or the United States that suddenly changed the direction of the wind, making such a decision also directly shows that in fact, both parties have already had the incident and continue to persevere.

Russia's sending troops to Syria is a unilateral act of burning money, not to mention the current economic situation in Russia, which cannot support Russia's long-term military presence in the Middle East.

At most, Russia barely maintains a military base. When necessary, a large number of Russian fighter planes can re-enter 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 will soon be unable to bear it.

Although Saudi Arabia is a local tyrant, it is similar. After all, Saudi Arabia is now not only sending troops to Syria, but also sending troops to Yemen, and no amount of money can afford such consumption.

To get a suitable solution for the time being is what the three countries that are currently playing games need.