Moscow did nothing to prevent the final collapse of the Syrian regime.
HAVANA, Cuba. – It is very likely that the Latin American radical left, especially the Castro regime, expected a more forceful response from Russia to the capture of Venezuelan ruler Nicolás Maduro. Let us not forget that the Kremlin maintains a strategic alliance with Caracas, and that it sees in Chavismo support for its expansionist intention in the region.
So far, Russia’s reaction has been limited to statements by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who has expressed that the United States’ action is illegal and constitutes a violation of international law.
But, if we have observed the international panorama in recent times, we notice that Russia’s moderation is now almost a constant. It became fundamentally evident when the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria occurred.
During the so-called “Arab Spring” some dictatorships in the Middle East and North Africa were overthrown. However, at that time the powerful Russian aviation supported Al-Assad and prevented his fall. Among other misdeeds, he destroyed the city of Aleppo to prevent it from being taken by the opposition.
On the other hand, more recently, Moscow did nothing to prevent the final collapse of the Syrian regime, despite the importance that Arab nation had for Russia. It even had a naval base in that country, but the only thing it did was grant political asylum to the overthrown dictator of Damascus.
So it would be worth asking ourselves: what has happened in the international arena that has made it possible to moderate Moscow’s actions? Obviously, it was the war in Ukraine. Although Moscow and its allies always claim that Russia has the upper hand in the war, the truth is that its involvement in the European conflict apparently prevents the Kremlin from becoming involved in another war.
To the brave Ukrainian fighters, in addition to admiring the tenacity with which they confront the Russian aggressor and defend their territorial integrity, we have to thank them for their actions that have limited Moscow’s ability to enter other conflicts.
The Cuban rulers, for their part, upon contemplating the kind of moderation with which Moscow has reacted to the capture of Maduro, will have come to the conclusion that nothing will happen if Washington one day does the same with any leader of the Island.
Then, maneuvering in the same way that Fidel Castro did, the regime called for a “National Defense Day” just one day after Maduro’s capture, in order to give the impression that the entire population was mobilizing for “the war of all the people” in defense of the regime. And, above all, that the country could defend itself, without the help of any external ally.
It must be remembered that the concept of war of all the people was established in the 80s, when Castro confirmed that the new leadership in Moscow that followed the Leonid Brezhnev era (the Gorbachevs and company) was going to do nothing if Cuba became involved in a military conflict with the United States.
Now Miguel Díaz-Canel and his henchmen only have to instruct the population to go into the popular tunnels, built by the eldest of the Castros, spending the scarce materials that the country had, to “protect” the population in the event of war.
Well, the population will say, the darkness that reigns inside the tunnels does not matter as much as the darkness that the blackouts cause outside of them.
