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

It is often the interests of the small countries themselves that are sandwiched between the interests of the big powers, as a bargaining chip between the interests of the big powers.

Perhaps, in the eyes of all naïve people, how can the United States and Russia be like this, and it is simply immoral to say that they have betrayed the countries they previously supported.

If the game between the great powers could be morally sensitive, then there would be no daily wars in this world.

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

There is a famous saying: Russia does not have permanent strategic allies, only strategic partners.

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

A strategic ally is also a political and comprehensive military alliance, and for a country, it is the existence of a two-pronged sword.

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

At present, Russia does not have any allies, only some strategic partners, and there are certain common interests with Russia in hot spots.

The best representative of such a country at present is Iran, and this time Russia's withdrawal also put forward the proposal that Syria could be federal, in fact, it is betraying Iran's interests from the side, but the focus is still on the Assad regime in Syria. Completely betrayed.

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

If the United States repents in the future and wants to restart the Ukraine issue, backtracking, and affecting Russia's core interests on the Ukraine issue again, then Russia can also revert to the Syrian issue. Continue to add to the blockage of the United States.

It's not that the belly of a gentleman is spent with the heart of a villain, but the relationship between countries is like this, and the contract can be torn up at any time. It is said that this kind of private exchange of interests that is not open to the public.

Maybe the United States is willing, and tomorrow Ukraine can directly join NATO, and the EU can also admit Ukraine.

It's no longer Russia that has been cheated by the Americans once or twice. Naturally, it is no longer possible to believe the words of the Americans.

So when selling the interests of Syria. The Russian side is still ready to make a comeback.

Because the whole world knows that NATO and Saudi Arabia, the new targets of the recent past, are all intent on dividing Syria into three countries.

One is the Kurdish region in the northwest, the Assad regime is dominated by key cities and political regions, and the other is the opposition forces in the northeast that are heavily supported by Saudi Arabia.

On these three fronts, the United States supports the Kurds in establishing a sovereign state on the territory of Syria, and Russia supports the Assad regime. Saudi Arabia supports the opposition.

In 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 reformulated its plan to divide Syria.

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

If it weren't for the emergence of Cai Ruichen, the United States would probably not have changed such a long-term strategy until now, even in the next few decades.

Now Russia is proposing this federal state, in effect, to divide a part of the state power that the Assad regime now has.

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 power, nominally everyone is still one country, in fact, Assad has fallen to power, and the country has been completely divided.

For such an outcome, the United States is acceptable, because it has already achieved its goal.

The Saudis, although not very reluctant, can barely accept such an outcome.

If this 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 the Russian side, and only Russia, which has been supporting Assad, has the ability to make Assad reluctant to accept this kind of behavior to divide the Assad regime.

After all, Assad himself has to weigh up, and if he leaves Russia's support, he will not even have the slightest chance of his final fate.

As soon as Russia speaks, Assad has to agree even if he hates the Russians to death, which is the sorrow of a weak country. Otherwise, there is only one way to perish.

However, **** is not a three-year-old child, if the United States firmly uses Ukraine's interests as a bargaining chip in exchange, then **** 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, and there are two outcomes of federalism, one is similar to the current India, that is, the central government will be left in power.

Once the federation is formed, Assad will inevitably become the prime minister or presidential candidate of the central government, and then Russia can fully support Assad and once again control the central power in Syria.

What's more, Russia's withdrawal is not the withdrawal of all troops, but the withdrawal of the air force, the ground troops, and anti-aircraft missiles, all of which are still in Syria.

Russia's influence here in the Middle East will not be weakened in any way by withdrawing its troops.

On the other hand, if Russia returns on the Syrian side, the Ukrainian problem will also resurface.

Whether it is Russia or the United States suddenly changing the direction of the wind and making such a decision, it also directly shows that in fact, both sides have already happened and continue to hold on.

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

At most, Russia barely maintains a military base, and if necessary, a large number of Russian warplanes can be re-stationed in Syria as soon as possible.

The same is true for the United States, which will soon be unable to stand it if it continues to confront Russia like this.

Although Saudi Arabia is a local tyrant, it is almost the same, after all, Saudi Arabia is now not only sending troops to Syria, but also to Yemen, and no amount of money can withstand such consumption.

Getting a suitable solution for the time being is what the three countries that are currently in the game need. (To be continued.) )