dw.com
Syria Conflict: Russia Blames External Actors as Syrian Army Launches Counter-Offensive
Following an offensive by armed opposition groups in Syria led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Russia blames external forces, including Ukraine, for supporting the attack, while Turkey points to the Syrian government's policies. The Syrian army has launched a counter-offensive, regaining some territory near Hama.
- How do different international actors view the conflict in Syria and what are their roles?
- The conflict escalates as armed opposition groups, led by HTS, advance towards Hama after capturing parts of Aleppo. Russia blames Ukraine for collaborating with Syrian terrorists, providing drones and training, while Turkey suggests the Syrian government's policies contribute to the conflict. The three guarantor countries (Russia, Iran, and Turkey) remain in close contact.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of this conflict for regional stability and international relations?
- The escalating conflict in Syria highlights the complex geopolitical dynamics in the region. The involvement of external actors, including Russia, Iran, and Turkey, risks further destabilizing Syria and potentially impacting neighboring countries. The future trajectory depends on the effectiveness of the counter-offensive and the willingness of the involved parties to de-escalate.
- What is the immediate impact of the armed opposition groups' offensive in Syria and the subsequent counter-offensive?
- Russia accuses external forces of supporting the armed opposition groups' offensive in Syria, condemning the attack and expressing solidarity with the Syrian government. The Syrian government, with Russian air support, launched a counter-offensive, regaining control of two villages near Hama and pushing rebels back approximately 10 kilometers. Iran also continues military support for the Syrian government, sending a military advisory team.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the conflict through the lens of Russia's perspective, emphasizing Russia's condemnation of the rebel attacks and its support for the Syrian government. The headline could also contribute to this framing bias, depending on its wording. The inclusion of Russia's accusations against Ukraine further tilts the narrative towards a pro-Syrian government stance.
Language Bias
The article uses some loaded language, such as referring to the rebels as "terrorist groups," which carries a strong negative connotation and lacks neutrality. The use of phrases like "external powers' comprehensive support" also implies a negative intent without fully substantiating the claim. More neutral language would improve objectivity. For example, instead of "terrorist groups," one could use "rebel groups" or "opposition forces," and instead of "comprehensive support," "substantial assistance" might be a more neutral term.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the Russian and Syrian perspectives, giving less weight to the perspectives of other involved parties such as Turkey and Iran. The motivations and goals of the rebel groups are also not explored in detail. Omitting these perspectives creates an incomplete picture of the conflict and could lead to a biased understanding of the situation.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the conflict, framing it largely as a struggle between the Syrian government (supported by Russia and Iran) and the rebel groups (supported by Turkey). The nuances and complexities of the situation, including the various factions within the rebel groups and their diverse motivations, are largely overlooked.