Formation of the US position on the military-political conflict in Syria in Ukrainian historiography

Abstract

The approaches of Ukrainian researchers who analyze the geopolitical, security and humanitarian aspects of the military-political conflict in Syria (2011–2024) are summarized. It is emphasized that despite the existence of individual studies, a comprehensive review of the Ukrainian historiography of the problem is still lacking. The purpose of the study is to systematize these developments and identify leading interpretations of the role of the US in the Syrian war. The article traces the assessments of Ukrainian researchers on the key approaches of various US presidential administrations to the Syrian crisis: from attempts to support the moderate opposition, restrain the use of chemical weapons and form an anti-terrorist coalition – to strikes in response to the crimes of the Bashar al-Assad regime and the gradual revision of the American strategy in the Middle East. It is noted that some Ukrainian scholars pointed to the fact that the indecision of certain steps by Washington contributed to the strengthening of the influence of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, which ensured that Bashar al-Assad remained in power and continued repression, while insufficient support for the moderate opposition created conditions for the growth of radical groups. It is concluded that Ukrainian authors generally agree that US policy was inconsistent, and its limitations exacerbated the humanitarian catastrophe and changed the balance of power in the region in favor of authoritarian actors. As some Ukrainian researchers ironically noted, the Americans, who had so far tried not to actively intervene in the fierce struggle of the civil war in Syria, at the defining moment for this country of the overthrow of the regime of Bashar al-Assad at the end of 2024, had no influence on which forces would take part in the seizure of power. Under such circumstances, both Joe Biden in the last month of his term and Donald Trump, who was re-elected as US President, had no choice but to establish ties with the newly established Syrian authorities, to make compromises – up to and including facilitating the legitimization of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham rebel group and its leader (and therefore the head of Syria) Abu Muhammad al-Julani in the eyes of the international community, in order to at least make it impossible for the Islamic State to resurface in the region, and in the Syrian state itself – to ensure reconstruction after more than a decade of war and destruction, to reject the introduction of Sharia law in the country, as well as to separate religion from the state sector and the educational process, to create an inclusive government, and to ensure that terrorist organizations cannot operate on the territory of the country.