The masked ball is called "War with ISIS"

Russia's interest in the Middle East entered a different channel from the moment the Syrian crisis began. At first, it is possible to say that it exploited well, as an excuse for its unconditional support to the murderous Assad regime in Syria, a position of creditor produced out of having been deceived in Libya.

Putin seems to have turned the creditor psychology produced out of victimhood into a separate specialisation in converting it into a de facto gain for international law. Instead of feeling guilt for the support he gives to Assad, whose hands hold the blood of 400 thousand of his own people in Syria, he is trying to produce a creditor position worthy of tipping one's hat before world opinion from the downing of his plane by Turkey, and there is no serious community of world nations that could throw this openly in his face.

With a brazenness to which being both guilty and powerful fits exactly, Putin's Russia continues to widen its field. It is watched with astonishment that the US, the founding country of NATO, de facto abandons every field Russia enters and leaves it to Russia.

In our earlier articles we noted that this passive spectatorship of the US and NATO in the face of Russia is in effect producing consequences that undermine both. Russia's heading to fill every field where the US does not intervene and leaves a vacuum has become a typical situation.

Is the US doing this in collusion with Russia? That is, questions are also being asked about whether they have a secret agreement concealed from world opinion, of the kind that took place at the end of the Cold War. The "cooperation" stance the US has displayed toward what is going on in Syria, having greatly disappointed the world that trusted it in Ukraine, especially the East European countries that actually feel the Russian threat, deserves a fresh assessment of the course of events. Moreover, it is learned that Russia, which is preparing to settle in Syria thoroughly, is also demanding bases from Egypt and Algeria. Against whom will Russia use these bases? Will not every base established there take something away from US hegemony too?

A sentence Putin uttered at his customary year-end review meeting in recent days showed that, rather than such an agreement, this can be attributed to Obama's timidity toward the end of his term, which can be summed up as "let there be no trouble." Putin openly expressed the hope that "they will work in harmony with the president to be elected in the US elections to be held at the end of this year, just like with Obama."

In return, both this attitude of Obama and the US Secretary of State John Kerry's telling his counterpart Lavrov on his visit to Russia that "the two countries will cooperate effectively" show that the situation is more serious than assumed. It is not possible that the US does not know that Russia, which demanded an effective entry into Syria by playing the card of fighting Daesh, does everything in Syria except fight Daesh.

Indeed, the war against Daesh has become a kind of password that the member actors show in order to sit at the gambling table in the Middle East. Thus France, too, in the face of the Daesh attack it encountered in Paris, has just announced that it will continue in Libya the war against Daesh that is incumbent on it. Does not this move alone make the picture clear?

A new partition is being carried out in the Middle East, and the first requirement sought of those who will take part in the partition is to say the password about fighting the entity called Daesh, whose nature is unclear. Those who say this password do not actually have to fight Daesh. It is enough that they appear to be fighting. But evidently not everyone who appears to be fighting is admitted to the club. There are persons for whom this password will be accepted as valid, and persons for whom it will not be taken into account at all. When Turkey, for example, sets about truly fighting Daesh, which the whole world appears to be fighting, the sham of this racket and the function of this racket are exposed.

When the elements trained by the Turkish units, which had been invited to Mosul by the Iraqi administration itself and which were there within the scope of training and equipping soldiers from the local population, actually became ready to fight Daesh, the Iraqi administration loudly announced to the world that Turkey was present on its territory without permission. Mosul, which had been handed over to Daesh with all its weapon assets without a single bullet fired, was suddenly remembered to be Iraqi territory.

Yet Mosul, which is officially Iraqi territory, is at present neither under Iraqi sovereignty nor administration. Turkey is doing nothing other than what is expected of it regarding what is necessary to rescue from Daesh's hands Mosul, which is seen as the source of the fire that has leapt into its own country.

It turns out that Daesh's holding Mosul there and financing its dirty war is not seen as more dangerous than clearing the place of Daesh with Turkey's help.

Through this we see a little more clearly that the circles that accuse Turkey of supporting Daesh have no problem with Daesh at all.

Yet Turkey states its position clearly, saying "bring it on." It spoils the game by saying "if it is a war against Daesh, come, let us fight, but like men, honourably."