Jointly Responsible … for the Syrian war - and for ending it
Thinking about… From   1618   to   1648   the   30   Years’   War,   a   mixture of    religious    and    power    conflicts,        devastated Central    Europe    with    long-lasting    impacts.    The population    almost    halved    -    reaching    until    a complete     annihilation     in     some     regions;     the economic   standards   of   the   pre-war   period   were re-achieved   in   some   regions   only   more   than   one century later.
 In this sitution, the Iran offers nothing but its well-known Shi’ite counterpart to the Wahabit (Sunni) ideology of Saudia-Arabia. But as long as absolutistic programs and organizations, such as absolutistic religions, dominate, violence and general misery necessarily prevail - see also the current war in Jemen. Until 2011, Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s 2012 formally re-elected president, it is true, represented and controlled a state of some religious plurality with a vivid cultural and economic life. Indeed, the Sunni majority of population did not feel well be governed by an authoritarian Alawit ruler, and as soon as the ideas of Arabian Spring came to Syria, demonstrating people tried to kick out the authoritarian president simply by public pressure. This strategy, however, did not work. Indeed in 2012 Assad offered some compromises under his government; but the momentum of war was already to strong, and a race to the bottom of reciprocal violence started to run.
In this process, Assad did not operate in normatively bound ways - see his undifferentiated bombing of whole urban quarters and the alleged usage of chemical weapons. After that, Assad may be still a relevant part of a possible conflict management in Syria, but obviously he cannot be an integrative candidate for the Syrian future.     Russia meanwhile constitutes the main power to stabilize Assad’s regime and thereby to counter the hopes of Sunni militia to come to a victory. But because of Assad’s described behavior, Putin is particularly responsible for enabling a fresh intra-Syrian process of conflict management. All civilized actors of the conflict are jointly responsible to bring about a negotiation process on peace-making. The fact that a welcome culture for Syrian refugees develops in some countries is likely to foster this process; since personal contacts foster a responsible attitude.      
The warfare export industries of the USA, Russia, France, Germany, and Israel make money by the Syrian war; Al-Khaida branches and the Islamic State are military and ideological profiteers from the war, and Saudi-Arabia has hitherto successfully resisted against overtaking relevant adaption costs by receiving refugees. Nevertheless, the time of oil-financed religious revolutions (back to the seventh century), is phasing out - with the ongoing transition from fossil to regenerative energies and increasing functional globalization. Also the idea of achieving democracy by a military victory over a strong dictator reveals to be facile for an endless war is just the contrary of democracy. That’s why every argument for any longer waging war in Syria lacks responsibility and shows own motives in strict contrast to what the Syrian people need. Regaining humanity, welfare, and chances on a fair process of decision-making presupposes an end of the war.