During the Syrian Civil War Western leaders have repeatedly said the Assad government has ‘lost all legitimacy’. This phrase means absolutely nothing.

The thing about legitimacy is it is a completely subjective word which is used by politicians in place of a host of other words which might have more meaning but don’t serve their agenda.

For example, to substitute the word legitimacy and say ‘Assad has lost all support’ would be factually incorrect, for if this was the case he would have already been abandoned by his armed forces and lost the war.

The simple reality is that all wars come down to two or more sides disagreeing on the meaning of legitimacy. As it is in Syria, there are many different sides with very different definitions of legitimacy and without understanding that, peace is impossible.

To Assad’s Russian backers, all governments recognised by the UN are legitimate and legitimacy cannot be lost unless the UN Security Council (of course including Russia itself) unanimously decides. In this view, elections can help strengthen legitimacy but do not define it.

In their own countries, the Gulf monarchies who are backing the opposition have the same view of legitimacy as Europe did in the 15th century, that only God can decide who is fit to rule and he has chosen them as the royal families to govern his kingdoms. However, God evidently isn’t opposed to complete anarchy in the likes of Libya and Syria as long as it strengthens his ‘legitimate’ governments in the Gulf.

The Islamic State does not differ hugely from the Gulf States and also believes that only God can decide who rules. However rather than appointing a monarch, he has appointed a Caliph, or religious leader as the successor to the Prophet Mohammed, and rather than being appointed to rule one country, this Caliph has been appointed by God to rule the entire world.

And in the Western view, legitimacy is won or lost through elections and a commitment to human rights. Of course if an ally does not uphold these commitments, the West is partial to the Russian view of legitimacy.

On Syria the Russians like to ask, ‘if Assad has lost all legitimacy, who has gained the legitimacy he lost?’

Naturally Western leaders have no answer to this question because to name their choice as ‘legitimate’ leader would see this person lose legitimacy in the perception of huge numbers of Syrians who they can’t afford to alienate.

Confusing? That is the point.