Russia’s bold Syrian adventure

S P SETH

An important recent development in the increasingly complex Middle East imbroglio is Russia’s open military intervention in the Syrian theatre. Moscow has been known to support the Bashar al-Assad regime in all sorts of ways but had refrained from jumping into the fray militarily. It is now conducting aerial bombing of rebel positions, storing and deploying heavy armaments at its naval base in Syria and is even said to have some ground troops for limited operations. Moscow’s justification for this is multi-fold. First, it is doing this at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government of President Assad. Second, it is doing it to fight terrorism, which the Assad regime has been doing on its own. Third, its timing would appear to be dictated by the seemingly imminent danger to the Assad regime from multiple jihadi and rebel forces converging on it.

For Moscow, even though IS is the main target, it is pointless to be splitting hair to determine who is who is who among the jihadis because, in the end, they are all terrorists wanting to create an even bigger blood bath of their presumed enemies. And they are also a threat to Russia and its interests as some among them are former Chechen rebels and commanders now fighting for IS and other jihadi groups. Russia would hate them and IS to score even more gains, with the prospect of some of the Chechen rebels and their new compatriots returning to settle old scores with the Russian state. Therefore, it is not simply bravado on Russia’s part to help Assad regime, it is also in its self-interest to deal with them as far away from the country as is possible.

There is also an important geopolitical reason. President Putin has never forgotten and forgiven the collapse of the Soviet state as a global power. He called it the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20^th century. Its shrunken version, the Russian state, he has been presiding over for much of the new century, has been facing further pressures to constrict and constrain its role, including a perceived threat from an expanded NATO that now also include some eastern European and Baltic countries that were either once under the protective Soviet umbrella or its integral part. Which led Moscow to push back when Ukraine was sought to be included in the European Union, with the prospect of its subsequent inclusion in NATO. The crisis in Ukraine is still unresolved for which Russia is facing a slew of economic sanctions from the US and its European allies.

Though there is no direct connection between Ukrainian and Syrian crises, Syria happens to be the only Middle Eastern country where Russia still has a naval base that allows it to maintain and project a countervailing and/or bridging role, and has economic interests. And it is not just Assad’s Syria that is welcoming of Russia’s interventionist role against IS and other jihadist outfits, Iran and Iraq are also part of this new coalition with Russia apparently in the lead role. Moscow reportedly will coordinate intelligence with Baghdad and likely with Tehran in the midst of reports that Iranian forces are already on the ground helping the Syrian regime.

In the situation as it is developing, both Moscow and Washington are keen to push back and destroy IS. But the important difference is that while Moscow would like this to be done through the agency of the Assad regime as the only functional entity committed to it, the US and its coalition allies would rather see Assad step aside in favour of a broad coalition of preferably secular US-supported elements. At the most, they might tolerate a role for Bashar al-Assad during the “transitional” phase when a new replacement arrangement is worked out. Moscow is not wedded to Assad per se but doesn’t see any workable “transitional” arrangement emerging out of the medley of jihadi groups and the occasional secular elements that are, in any case, being subverted or over-whelmed by IS.

President Obama says that President Putin is entering a “quagmire” with his air strikes in Syria and by hitching his wagon to the Assad regime. At another level, the US and its allies are highly critical of the reportedly Russian targeting of non-IS jihadi groups, including some of its favoured and supposedly secular elements like the Free Syrian Army. Though Moscow says it is primarily targeting IS, its foreign minister Sergey Lavrov was unapologetic for hitting other terrorist groups like al-Nusra and the likes. Asked to define other terrorist groups while he was in New York, he said, “If it looks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it is a terrorist, right?” In other words, Russia’s definition of a terrorist group is quite wide to include almost all the rebels fighting the Syrian regime. Which invites sharp criticism from the US and some of its allies. But, in some cases, the comment is more nuanced.

For instance, Australia’s foreign minister Julie Bishop is more pragmatic. She reportedly has said that, “President Putin maintains that Assad is not their man and they are talking about the stability of the regime, rather than the survival of Assad per se.” As if she were standing up for Russia, Bishop went on, “Their [Moscow] concern is that if Assad is removed there will be created a vacuum and there is no one they can identify who could step up and run that part of Syria.” She believes that “there is a common view that Daesh [IS] is a devastatingly successful terrorist organization, that cannot be allowed to prevail.” And within that wider parameter Russia’s larger role, even envisaging a place for a reconstituted Syrian regime (without Bashar al-Assad, perhaps), would need to be recognized. And that goes for Iran too as a participant at an international conference, though one can see how Saudi Arabia, Qatar, other Gulf kingdoms and Turkey will be horrified at such a prospect.

The US, even if it were to heed Julie Bishop’s sensible interpretation of Russia’s important role (as it is of Iran), is likely to find itself vetoed by its Arab allies. Obama might be right that Russia would likely find herself in a “quagmire” with military intervention as has the US in Afghanistan, Iraq and now against IS, but such an outcome would be disastrous with IS eventually emerging as the dominant force not only in the Middle East but also in the Muslim world. And with its own freakish interpretation of Islam, it would need to be confronted and defeated. And that is only possible with a united international front where the US, Russia and other stakeholders recognize that the real enemy is IS and not the Syrian regime which, undoubtedly, is brutal in its own context. And that would be confronted when the larger IS threat is contained and/or beaten.

But don’t hold your breath about a united international front to confront IS. Russia’s intervention in Syria seems to be reviving elements of the old cold war, with NATO expressing deep concern about recent Russian incursions into Turkish air space for their Syrian bombing raids “despite Turkish authorities’ clear, timely and repeated warnings.”

Note: This article as first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au