Russia’s intervention in Syria must be stopped
Haid Haid/NowLebanon/September24/15
“For the moment it is the judgment of our military and experts that the level and type [of Russia’s involvement in Syria] represents basically force protection,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday. Kerry’s statement comes just as more solid evidence is released confirming Moscow’s increased military support for Bashar Assad’s regime. The Russian government hasn’t denied its military support for Assad and has stated that its aim is to fight terrorism, protect Syria’s statehood and prevent a total catastrophe in the region. The timing of this support, followed by increased public discussion about the need for a no-fly zone to protect civilians and reduce the wave of refugees emigrating to Europe, has raised many questions about what Russia’s real intentions are.
How far are the Russians willing to go to keep Assad in power? Will this tip the military balance in Syria? How should the international community react to it?What kind of support.
While Russia has been a strong political ally of Assad’s regime since the beginning of the Syrian revolution in March 2011, it has significantly increased its military support in recent weeks. Its support for the regime in the last four years has been primarily limited to weapons, experts, loans, and political cover in the UN Security Council. But it’s become clear that Russia has stepped up its support in terms of more sophisticated weaponry and being directly involved in fighting in Syria. On 17 September Reuters released a report on the new weapons from Russia being used by the Syrian Army.
“The weapons are highly effective and very accurate, and hit targets precisely,” A Syrian military source told Reuters in response to a question about Russian support. “We can say they are all types of weapons, be it air or ground.”While the main objective of the Russian mission will become clear when the size and types of forces deployed to Syria are known, Russian forces in Syria are expected to provide pro-regime groups with firepower, air support and combat effectiveness. The reported recent arrival of fighter jets also signaled offensive intent, as they are an essential weapon of the Assad regime both in its fight against opponents and, to a larger extent, against civilians as a means of collective punishment.
What is this support for?
Many theories are being discussed reagrding why Russia chose this moment to increase its military involvement in Syria, especially as it follows a flurry of diplomatic activities in August to reach an end to the conflict in Syria. The first theory is that it’s meant to keep Assad in power, especially after regime military losses to rebel groups in many areas. Assad’s fall would mean Russia losing its main ally in the Middle East and allowing the US more influence in the region. Assad’s military power has deteriorated, but there are no substantial indications that it will collapse any time in the near future given Iran’s continued support. Be that as it may, the Russians may be looking to prevent any Western action that could undermine Assad, such as the establishment of a much-discussed no-fly zone.
Another theory is that Russia is trying to reduce the level of Assad’s dependence on Iran by increasing its support for the regime. Iran has been providing the Syrian regime with loans, fuel, military experts and, most importantly, boots on the ground; sending militias from Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. This theory seems unlikely, though, as Russia is not expected to match Iran’s support and might create conflicts of interest if it did.
It’s even been reported that Russia directly discussed and coordinated its escalation in Syria with Iran. Russia could also be imposing Assad as a partner in the fight against ISIS by reaching a deal similar to the agreement in 2013, when Assad purportedly handed over Syria’s stock of chemical weapons as an alternative to the threat of US airstrikes. If so, it seems that Russia is planning to achieve this imposition by keeping the scale of its military presence in Syria unclear as a means of leveraging its position. Such a deal might help reduce Russia’s political isolation in the international community by putting it back in the role of a major and crucial negotiator in any ultimate solution to the Syrian crisis. For the time being, at least, this theory could prove to be the most convenient.
It has to be stopped
International actors should change their current position towards Russia’s intervention and start actively trying to stop it. The international community’s response thus far has varied from issuing warnings and condemnations to accepting it and convincing Russia to be productive about it. The US administration reached out to Russia as soon as the first Russian fighter aircraft arrived in Syria, asking it to try to coordinate militarily and avoid any potential escalation there. This gave Russia the satisfaction it’s looking for by changing the dynamics of the conflict in Syria.
If the international community does not stop Russia from supporting the Syrian regime by all means, it will only worsen the conflict and make it more difficult to find a solution. Now more than ever Assad knows that Russia and Iran will do whatever it takes to keep him from falling, and this will only increase his appetite for human rights violations and war crimes, thus prolonging the conflict for many years to come. The excuse usually used by international actors to justify their lack of action to protect Syrian civilians by military means is their concern that doing so might push the Russians and the Iranians to retaliate and increase their support, leading to more bloodshed.
This argument works vice versa, too, as regional backers of the opposition — mainly Saudi Arabia and Turkey — would be expected to meet this with more support in turn. But international actors are delusional if they think that they can talk sense into Russia about changing its approach in Syria and playing a productive role in fighting ISIS without imposing serious measures. While Putin called for a joint alliance to fight ISIS, recent reports confirm that fighting ISIS is hardly his priority as Russian forces are active in areas close to fighting lines with rebel groups, such as Hama, rather than with ISIS. Russia’s position towards Syria has also been consistent, gradually evolving their support for the regime, and there is no evidence that contradicts this. Doing nothing is not going to make things better, and the consequences of such inaction will not be limited to Syria.
The absence of a clear strategy to end the conflict in Syria has prolonged and aggravated it since its inception in March 2011. Letting Moscow bleed by watching it get bogged down in another costly war, such as in Afghanistan in the 1980s, is not in anyone’s interest. It’s worth mentioning that though the Soviets were the ones losing the war in Afghanistan, the cost of that war is still being paid today by everyone, especially in that it created the perfect breeding ground for Al-Qaeda.Russia’s increased support for the Assad regime should not be seen as a checkmate but should rather motivate all actors to genuinely start acting on their commitments to protecting Syrian civilians and reaching a proper political settlement to end the conflict there.
Haid Haid is a Syrian researcher based in Istanbul. He tweets @HaidHaid22
