Sharif Nashashibi: Russian airstrikes and selective outrage over Syria/Mohamed Chebarro: A Russian-American Tango in Syrian skies/Raghida Dergham: Russian intervention imposes a fait accompli on all sides

Russian airstrikes and selective outrage over Syria
Sharif Nashashibi/Al Arabiya/October 05/15

Many people who are against the U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria have also condemned those carried out by Russia since last week. Putting aside arguments for or against foreign intervention, this indicates a stance that is based on a specific principle and applied universally. For example, the Stop the War Coalition said in a statement last week that just as it “has criticized U.S. bombing, and the possibility of British intervention, in Syria, so too we cannot support Russian military action. It remains our view, supported by long history and experience, that external interference has no part to play in resolving the problems in Syria or elsewhere in the Middle East.”However, reaction on social media since the start of Russia’s bombing campaign shows that far too many people who have condemned U.S.-led airstrikes are perfectly happy to cheer on Moscow. In the process, they are contradicting many of the reasons they cited for opposing the U.S.-led coalition. It seems, then, that the issue these people have is not that Syria and its people are being bombed, but who is doing the bombing.

Civilians
One of the objections raised over the U.S.-led campaign was that there would be civilian casualties. Sure enough, from the start civilians have been killed and injured, and civilian infrastructure destroyed and damaged. However, the same is true of Russia’s air campaign. Since it began just a few days ago, dozens of civilians, including children, have reportedly been killed, and many more injured. In addition, civilian targets so far have included homes, a field hospital and a mosque. Activists on the ground say most of the targets hit have been civilian. The response from the Syrian regime’s apologists is to claim that these are all lies, that the sources are suspect, that photographic or video evidence is fake, and that media is bias – basically a big conspiracy. People who will readily (and often rightly) accuse the Americans of disregard for civilian life are now suspending belief when it comes to the Russians, as if they could not possibly behave in such a way.The Chechens would beg to differ. So too would the Afghans, who – like the Syrians now – have the dubious distinction of having American and Russian bombs dropped on them.

Propaganda
The willing suspension of belief extends beyond civilian casualties to the very fundamentals of military and propaganda warfare. It is as if deception during conflict is a uniquely Western phenomenon. Far too many people who have condemned U.S.-led airstrikes are perfectly happy to cheer on Moscow. In the process, they are contradicting many of the reasons they cited for opposing the U.S.-led coalition. For example, when I posted a BBC article on Facebook about Russian airstrikes killing civilians and hitting Syrian rebels opposed to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), people responded that U.S. officials – who were among the sources, which included Syrians on the ground – could not be trusted. However, this was not simply a healthy skepticism of officialdom, whose job it is to deceive during conflict. The problem seems to be not that they were officials, but that they were American, because the doubters are all too willing to trust the denials and claims of Russian officials. They would not possibly be dishonest, particularly while their employer wages war! “Do you believe this Western article?” someone asked me. “I just don’t believe what the Americans say.” Because only they are worthy of suspicion, apparently. The next day, Moscow admitted that its targets extended beyond ISIS, even though it had initially billed its campaign as being against the jihadist group. It turns out that so far, most of its airstrikes have focused on rebels opposed to both ISIS and the regime.

Intervention
Remember all the condemnation of U.S-led airstrikes as foreign meddling? Are the Russians any less foreign? Or Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, whose fighters have been propping up the Syrian regime since at least 2012? Or Iran, which has reportedly sent hundreds of troops to take part in a major upcoming ground campaign with Russian air support? Regime apologists respond that these parties’ involvement is legitimate because it is at the Syrian government’s request. Those who make such an argument – many of whom I know personally – will rightfully condemn U.S. military assistance to Israeli governments, or Western assistance to various autocracies. The irony is lost on them. One also wonders how people square their support for Moscow’s intervention with their rejection of the U.S.-led campaign on the grounds that it would further militarize the conflict. What do they think is being dropped from Russian warplanes, flowers and chocolate? Similarly, many supporters of Moscow’s air campaign were quick to point out the lack of a U.N. mandate for the U.S.-led campaign. They are, however, silent about the fact that Moscow does not have a U.N. mandate either. There is also silence over the powerful Russian Orthodox Church’s deeply irresponsible description of the campaign as a “holy war.” That silence is particularly deafening considering the justified outcry over former U.S. President George W Bush’s reference to a “crusade” against terrorism. While some have opposed both air campaigns as a matter of principle, others have been exposed for their selective outrage in supporting Moscow’s aerial bombardments by contradicting their reasons for opposing the U.S.-led campaign. In the current climate in Syria and the wider region, the damage being caused by selective outrage cannot be overestimated, because the resulting hypocrisy provides cover for justifying the unjustifiable.

A Russian-American Tango in Syrian skies
Mohamed Chebarro/Al Arabiya/October 05/15
It is too early to fairly assess Moscow’s endeavors in Syria after it deployed dozens of fighter jets to begin an air campaign in Syria. Though the targets hit are not believed to be solely ISIS positions, it will be sometime before a clear assessment emerges from the field. My guess is that it will not be long before the world stands witness to Russian brutality which surpasses that of the Syrian regime and its Iranian allies that helped over the past four years keep Bashar al-Assad in power. But the real story does not lie here. At the crux of the matter is the fact that after a year of the U.S.-led air campaign fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the organization trying to build a Caliphate in the Middle East and elsewhere is still intact despite its many bruises. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius is suspicious of Russia’s intervention in Syria and has challenged the Kremlin, perhaps prematurely, to put match its actions to its words, roll up its sleeves, and join the world’s fight against ISIS. The Russians were not caught bluffing; they may be fighting ISIS – but their actions have stoked further the fire in Syria, where civilians of all religions and sects are paying the price. It is not a surprise to see them fleeing their homeland in all directions across the world.

The Russians have gone into Syria with their eyes also on other stalemates with the U.S. and Europe, mainly over Ukraine. I believe Moscow’s attacks are aimed mainly at propping up Assad’s wounded regime, not fighting ISIS or terrorism as they claim. Now, the world will watch a Russian-American Tango in Syrian skies, and this time it’s Putin who is leading the dance, not Obama. Russia’s role in Syria has been, from the onset of the crisis, to side with Assad against his people and therefore it cannot be a neutral broker for a potential peace plan that Moscow claims it is trying to execute. Putin and his outspoken foreign minister Sergei Lavrov never disguise the fact they are supporting, and arming, Assad, and they consider all opposition forces to be terrorists attacking the state of Syria. A location in Baghdad has been established as a Russian intelligence, liaison and coordination center, established with support from Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian intelligence. It seems this group is intent on further dividing the world’s resolve (if we are to be naive and trust that there is one) between two camps; one led by Russia and the other by the U.S. If anything, the above complicates an already complicated scene.

Defining terrorism
Russian intervention in Syria comes after almost five years of failure by the U.N. to define the conflict, let alone or find an end to it. The role of Moscow was central in obstructing several Security Council resolutions aimed at putting an end to the violence. By and large, President Barack Obama decided to ignore the conflict and decided to work on a bigger cause; hoping to tame Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But the latest U.N. fringe meeting between the Russian and American presidents showed once again how diametrically opposed the views of both countries and their allies are regarding the Syria and the refugee crisis in Europe. All the above was narrowed down once again to a vague statement agreeing to keep working together to fight terrorism – but we all know both parties have different perspectives on terror; is it ISIS or the Syrian opposition fighters rebelling against Assad?

Caught by surprise
Days after that meeting, it became clear the Obama Administration was caught by surprise and sent mixed messages in its reaction to the Russian attacks on targets in three Syrian provinces, reportedly using banned cluster bombs – some of which allegedly targeted moderate Syrian rebels trained by the CIA, we were told. Clearly Putin’s Russia has outmaneuvered the U.S. If anything, the burning questions that remain are how best to fight ISIS, how to contain the Syrian war, how to defeat Isis in Iraq, how to curb Iranian meddling in Lebanon, Bahrain and Yemen. If anything, Moscow’s latest call for the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition to leave the airspace in its area of operation presents a new political and operational challenges. On a political level, it is another blow to Obama and the West and their non-policy on Syria. So now the Russians are showing more boldness in filling the void. On an operational level, I sat down to scribble over a map of Syria to see where fighter jets from opposing coalitions could strike. So far, the Russians are attacking targets north of the country, mainly in Idlib, Hama and Aleppo. ISIS forces are mainly in Raqqa, Deir Ezzor further east and Palmyra. It will be an operational nightmare to divide the airspace and provide corridors for each coalition’s air force. That said, Assad’s airforce continued its strikes on Syrian cities for the past 12 months in parallel to strikes and air sorties carried out by U.S. in Syria without any known major air space incidents. So maybe the Russians, the Americans and their allies will opt out for odd and even days for each coalition to operate in. The “odd and even days” were invented by municipalities around the world to allow cars with Odd or Even plate registration into congested city centers to limit pollution and or traffic jams. Now, the world will watch a Russian-American Tango in Syrian skies, and this time it’s Putin who is leading the dance, not Obama.

Russian intervention imposes a fait accompli on all sides
Raghida Dergham/Al Arabiya/October 05/15
Russian President Vladimir Putin has imposed on the United States, Europe, and the Arab nations a fait accompli, which they have no choice but to accept. Yet at the same time, Putin might have just backed himself into a corner. U.S. President Barack Obama is determined not to be dragged to Syria. He has no solutions to tackle the situation; if Putin believes he has a solution, then Obama’s stance is so be it with best wishes for success. If Putin pulls it off, Washington would be able to say it had contributed to the success. If he fails, Syria will be Putin’s quagmire and own Afghanistan. In New York over this past week, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov held four rounds of talks. If anything, this suggests that the two sides have common ground as well as differences. Indeed, the two powers are engaged in military and intelligence coordination, at the very least for “de-confliction” in Syria where their air forces are operating simultaneously. Nevertheless, Washington and Moscow’s essential difference is over the role of Bashar al-Assad in political arrangements, and this is where the main obstacle lies, the so-called Assad Knot. Washington wants to convince Russia of abandoning Assad, if not at the start of the transition then at the end. Moscow wants Washington to stop wasting time on this issue because Assad is Russia’s man in Syria and it would not sacrifice him.

The Assad problem is papered over
Washington is embarrassed because its Arab allies are not willing to approve understandings whereby the Assad problem is papered over. They want clarity and they want commitments and guarantees that Assad would not still be in power at the end of the political transition, should they agree to relax their demand that Assad must step down as a condition to start a political process. Moscow wants to tell Washington that its position is key and that its Arab allies would ultimately cave in and agree to U.S.-Russian understandings, because they have no other option. Cracks have begun to appear in the Arab ranks, and some are saying that there is no choice but to accept what Russia has imposed on the United States and the U.S. administration. Others are categorically refusing to be part of a U.S.-Russian equation that practically entails partnership with Bashar al-Assad in crushing the armed Syrian opposition, and not just ISIS and similar groups. There are some who buy into the U.S. proposal of luring Putin into becoming implicated in Syria, and become caught in a war similar to the Afghanistan war that led to the collapse of the entire Soviet Union.

Either Russia wakes up to the dangers of clinging on to one man and sacrificing an entire country, or wake up one day trapped in a corner of their own making. Indeed, the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan at the time led to the mujahidin war against “Communist atheism”, with U.S. and Arab support and incitement that helped create fundamentalist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. Therefore, the Afghanization of Syria will not spare anyone, mainly Russia which is lodging itself in the Syrian corner today as a direct party to a civil war and as the leader of the war on fundamentalism and terrorism. John Kerry has been on marathon shuttle meetings over the Syrian issue. A number of ministers felt that Kerry had brought to them an implicit agreement between him and Lavrov, and that he wanted to get it passed despite states U.S. positions against Assad, voiced by Obama himself.

Remember the chemical weapons agreement?
When Kerry was met with that resistance, he felt that he had to adapt a little so as not to appear as if imposing a U.S.-Russian agreement with the flavor of the previous bilateral agreement on chemical weapons. That agreement culminated with Obama’s U-turn on his infamous “red lines”. Public statements by the United States and Britain escalated then de-escalated. As the British Foreign Secretary clarified, London is willing to alter the interpretation of the Geneva-1 communique and the Geneva-2 mechanism to accept a role for Assad in the transition. This is contrary to previous positions. At the same time, Britain stepped up its verbal tone, saying Assad has lost legitimacy and must step down, and that there could be no return to the status quo before the Syrian revolution by rehabilitating a man who helped kill 300,000 of his people and dispossess millions.
The senior pillars of the Syrian regime are extremely reassured by the Russian positions and their implications for U.S. and British positions. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said U.S. and European statements are like a “fan” and are not reliable, changing between night and day. He said they had no choice but the Russian option, if they were serious about fighting ISIS.

It is clear that a priority for the United States and Russia now is to reach an agreement over a communication mechanism to avoid any clashes in Syria, with Russian and international airstrikes taking place at the same time in Syria. This is what Kerry and Lavrov jointly declared following their third meeting. Russia is adamant that its airstrikes in Syria follow a request by the Syrian government, which it considers the legitimate sovereign government in Syria. Russia cites the request made by the Iraqi government to the coalition forces, which it says is equivalent.

Politically, Kerry and Lavrov have agreed that they want a united, democratic, and secular Syria, but they are in disagreement over how to get there. They agreed on “almost specific steps,” in Lavrov’s words, to be undertaken with other countries and the United Nations, to create the suitable conditions to promote a political solution. The two men also agreed to be in “permanent” contact over Syria. According to Kerry, an agreement was reached to take a number of steps that could push forward a political solution and rapidly, given the refugee crisis in Syria that has taken its toll on Europe.

Moscow has decided to intervene directly in Syria in support of the regime in Damascus. It is clear the target of Russian airstrikes will not be limited to ISIS. The change in the Russian strategy is not minor. Russia today speaks the language of “Russian national security” as being a cause for its military escalation in Syria. The Russians are proclaiming that they do not want or accept for Syria to become another Libya – as though the situation in Syria is any better than Libya. The Russians are saying there is no alternative to partnership with the Syrian regime, because it is the only force on the ground that can defeat ISIS. They are saying anyone who has an alternative to Assad should present it, and are saying: Come with us, because you have no other option but us. We are the headline in Syria, and you are not prepared to engage to begin with.

Caving in
Moscow is betting on the United States, Britain, and France caving in to the fait accompli imposed by Russian strategy in Syria, because Washington does not want to engage on this difficult issue and because Europe is keen to stop the flow of migrants to its borders.Washington does not mind Russia leading in Syria against ISIS and similar groups. But it does not want to officially bless the attacks on the armed Syrian opposition or take part in rehabilitating Assad. Washington does not want to appear to its Arab friends or Turkey as though it is colluding with Moscow, and has become an ally to Moscow, Iran, Hezbollah, and the regime in Damascus in the Syrian war.Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir explained in an interview I conducted two days ago the main points of the position on the proposals regarding Syria and Assad. Jubeir said there are no differences when it comes to the principle of preserving the civilian and military institutions in Syria to prevent total collapse.He also said that there is a general agreement that Assad would have no role in Syria’s future, stressing that the solution does not depend on Russia, which opposes this general agreement. In other words, disagreements continue regarding the fate of Assad after the transitional phase, and not just during it.

The endgame
Jubeir said that discussions are currently looking into whether the Syrian president would step down at the start of the transitional phase, or whether he would remain in Syria without any powers or privileges. Saudi Arabia, he said, is determined to know the endgame of the political process, saying that the Geneva principles would be meaningless if there is no agreement over Assad stepping down in Syria. The Russian response is clear in rejecting calls for Assad to step down. Interpreting the Geneva communique as calling for Assad’s departure is wrong, according to Russia. Moscow will not abandon Bashar al-Assad, whether at the beginning or at the end of any political process. In short, Moscow rejects making prior commitments regarding Assad’s fate and rejects any preconditions in this regard. Moscow is saying that the political process and elections dictate Assad’s fate. But Moscow is saying this while fighting directly in Syria alongside Assad under the banner of defeating ISIS, and while recognizing only “healthy” Syrian opposition figures and groups that suit it as alternatives to the National Coalition and the armed opposition. John Kerry has warned both Russia and Iran of the consequences of clinging to Assad and linking the fate of Syria to one man. He said that Moscow must understand the consequences of supporting rule by the Alawite minority in a sea of 65 million Sunnis between Baghdad and the Turkish borders, who reject Assad as their legitimate ruler. Kerry said that Russia must be more concerned about going it alone against ISIS, because this would make Russia a target and together with Assad a magnet for jihadists. The gist of the U.S. position on Moscow’s proposals is that the decision is in Russia’s hands: either Russia wakes up to the dangers of clinging on to one man and sacrificing an entire country, or wake up one day trapped in a corner of their own making.