Makhan Saikia :
Globally, Putin is trying to project Russia as a counter power to the West, particularly to the US, in a more strategic way than it was during the Cold War days
Russia formally intervened in more than four-year-old Syrian conflict on September 30 when its war jets were out to support the floundering regime of Bashar al-Assad.
By doing so Vladimir Putin has become the first leader after Leonid Brezhnev who invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to send military aircraft beyond the limits of former USSR.
Moreover, it has been observed that since the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, never in the history of Russia and the US, they fought so close to each other. And the development is significant in the background that recently, US President Barack Obama loudly preached the virtues of a “tradition of strong, principled diplomacy” in a speech at American University wherein he was making the case for pushing the Iranian nuclear deal through the US Congress.
While criticising the former US President George W Bush, he said, “It was a mindset characterised by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral US action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.”
Thus Obama is still trying to stress on diplomatic channels rather than venturing out to an all-out war against Assad. Putin is fast filling the vacuum created by Obama’s gradual retreat from the theatre of war created by US in West Asia. This is what The Economist (October 2015) aptly describes, “Putin dares, Obama dithers”, but then for how long?
The new “Kremlinology” would redefine Russia’s potential role and survival in the Middle East in the coming days. Obama is deviating from the “Carter Doctrine” which former US President Jimmy Carter declared in his State of the Union Address on January 25, 1980, “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force” (Korb and Wit 2009).
Thus Putin is displaying his firepower against Obama’s much talked about diplomatic manoeuvres. In fact the Syria-Soviet alliance dates back to the reign of Assad’s father Hafez al-Assad, who was largely trained as a military officer in the erstwhile USSR.
On record Hafez’s Baathist regime was modelled as a “Soviet Single Party State” backed by a strong network of intelligence services so that all types of dissidents could be crushed easily.
Currently, Tartous is the only Russian outpost on the Mediterranean against NATO’s extensive military build-up which could easily be used to expel the former from the region.
For Russia, Syria is one-stop shop and it cannot afford to see the fall of the Assad regime. Even when the civil war in Syria started in March 2011, Russia had a weapons contract worth $4 billion and between 2009 and 2013, some $20 billion were invested by Russian MNCs in the country. Thus, globally, Putin is trying to project Russia as a counter power to the West, particularly to the US, in a more strategic way than it was during the Cold War days.
Just before Russia’s direct intervention in Syria, it has declared her intention in the clearest terms. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov came out publicly in September, “We have always been frank regarding the presence of our military experts in Syria who help the Syrian Army in training and how to use the equipment….and if further steps are needed we will stand ready to fully undertake those steps.”
This is the kind of risk Putin is taking to encroach upon the much-sought after NATO grounds in West Asia. On September 28, while addressing the UN General Assembly (UNGA), he squarely blamed the US for “unsettling the West Asia”. He declared, “I am urged to ask those who created this situation: Do you at least realise now what you’ve done? But I’m afraid this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity.”
In the meantime, on the sidelines on the UNGA, the meeting between Obama and Putin, first since the Russian annexation of Crimea, led to no substantial results. It is interesting to note how Putin is managing support back home for his upcoming global offensive. The Russian Orthodox Church has called for a “holy war” and encouraged Putin to go ahead. Ria Novosti, the State News Agency of Russia, has projected him as a “Super Hero” and urged him to clean up the mess created by the US and its allies in West Asia. Along with other State sponsored media houses, Ria Novosti is fast spreading social media campaigns bearing prominent hashtag ‘#PutinPeacemaker’ and thus creating a conducive atmosphere for launching attack on the Syrian opponents. Russia’s Chief TV propagandist, Dmitry Kiselev has gone one step ahead and declared that “In Syria, America stands on the side of the terrorist caliphate. Together they are trying to destroy Syria as a secular State.”
Thus an anti-American campaign is fully made live both in print and electronic media to create enough grounds for public support across Russia so that Putin does not counter one more street protest in Moscow.
It is widely believed that Putin has received verbal support from the Italian Prime Minister and the German Foreign Minister for Russia’s new role in Syria. Russia enjoys close support from both Iran and Iraq.
It is learnt that his decision for a joint Iranian-Russian military operation in Syria was decided at a meeting between Khamenei and the Russian Foreign Minister in a couple of months ago. Indeed, Iran is a key backer of the current Syrian regime. The Russian missiles traversed the boundaries of both Iran and Iraq before pounding the rebels in Syria.
Russia mainly aims at hitting the Islamic State rebels and all other US-backed forces like the Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate who are fighting the Assad regime.
With full air support from Russia, the Syrian Army on the ground is making steady moves from the city of Hama toward Idlib, a territory occupied by a group of Islamic militants.
While the Kremlin’s stated objective is to fight the ISIS, but the US and its allies accuse that Russia is primarily concentrating its attack on other rebel groups like the Free Syrian Army to finally prevent the downfall of Assad.
When it comes to US response to Russian actions, the Pentagon Chief for the first time ruled out any coordination with Russia for fighting the ISIS.
And US Defense Secretary Ashton B Carter has directly accused Russia for supporting the Assad’s regime by hitting only those forces who are sponsored by the US, “We believe Russia has the wrong strategy. They continue to hit targets that are not ISIL (ISIS). This is a fundamental mistake.”
It seems “the two sides (US and Russia) have jousted in recent days over the conditions for holding another round of talks. Washington wants to limit the discussion to technical factors about aviation safety, while Moscow has said it wants a broader conversation about possibly coordinating military operations-something the Pentagon steadfastly opposes” (Roth and Cunnigham 2015). This reflects the deep divide between the two big powers that have their own agendas to pursue for domestic and geopolitical compulsions.
The West has already launched more than 7,000 air strikes against the ISIS and Obama does not want to deploy the American forces on the ground because of the loss and fear of repeating the same mistakes what it did in the past in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For Obama, this is one of the toughest test and he would find it too difficult to launch an all-out offensive against Russia which could be a total disaster.
NATO has already warned of a “troubling escalation” in Russian military actions in Syrian conflict. Russia is violating the Turkish airspace while bombing the anti-Government rebels in Syria.
“He (Putin) likely views Syria, like Ukraine, as part of the Russian orbit. It also provides a useful place for Putin not to “deconflict” – to use the current jargon, but to pinprick NATO. The incursion of Turkish airspace by a Russian jet tests the alliance around the edges, virtually guaranteeing that any response would be cautious” (Mufson 2015).
So the new role of Russia is signaling no other than spiraling of conflict and confusion than bringing solution to Syria. Whatsoever it may be, “But for the Kremlin, it is just as important to be seen to be confronting America, which Putin accuses of trying to dominate the world” (The Economist October 2015).
Josh Earnest, the White House spokesperson, has issued a cautionary note to Putin, “Russia will be no more successful in imposing a military solution on Syria than the United States was in imposing a military solution on Iraq, or than the Soviet Union was in imposing a military solution on Afghanistan.” Putin’s judo bravado would not help Syria heralding permanent peace, neither US’ constant proxy war would do any good to millions of ordinary citizens longing for life and living in the war-torn country.
And also Assad’s atrocities should not continue for long. Hence, the way forward is to make diplomacy work for a peaceful exit of Assad and a pragmatic solution for Syrian people.
(The author is an independent political analyst based in Delhi)
