Putin’s Adventurism in Syria

By Atif Shamim Syed

At a formal request from President Bashar al Assad to intervene in the Civil war on his behalf, the Russian Federation Council approved military deployment in Syria in order to fight terrorists in general and the Islamic State in particular. On September 30, 2015, after giving a one-hour advance notice to the United States, Russia began its airstrikes in different parts of the country.

The airstrikes didn’t come as a surprise for anyone, but the diversity of the targets, and deliberate attacks on American trained rebels have raised many questions. World leaders are beginning to wonder what the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, really wants?

It seems, at least on the outset, that Putin is seeking to protect the Assad regime which is, without doubt, Russia’s oldest and the most faithful cleint in the region. However, there may be other reasons that are not so obvious. Putin may be trying to divert attention from the Ukrainian crisis or seeking to nip the terrorist threat in the bud before it reaches North Caucasus. This could also be a bid to restore the super power status of the Soviet Union. America is reluctant to send troops to the region whereas China has a natural tendency not to get involved in armed conflicts. This leaves the field wide open for Putin to make maneuvers.

It could be anyone of the above reasons, or a combination of them that may have compelled Putin to invade Syria, however, the most viable one seems to be the restoration of Russia’s past glory and re-establishment of its super power status.

This is where Putin fundamentally differs from his American counterpart, Barack Obama. While the former remains haunted by nostalgia for an era long gone, the latter has his eyes fixed on the future. Obama does not want to make the same mistakes that his predecessors made. His top priority is not to fall into the past traps. He genuinely believes that military engagement in an increasingly volatile Middle East will bring no one any good. Ironically, it is Putin who has become the sorcerer’s apprentice, following in the footsteps of George W. Bush.

Rather than choosing the path of confrontation with Iran, Obama sought to open dialogues and managed to secure the nuclear deal. He is not directly involved in the Syrian conflict and has managed to stay on the sidelines. America didn’t even lead the fight against the former Libyan dictator, Gaddafi, preferring to support its European Allies with intelligence and logistics. Barack Obama, like the rest of the world is not fooled by Russian calls for collaboration against the Islamic State. He is smart enough to realize that the current Russian crusade is primarily intended to consolidate its pawns in the region.

Since Russian warplanes began their aerial campaign in Syria, the West’s view of the world seems to have changed. Rising tensions between China and Japan in the South China Sea have suddenly gone over to the back burner. The risk of possible friction between Western and Russian interests in Syria has become more imminent.

The West should be aware that its weakness is Putin’s only strength. He has compared the Islamic State to Hitler in order to form a broad coalition against the former. But the underlying message is very clear: in order to defeat Hitler, the West had to collaborate with Stalin. In order to defeat the Islamic State, they must work with Putin.

However, Putin’s analogy is fundamentally flawed. Islamic State and Adolf Hitler cannot be compared. Hitler commanded a formidable and efficient war machine. At one point, he was the master of almost all of Europe. Islamic State boasts just about thirty thousand combatants who immediately lost their momentum when they were faced by a minimally equipped but highly motivated Kurdish force. Of course, there is a significant number of volunteers willing to join and fight for the Islamic State but this number is eclipsed by the number of refugees who are willing to risk their lives in order to escape it. In the final analysis, the Islamic State’s appeal is significantly much lesser than the revulsion that mainstream Muslims have consistently shown for the group.

Putin is defending a tyrant in Syria and simultaneously deepening the existing sectarian divide within the region. The West needs to stick to the point that Assad must go. It also needs to formulate a clear vision for post Assad Syria.  Putin will soon find out that Syria is not Ukraine. He cannot save Assad. The West holds much better cards in this game, that is, if it chooses to use them. Russia, on the other hand, will be made to pay a heavy price for Putin’s adventurism.

I am an Investment Banker and have been writing articles for several newspapers and magazine including Daily times.