begin quote from:
The West Is Oblivious to Russia's Geopolitical Game in Syria
| Huffington Post | - |
Only two weeks ago, I remarked that Russia would not withdraw from Syria till a political settlement regarding Syria's future was achieved to Putin's satisfaction, regardless of what his ally, beleaguered Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, might wish ...
The West Is Oblivious to Russia’s Geopolitical Game in Syria
Two things about Russia under President Vladimir Putin: First, never
bet too heavily on what the former KGB strongman will do next; second,
things are not always what they first appear to be.
Only two weeks
ago, I remarked that Russia would not withdraw from Syria till a
political settlement regarding Syria’s future was achieved to Putin’s
satisfaction, regardless of what his ally, beleaguered Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad, might wish. While I stand by what I said, I was
surprised at Mr. Putin’s sudden announced withdrawal a couple of days afterward.
Checking my
sources reveals more than initially meets the eye: My analysis suggests
Russia’s sudden move amounts to more of a drawdown than a withdrawal
because, despite news bulletins to the contrary, Putin yet maintains a
certain military presence in Syria. Intelligence imagery indicates the
Russian Sukhoi Su-24M bomber aircraft group is still largely in place.
Reason: Russia wants to ensure that the political outcome, whatever
form or shape it may be, at least supports some of its long-term
objectives. Equally important, an analysis of the imagery shows Russia
is not only still expanding infrastructure and facilities around its Latakia naval base but also has deployed additional assets in the past several days.
Yes, Mr. Putin
caught us all by surprise with his announced Syrian drawdown. Little
wonder: Syria-led coalition forces had some momentum behind them; they
were on a roll, gaining ground sometimes even without a fight. But make
no mistake: This partial withdrawal does not mean that things are
settled militarily. The city of Aleppo remains partially encircled by
jihad forces who in turn are encircled by coalition forces headed by the
Syrian regime. The objective: cut the jihadists’ supply lines.
The question
now becomes: What does Russia’s drawdown mean for Syria, the Middle East
and geopolitics in general? Some points to consider:
First, the
unexpected reduction in forces hardly suggests Russia’s involvement in
Syria is done. To the contrary, Russian aircraft remain. These are not
part of the drawdown. Their mission is to attack insurgents not included
in the most recent ceasefire, principally Jabhat al-Nusra (another name
for al-Qaida) and the Islamic State. To quote a Russian military
journalist: “The fleet remains; antiaircraft systems remain; the tanks
remain; all the marines remain; the helicopters remain; some of the
aircraft will remain. Only some of the aircraft and their service
personnel are being taken out. And they can come back, of course, in the
space of three or four hours.”
Second, it’s
conceivable to view the drawdown as an excuse for maintenance of Russian
aircraft after an intensive period of sorties. It’s also plausible this
marks a shift in tempo aimed at metastasizing politics: pausing in what
one might see as Russia’s spiraling down unknown, unfamiliar and
possibly perilous paths — something this column has regularly
highlighted.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is just now wrapping up a Moscow
meeting with President Putin, an affair with far fewer tensions than
recent years have seen between the Obama administration and Russian
leaders. In fact, before discussions on expanding access to humanitarian
aid and maintaining the Syrian ceasefire even began, Putin
uncharacteristically kidded Kerry about his carrying his own luggage.
One assumption is that Mr. Putin’s drawdown, coinciding with the start of Geneva talks
between representatives of the Syrian regime and rebels, was not aimed
at the Geneva talks but instead was intended to push the Obama
administration into genuine cooperation with Russia. Recall that
President Putin stated from the outset his intervention in Syria had
limited objectives — to “create conditions for a political compromise.”
Perhaps he is now moving toward that goal.
Another salient
point that continues to intrigue analysts: Russia’s drawdown will put
pressure to act on both parties (Syrian regime and opposition groups) at
the Geneva talks. The kicker: The burden is also on the United States
to stop its own allies — Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar — from providing
funding to and arming their proxies or even marching defiantly toward
Damascus.
While the
United States might be able to convince Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it will
find Turkey a significant challenge given that its president, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, needs the Syrian conflict to drag on longer in order to
keep his hold on power. You do not have to look far to see how Turkey is using the issue of Syrian immigrants to blackmail Europe
to secure money and gain European Union membership. Shame on Turkey, a
Muslim country that calls itself a secular and democratic state.
If history is
any indication, this would not be the first time Mr. Putin has used a
military drawdown to resolve a deadlocked political scene such as the
one in Syria. It’s something we saw in the lead-up to the Minsk accords
concerning Ukraine. Make no mistake: Russia’s political elites,
including Mr. Putin, do not at this time seek a direct confrontation
with NATO or the West over either Ukraine or Syria.
Where from
here? Against all odds, Iran, Russia and the United States want to see a
strong Syria emerge at the end. After all, Syria does have an identity.
It’s a proud and ancient nation. And some sort of long-sought
resolution could not come at a more critical time when fundamental
borders and governments throughout the Middle East are eroding, giving
way to more violence, floods of refugees and the uncontrollable
emergence of sectarian tension along religious lines.
Whatever the
outcome, Russia’s latest move — and the rush by the United States to
react to this drawdown — is not just about Syria but rather the future
of the global order or what these days passes for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment