The UN sponsored deal to shut down the Syrian war (see 'Peace in Syria?' 12 February 2016) has taken another turn. Putin is pulling out his direct military support for Assad. (Putin's 'legacy' in Syria includes a Russian Mediterranean port, a military airport and an attached military base.)
Putin's decision produced consternation in the West and, for several hours, the White House was struck dumb. Their paralysis was a direct result of believing their own bullshit. And now Western 'experts' and lead correspondents, like Jeremy Bowen of the BBC, are already constructing another version of the evil Emperor of the East, describing Putin and his team as 'brilliant' and 'geniuses' in the way they have completely befuddled the West and remained the 'guys to watch' in the Syrian arena - as though this is a game of chess and not brute force.
A month ago The Wall Street Journal was speculating in headlines about the imminence of a Russo/Turkish war, with added Saudi involvement, as Russia's Syrian intervention was apparently shifting the balance in the region in favour of Iran. (Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's bellicose master has already stated that it was a big mistake for Turkey not to join the US and 'the coalition of the willing' in the invasion of Iraq - meaning that the Turkish military could have helped snuff out Iranian influence there and in the surrounding region.) Now Putin's act has shown the 'experts' that the West is not just dealing with 'evil' here, but having to face 'clever evil.'
In fact Russian commentators and leading politicians have always said that Russian intervention in Syria would be short (without, of course, spelling out any timescale.) Their aims were to shore up the Assad regime in order to prevent the dangerous chaos of another Libya; to prevent the US and NATO dividing up a post war set of weak franchises across what used to be Syria under the umbrella of the US and Turkey; and to strengthen Russian influence and 'hard power' generally in the region. Additionally Russia faces a serious economic crisis and a major, not to say widening military adventure could lead to domestic disaster (as Russia's history shows.) Putin has mobilised the partial removal of his forces because his goals were largely (albeit perhaps temporarily) achieved. Russia had forced the West into a 'suspension of war' deal without any conditions for the removal of the Assad regime - except the normal nod to a 'democratically decided' future.
Finally Putin has made sure his Syrian 'ally' (read dependent) does not imagine his own future is synonymous with Russia's protection of his regime. It would suit Putin fine if a friendly General would make Assad and his gem-studded, extended family 'go away.' And Assad's recent talk of a permanent war to win it all back for his personal regime is not on Putin's agenda at all. Better a weakened Syria, ruled by a benevolent army, beholden to Russia, than another semi-independent popinjay with delusions of power.
Russia's military 'success' over the West has come at terrible cost to Syrians. Because the Russian aim was to bolster the regime's forces, they bombed any and all of its actual or potential opposition. As that included the vast majority of the Syrian population (whether organised as such or not), the Russian military action was effectively massive and indiscriminate. And it changed the balance of military forces in the country. This high tech savagery did not add one inch to the space required for the Syrian people to make a peace and a new country for themselves as more bits of cities, towns and villages were blasted into the stone age. But it did force an end to some military aspects of the Western adventure designed to ensure a pro-Western regime. The West's defeat and Russia's step back can open the possibility to begin work inside Syria on new politics needed, but rooted solely among the Syrian population itself, both inside and outside the country, as well as the international mobilisation of desperately needed humanitarian aid.
No comments:
Post a Comment