Putin’s Syrian gamble
by Marwan Bishara
Have you noticed how President Vladimir Putin does not prepare the
political grounds or give any advance notice before he acts? Or how he
seems not to give a damn about international public opinion?
True to brand Putin, the Russian leader’s decision to withdraw forces
from Syria this week was as much of a surprise as his decision to deploy
them back in September.
He shocked and stunned his friends and foes alike. Well, except
perhaps US President Barack Obama.
Putin, previously an officer in the former Soviet Union’s main
security agency, the KGB, has not given up on his style and demeanour.
Old habits die hard, if at all.
Unpredictable or uncanny
He reveals little and maintains an element of surprise in much of
what he does – as though he is trying to impress or awe; not exactly the
way one would expect a superpower leader to act.
Yet, Putin’s decisions are not random, uncanny or eccentric. In fact,
he demonstrated thus far that he’s a calculating and savvy tactician and
might even prove to be a successful strategist.
In this regard, Putin claims to have achieved his goals after five
months of aerial bombardment, which include taking on the “terrorists”
in order to save the Syrian regime.
And while Russia’s mainly aerial military intervention did prevent
the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime, it proved insufficient to
impose a Russian order in the country.
In any case, and regardless of whether Putin’s mission was indeed
accomplished, the question remains: Did Putin prove Obama wrong on
Syria? Or has he finally heeded Obama’s advice?
Obama has warned his Russian counterpart against getting bogged down
in a second Afghanistan and urged him to work with and not against those
trying to take on ISIL instead.
Contrary to the warnings of the Obama administration, Putin continued
to support the Assad dictatorship at a great cost to Syria and the
Syrian people.
His gamble in Syria did not backfire and the country did not turn
into a Russian quagmire.
Putin, who seized on Obama’s hesitation to deploy military force in
Syria, had succeeded in pulling the rug from under the Obama
administration to dictate the way towards a diplomatic solution, and to
carve a new role for Russia in Syria and beyond.
Over the past five years, as Syria descended into a fully fledged
civil war with tragic consequences to its people, Putin was steadfast in
his support for the Syrian regime, while Obama has been reluctant,
indecisive and weak.
Since he announced back in 2011 that Assad had to go, Obama did
little – if anything at all – to make this happen. Syrians expected that
when the leader of the world’s superpower made such an assertion, it
would have more value than if Joe the Plumber uttered it.
Obama was even reluctant to use power against the Assad regime’s use
of chemical weapons against its people. Even his supporters were
disappointed; and his vice president, Joe Biden, admitted: “Big nations
don’t bluff.”
Moreover, Obama rejected the idea of a no-fly zone in northern Syria
to protect the refugees. His support for those whom Washington deems
“moderate” has been terribly limited and inconsistent, just as his fight
to “degrade and defeat” ISIL has been slow and unstrategic. In short,
unlike Putin, Obama has weighed all the angles and deliberated on the
meaning and consequences of military actions after the two wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and the military campaign in Libya. He examines
all the scenarios, options and instruments available to him.
But unlike Putin, Obama did not act. His deliberation and
consultation, like those of an armchair general, were mainly to spare
and not to guide the US to take direct military action in Syria, other
than against ISIL.
One must not rush to a conclusion, as Russia will continue to
maintain a serious military presence and bases in the future. It will
continue to push for a friendly regime in Damascus. With oil prices
dwindling, Putin doesn’t have the surplus cash to fuel an open-ended war
in Syria.
But the timing of the Russian decision to coincide with the opening
of Syrian talks in Geneva this week underlines its political importance.
The way forward
Putin’s message to Assad may be read as follows: You can no longer
bank on sustained Russian effort to defeat your enemies; you must
instead negotiate in good faith a way out of the deadly civil war.
If Assad tries to outsmart the Russians by betting on his allies in
Tehran to support his exigent stance, it may not come as a surprise if
the Russians lifted their protection and Assad ended up in the Hague on
war crimes charges, sooner rather than later.
Assad denies that he has any differences with Putin, but he is
probably too cautious to make any pronouncements at this stage that
might trigger Russian anger and lead to closer Russian-US realignment.
There are increasing signs that perhaps Putin and Obama are heading
towards a more accommodating phase of Russian-US relations.
After all, while the calculating Obama was complaining about the
Russian intervention, he has been trying through his Secretary of State
John Kerry to turn the challenge of Putin’s involvement into an
opportunity that allows him to push forward with a co-chaired diplomatic
process with better guarantees for success. Putin might have played his
cards right over the past six months, and his gamble could pay off
diplomatically, but it will be Obama who will eventually cash in his
chips, whether through sanctions relief, diplomatic empowerment or even
cooperation in other areas of the region and the world.
-Al Jazeera
|