Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

Home > Headstrong

Wednesday, September 30, 2015


Headstrong
Putin's Involvement in SyriaAnd How Obama Can Leverage It
David F. Gordon
DAVID F. GORDON is Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. He
was previously the U.S. State Department's Director of Policy Planning.
It is hard to know what to make of U.S. President Barack Obamas meeting with Russian
President Vladimir Putin [1]. Of course, the two leaders do not like each other, and there was
obviously no meeting of the minds on how to handle the Syria crisis [2]. Soon after the parley,
Moscow launched strikes on Syria [3]. Russia will continue its military buildup there, and the
European refugee crisis will continue to deepen. But will Syria become a new focal point for
U.S.-Russian tensions, or is there a chance for reluctant cooperation?
Putin and Obama have been at loggerheads over Ukraine ever since early 2014, when, in
reaction to the fall of the pro-Moscow Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the Kremlin
annexed Crimea and unleashed a campaign to destabilize southeastern Ukraine. Soon
thereafter, the United States imposed economic sanctions on Russia. Earlier this summer, it
looked as if a thaw might be in the works when Obama praised Russias role in the Iran
nuclear negotiations and Moscow eased off its anti-American rhetoric. But relations again
chilled as Moscow significantly built up its military footprint in Syria, which the United States
interpreted as preparation for a military intervention to defend Syrian President Bashar alAssad [4].
Russian officials say that Putins rhetoric about Russias presence in Syria should be taken at
face value. He claims that thousands of jihadists from the Russian Caucasus and the former
Soviet states of Central Asia are now in Syria to fight with the self-proclaimed Islamic State
(also known as ISIS). For Putin, it is better to battle them in Syria [5]than to do so much closer
to home.
Thus, in his UN speech, Putin called for a new grand coalition against ISIS and highlighted
the Russian military commitment to challenging ISIS in its Syrian stronghold. But what lies
behind his rhetoric, and what explains the timing, given that the militant group made its big
gains in Syria and Iraq nearly a year and a half ago?
For Putin, Russias current situation is defined by both economic weakness [6]and geopolitical
opportunity [7], and he wants to use the latter to mitigate the former. Economic weakness is
driven by the sharp fall in energy prices and reinforced by the sanctions imposed by both the
United States and Europe in response to Russias aggression in Ukraine. The geopolitical
opportunity lies in the failure of U.S. policy to stop ISIS momentum or to resolve the battle in
Syria and the consequent refugee crisis in Europe. Putin is opportunistically seeking to
advance Russian influence in the Middle East [8] while at the same time portraying the Kremlin
to the world, and especially to Europe, as a key part of the solution to the problems.

The Obama administration is correct to be wary of Russian support for Assad, but Russia is
unlikely to have in mind direct military backing for the embattled president. For months, Russia
engaged in a diplomatic dance with Saudi Arabia to find common ground for addressing the
Syrian crisis. Emboldened by their military campaign in Yemen, the Saudis were not
enthusiastic about a new diplomatic effort that included the Syrian president. Russias strategy
is not to trigger a broader proxy conflict but to accelerate what Putin probably now sees as an
inevitable negotiated endgame; he sent a decisive signal to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar
that any military efforts to change the Syrian regime will be futile. Russias Syria policy might
not be popular in many Arab capitals, but its willingness to defend allies is met with respect.
More broadly, Putin is responding, in his own way, to Obamas hope that Russia will continue
its constructive role in the Middle East by offering to serve as the necessary link between what
have been two competing coalitions fighting ISIS in the Levant: the U.S.-led coalition and the
Iranian-led coalition, neither of which can succeed without the other.
Putins Middle East gambit is also about taking advantage of the refugee crisis to further draw
attention away from Ukraine and to create the conditions under which Europe can lift or
weaken its sanctions on Russia. Russia knows that the migrant crisis [9] has been a challenge
to the EUs political coherence. In part, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom supported
sanctions against Russia in 2014 to show solidarity with the eastern European statesthe
governments that are now refusing to share the burden of accommodating refugees. In the
meantime, Putin has not had a difficult time convincing some of the southern European states,
especially Italy, that Russia should be treated more as a partner than a pariah. In the last
month, Moscow even showed flexibility in German-led negotiations that resulted in a new
cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine, and he has ensured that the cease-fire has largely
held.
So, Putin came to New York believing that he held a pretty strong hand (in fact, it is the only
reason he came at all [10]). After all, Obamas goals in Syria [11]defeating ISIS, finding a
negotiated political compromise, and ousting Assadseem less attainable than ever. Given
Washingtons reluctance to get further embroiled in Middle Eastern conflicts, Putin was hoping
that his actions would force the United States to focus on his priorities.
But Obamas distrust of Putin runs deep, and he was not about to accept the new Russian
narrative at face value. Yesterdays meeting was but the first inning of what promises to be a
long game. For possible constructive next steps, Putins meeting last week in Moscow with
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might be instructive. Bibi returned home with
agreements on procedures for deconflicting the two countries forces in Syria and keeping
Russian weaponry out of Hezbollahs hands. The Russia-Israel agreements might be a model
for where U.S.-Russian interactions go next.
Beyond that, Obama faces a dilemma. The U.S.-led anti-ISIS campaign is going nowhere fast.
It is worth exploring whether Moscows military involvement in Syria might be leveraged to
weaken the extremist group. Obama should be open to working with Moscow on new
diplomatic proposals to end the Syrian war. But he would be right to make clear that the
United States will do so only if Moscow restricts its use of force to the anti-ISIS campaign. At
this point, both sides probably need to avoid dealing with the issue of Assad directly if a
constructive diplomatic path is to be found.
Copyright 2015 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.
All rights reserved. To request permission to distribute or reprint this article, please fill out and
submit a Permissions Request Form. If you plan to use this article in a coursepack or
academic website, visit Copyright Clearance Center to clear permission.
Source URL: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2015-09-30/headstrong

Links
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/opinion/thomas-friedman-syria-obama-and-putin.html?_r=0
[2] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2015-09-29/putin-and-obama-go-head-head-0
[3] http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/russia-syria-airstrikes-isis/
[4] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/chechnya/2013-03-25/real-reason-putin-supports-assad
[5] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2015-09-16/putins-damascus-steal
[6] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2015-09-20/russias-desperate-measures
[7] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2015-08-11/new-great-game
[8] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2013-09-11/putin-scores-syria
[9] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/central-europe/2015-09-27/self-interested-approach-migration-crises
[10] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2013-09-15/playing-poker-putin
[11] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/regions/syria

Potrebbero piacerti anche