MOSCOW - The partial truce that Russia and the United
States have thrashed out in Syria capped
something of a foreign policy trifecta for President Vladimir V. Putin,
with the Kremlin strong-arming itself into a pivotal role in the Middle East,
Ukraine floundering and the European Union developing cracks like a badly
glazed pot.
Beyond what could well be a high
point for Mr. Putin, however, lingering questions about Russia’s endgame arise
in all three directions.
In Syria, Russia achieved its main goal of shoring up
the government of President Bashar al-Assad,
long the Kremlin’s foremost Arab ally. Yet its ultimate objectives remain
murky, not least navigating a graceful exit from the messy conflict.
In Ukraine, Russia maintains a public commitment to
implement a year-old peace agreement. Renewed fighting in the Russian-backed
breakaway regions, however, suggests that Moscow seeks to further destabilize
the Kiev government, already wobbly from internal political brawling.
In Europe, Mr. Putin wants to
deepen cracks in the European Union, hoping to break the 28-nation consensus
behind the economic sanctions imposed on Russia over its annexation of Crimea
in 2014. The Kremlin recently cranked up its propaganda machine to malign the
German chancellor, Angela Merkel — viewed here as the central figure in the
confrontation against Moscow — portraying her as barren and her country as
suffering violent indigestion from too many immigrants.
The target audience for these
achievements is the Russian populace, partly to distract people from their
deepening economic woes.
“On screen we can see that we
are so strong, we are so important, we are so great,” Nikolai Petrov, a
political-science professor at the Moscow School for Higher Economics, said
sarcastically.
Mr. Putin announced the
agreement to a “cessation of hostilities” in Syria on
television late Monday night, underscoring its importance as a joint
Russian-American effort. The Russian president has previously waxed nostalgic
for the days when just two superpowers strode the world as problem-solving
colossi, before the Soviet Union imploded.
“Russia will conduct the
necessary work with Damascus and the legitimate Syrian leadership,” Mr. Putin
said, while the United States will do the same with its allies and opposition
groups. “I am sure the joint actions agreed upon with the American side will be
enough to radically reverse the situation in Syria.”
There was more. Mr. Putin
wanted to make clear that Russia’s intervention in Syria would avoid the kind
of catastrophic collapse that occurred in Iraq, Libya and Yemen, lumped
together improbably with the American-backed “color” revolutions in Ukraine in
2004 and Georgia in 2003. Syria, he said, could serve as an example of
“responsible actions.”
Russia sent up to 50 combat
aircraft to an air base near the coastal Syrian city of Latakia in September,
along with more than 4,000 troops to protect them. In that move, Russia was
seen as having five main goals: stopping regime change abetted from outside the
country; thwarting plans by Washington to isolate Moscow; proving that Russia
was a more solid ally than the United States; showcasing new Russian weapons;
and presenting a new foreign policy spectacle to a Russian public weary of the
war in neighboring Ukraine.
To some extent, all five goals
have been achieved, prompting some voices to call for Russia to come home.
“We have clear achievements;
the main thing is that everybody now speaks to us,” Boris B. Nadezhdin, a
former member of the Duma, Russia’s Parliament, said on a popular talk show.
“We are key participants of negotiations on the future of Syria.”
“Assad’s regime, or Syria’s
legitimate government, has stayed in power,” he added. “We need a political
settlement, and to stop spending huge sums of money on an arms race.”
Syria remains unfinished
business, however, and the roughly $3 million daily cost of the Syria operation
is widely seen as affordable. Mr. Putin has labeled it money well spent from
the military training budget.
Mr. Assad’s forces have nearly
surrounded Aleppo, long an opposition stronghold. They will press the fight
before the partial truce is set to begin on Saturday, and may well continue
with attacks afterward.
There is a gaping loophole in
the agreement in that it permits attacks against the Islamic State and the
Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda affiliate, to continue. This could work in Moscow’s
favor, since many of the anti-Assad groups aligned with the United States fight
alongside the Nusra Front and depend on it for support.
Thus, while
American allies are being asked to stop fighting Mr. Assad’s government, Russia
and the Syrian government can continue to strike United States-backed rebel
groups without fear, if history is any guide, of Washington’s doing anything to
stop them.
Ultimately, analysts believe that Russia wants to
stick around long enough to supervise the transition to a new government in
Syria; to ensure that Damascus remains a friendly capital; and to show that a
political transition can be achieved through negotiations, not regime change. Mr.
Assad just announced parliamentary elections for April 13.
Moscow, not to say Mr. Assad,
wants to avoid being surprised by a sudden power grab by the Sunni Muslims who
form the backbone of the opposition and are hostile to Russia for supporting
Mr. Assad.
“The endgame for Russia is to move to the
political process from a position of strength,” said Aleksandr Shumilin, a
senior Middle East expert at the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Nobody can tell
you how long it will last. This will depend on the situation, which is very
complicated at the moment.”
Among the complications is that Mr. Assad, who has
grown bolder because of Russian and Iranian support, recently said he planned
to reassert control over all of Syria. If Russia helps to vanquish the
opposition in the western part of the country, only the Islamic State would
remain as a formidable opponent.
That would put Russia in the unpredictable position of
supporting Damascus through the long, most likely bloody slog needed to
dislodge the Islamic militants. In response, some Russian voices have lately
taken to portraying Mr. Assad as the tail trying to wag
the dog.
The Syrian government should “follow Russia’s
leadership in settling this crisis,” Vitaly I. Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to
the United Nations, told the Kommersant daily newspaper. If the Syrian
government thinks “that no truce is needed and we have to fight until the end,”
he said, “then this conflict will last for a very long time.”
Another wild card for Moscow is its increasingly hostile relationship
with Turkey, after a Russian warplane was shot down in November for briefly
violating Turkish airspace. Russia accuses Turkey of plotting to invade Syria,
and is likely to blame Ankara if the partial truce collapses.
So far, however, the Kremlin can count Syria as a
success. “It is very cheap, bloodless, there are no Russian victims and it is
seen positively by Russian society,” said Mr. Petrov, the political-science
professor.
Syria has also worked to distract the Russian people
from the war dragging on next door in Ukraine. The conflict excites for less
nationalist passions. Yet it still serves Moscow’s interests by destabilizing
the government of President Petro O. Poroshenko and discouraging warmer
relations between Kiev and Europe — a Russian goal in tandem with lifting
economic sanctions imposed over the annexation of Crimea.
The economic sanctions cut off Russia’s access to
Western credit markets, among other measures, which it desperately needs to
weather its recession. The question is how best to persuade Europe and the
United States to lift them.
No comments:
Post a Comment