Russian Escalation: a Disaster for Syria
This month, the Russian Federation initiated a massive expansion of its role in the Syrian civil war by initiating a military campaign against rebel groups fighting dictator Bashar al-Assad. After raging for nearly five years, ending the lives of over 200,000 people, and unleashing the largest migrant crisis since World War II, the Syrian civil war shows no sign of stopping. For the duration of the civil war, Russia has been a vocal supporter for the Assad regime, using its international status as a great power to support Assad diplomatically and cooperating with Iran to supply the regime with funding and arms. Now Russia is using its military power by air and sea to support ground offensives by the Assad regime’s forces. However, the new Russian military campaign is likely to be a disaster for the future of Syria.
Russian President Vladimir Putin argued in a speech before the UN General Assembly that Russia is a global leader in the fight against terrorism and highlighted Russia’s support for the Assad regime in Syria, which Putin praised for “valiantly fighting terrorism face to face.” However, the Russian military operation in no way represents a fight against terrorism. Instead, the Russians are targeting moderate rebels.
Russia’s primary targets have not been radical Islamic forces but Jaish al-Fatah, “the Army of Conquest,” a coalition of rebel groups currently mounting an offensive on Assad’s territory. Jaish al-Fatah contains some moderate anti-Assad groups who receive U.S. weapons through C.I.A. programs. Furthermore, Russian airstrikes have supported offensives by the Iranian-backed, pro-Assad Lebanese group Hezbollah, which is labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S.
The strategic goals of the Russian operation have been guided by Russia’s military interests in Syria. Tartus and Latakia, two cities in western Syria, the area best controlled by forces loyal to Assad, are crucial to Russia’s military power. Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean Sea is located in Tartus, Syria. Naval power has been one of Putin’s top priorities: the annexation of Crimea was largely accomplished to secure Russia’s most vital seaport, located in Sevastopol. To leave the Black Sea, Russian vessels based in Sevastopol must travel through the Bosporus Strait, which is controlled by Turkey, a NATO alliance member, which reserves the legal right to close the strait at any time.
Russia is also constructing a new base in the Syrian city of Latakia. Latakia is a major Syrian port also located in western Syria. Moreover, the Latakia province is the homeland of Assad’s Alawite ethnic group; and, were Syria to face partition, it would surely remain under Assad’s control.
Thus, it is unclear whether the Russian endgame is to restore all of Syria to Assad’s control, especially since Assad currently controls only 20% of the territory that was once Syria. A distinct, and dangerous, possibility is that Russia’s endgame is to change the balance of power on the ground to secure the regime’s control of only western Syria, the region most solidly controlled by Assad, and then pursue a truce with rebel forces in order to seek official or de facto partition of Syria. Such a partition would be a humanitarian disaster as it would leave half of the country controlled by a brutal dictator and the other half dominated by the self-styled Islamic State. In recent history, Russia has repeatedly pursued a policy of intervention in order to sustain conflicts for its own interests. Russian intervention in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Crimea, and Eastern Ukraine all served to prolong conflicts for Russia’s gain. Thus, Russian intervention in Syria bodes ill for the future of the Syrian people.