Feeding Fires: Russian Airstrikes and the American response

The news that Russia has now bombed US-backed rebels inside Syria shouldn’t come as much surprise. The only surprising thing is that anybody would be at all surprised. This week witnessed a rare conjunction when Russian and American goals briefly aligned, though few politicians in the West would want to admit that too openly.

US Secretary of Defence, Ashton Carter, has already called Russian actions ‘tantamount to pouring gasoline on the fire’ but, as any good physicist would know (and Carter is a physicist), one way of extinguishing a fire is to make it rage hot enough to deplete the oxygen that feeds it. It might not be a truth that America is willing to acknowledge but Western backed forces are part of the fire that Russia is there to extinguish. This confrontation was always likely to happen, sooner rather than later. Russian troops and hardware were not sent to Syria to help stop the flood of refugees lining up at Europe’s border. The attack helicopters are not in Syria because Putin has been morally ashamed by brutal Daesh videos he’s seen on the internet. Russia is also not spending millions in Syria to help the west fix a problem caused by neo-conservatives with too many bright ideas and too few boring but practical plans.

Russian troops find themselves in Syria because President Putin intends to support the government of Bashar al-Assad and that is precisely what he will do until it’s neither necessary nor politically sensible to do so. And it will probably be politically sensible for some time to come as Putin exploits the unstructured Western response to the Daesh  in order to reassert Russian power on the global stage.

The question now is what might America’s response be, if, indeed, there is any response at all. There is talk of cooperation to avoid accidents as two air campaigns are fought in the same airspace. Words, however, are cheap and there will be cheap phrases uttered by both sides in the coming days. American words will attempt to save face as Russia sets out to do a job that the West has thus far been unwilling to undertake. Russian words will be about minimising the extent to which their actions inflict damage on Western interests, so expect them to routinely raise the partially strawman of the Daesh. Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, initially defended the latest bombing saying that ‘the rumours that the target of these air strikes was not IS positions are unfounded’. ‘Unfounded’ is not the same as ‘categorically untrue’. Facts did eventually emerge forcing the Russians to admit that they targeted the enemies of their friends, enemies who happened to be friends of the West. Really, however, the admission amounted to nothing we didn’t already know. Much of what’s happening already lies in the shadows between diplomacy and action.

In terms of the reality on the ground, talk of Western loyalty to various factions is merely that. The history of covert operations is not without a few precedents of countries (often, quite notably, the United States) leaving allies and paid insurgents in a mess when the high-level politics change.

The maths of the Middle East now stack up unfavourably for the anti-Assad forces. With the exception of the Kurdish factions in the north, few have shown the willingness or aptitude required to eat into the Daesh territory. In Western popular opinion, however, the ‘Middle East problem’ is now almost entirely synonymous with the Daesh. The rise of hyper-fundamentalists casts different shadows across the land. Suddenly, Iran looks relatively moderate and this week we’ve already seen a few Western politicians gently float proposals that would leave Assad in power and the proposition that Iranian troops might move westwards to confront the Daesh is not being reported with the kind of heightened rhetoric that such news might have produced just a few months ago. Politicians openly speak of Syrian regime change in the future but the promise is as thin as the notion that Russia is engaged in a  humanitarian action.

This week might well mark the moment when the Middle East stopped descending into chaos as a new order is imposed. There should be no illusions, however, about that new order. It will in all likelihood look very familiar and very Russian.

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

5 Comments on "Feeding Fires: Russian Airstrikes and the American response"

  1. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon | 2nd October 2015 at 8:42 am | Reply

    David excellent piece. The FSA and militias in NW Syria who I know well are very proud of their defeat of ISIL in this area, with just pockets around Marea NE of Aleppo remaining. Hence with the current awfulness the Internal coalition could at least support them in creating a Safe Zone/Haven in that area. I remember well the Kurd safe haven in 1991 s a you British officer in the area at the time and how the Kurds are now, as you say, the staunchest resistors to the terror of ISIL.

    • Thanks Hamish. Perhaps those safe zones are the only reasonable way out for the West given that Putin seems determined to protect Assad. Watching the news today, the whole thing just feels like it could turn ugly in the sense that Western inability to do anything gives Putin the excuse to do anything and everything. Perhaps it’s the price of Assad remaining.

  2. nehad ismail - United Kingdom | 2nd October 2015 at 9:15 am | Reply

    Thanks Tim. You are absolutely right. I have argued in these pages over the last few months that Assad and ISIL/ISIS/Daesh are in cahoots. Putin of Russia has confirmed this theory on Wednesday when his air force targeted the Free Syrian Army and has not as far as I know touched Daesh. For the last two years Daesh or Islamic State has been the pretext for Tehran and Moscow to defend the Assad’s regime.
    According to David Blair in the Daily Telegraph: “A study conducted by IHS Jane’s, a defence consultancy, found that of 982 operations launched by the regime’s forces in 2014, only 6 per
    cent targeted Isil”.

    • Thanks Nehad (though it’s not Tim who is travelling). 😉

      To be honest, I was a bit skeptical when I first heard you suggest that but it feels more reasonable with every passing day. The more we fear Daesh, the more we accept Iran. I seem to recollect Gaddafi and/or Saddam making the threat that the alternative would be worse than their tyranny. Now it’s become a matter of practical politics if feels like the West have been completely outmaneuvered. Does this mean that Putin won’t actually go after Daesh? Surely he has nothing to gain once he’s stabilized Assad.

      • nehad ismail - United Kingdom | 2nd October 2015 at 8:47 pm | Reply

        Apologies David.
        I was in a hurry when I placed my comment. I was rushing to give a live TV interview to a foreign TV station to discuss Putin/Assad/ISIS.
        I still believe that ISIS has been the perfect alibi for the Assad-Iran-Moscow axis to convince the world that Assad is fighting terrorism. The West has swallowed this lie whole.Even Crispin Blunt MP has fallen into this trap. The big lie that Assad is fighting terrorism is now paying dividends.
        BTW David Cameron popped into Starbucks in Kensington Church Street at 3 pm for a coffee and a Earl Grey tea to take away, but he wasn’t in the mood to discuss Syria or anything else.

Leave a comment

favorites.png
Comments are moderated before they are published. Please consider if you're contributing to the discussion before you post. Abuse and general negativity will not be allowed to appear on the site. This might be the Internet but let's try to keep things civil.
 

Your email address will not be published.


*


*