There are four principal facts worth remembering when evaluating Putin’s “surprise” initiatives (Syria/Crimea/E. Ukraine), general bluster and super powerish assertions (UN speech): (1) the Russian economy is in serious trouble and is beginning to bite more and more people; (2) Putin needs to distract the population from their life style erosion; (3) Russian military is stretched very thin, particularly logistics and (4) appeals to past Russian glories, nationalism and sticking it to the US are popular. However, the Ukraine adventure, the body bags and the costs are becoming a domestic problem. A new diversion was necessary.
And then there is the emotional issue: Putin has repeatedly said the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst disaster ever to befall Russia; not the 26 million Russians who died in WWII or the loss to Japan in the 1904 war or the declining population, now less than half America’s etc. His strongest motivation is to return Russia to its former status as a feared, highly respected global power of which he is the personification. His challenge: there’s no there there except the nukes.
Russia has been arming, resupplying and helping to finance the Assads for decades. In return, Moscow gained a small naval base at Latakia, it’s only Mediterranean port and a foothold in the Middle East. It is this base that Putin is now upgrading with a larger runway and more support facilities and to which he’s sent combat aircraft, drones, tanks, antiaircraft systems and several hundred “advisors”.
His announcement that Baghdad and Teheran are going to share intelligence about ISIS with Russia (no mention of Moscow’s contribution) is meaningless, unless Russia actually engages in combat. To date that has not happened.
Actually, Baghdad’s loosening grip on Iraq governance, is far more threatening to US interests than Russia’s entry onto the scene.
Putin’s move grabbed headlines and provided him a stage to intervene in the Middle East. He now postures himself and Russia as the powerful option to the US and as such to be taken seriously. He has proposed a new coalition (Russia, Iran and Iraq??) that will support Assad and his government (now control 17% of Syria) and successfully fight ISIS.
My view, wish the Russians well and encourage them to engage with ISIS, AQ, Al Nusra etc etc and possibly, bog down in a new Afghanistan, from which they were forced to withdrew after ten years. My guess, that’s not going to happen for all the reasons cited above.
Tom Timberman has, among his many assignments with the US Department of State, headed a provincial reconstruction team, embedded within a combat brigade in Iraq. He has also helped implement a new counterterrorism strategy in South East Asia as Senior Advisor for South Asia in the Office of Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
..
Harry Eustace, Sr. says
Henry Kissinger used to cynically wonder why The Palestinians never kidnapped Soviet diplomats. The answer was of course that the KGB didn’t take prisoners. Mr. Timberman’s take on Russia’s entry into Syria is spot-on but he left out the part about Russian “rules of engagement.” Any American commander would surely wind up in Leavenworth for the kind of brutality we are about to witness from the Russians and their Shi’a friends.
Carl Widell says
Timberman’s assessment of Putin’s Syrian adventure is a welcome alternative to the scary stories we hear on normal news channels. A thank you to the Spy and to Tom for his perspective.