Syria - Putting Out Fire With Gasoline

Russia’s deployment of elements of its air and ground forces to Syria which became apparent in the last week of Sep 2015 threw in new poker chips in a deadly game and surprised the West. It elicited a US response that Russia was throwing ‘gasoline on the fire’ in the Levant.[i] But in Russian eyes even if it is gasoline, it is in the spirit of David Bowie’s famous 1983 song ‘Putting out Fire with Gasoline’.[ii] Russia knows from its experience in Afghanistan and the experience of others, that this move has all the risks of being bogged down in a situation from which it may be difficult to extricate oneself with honour in case things go wrong. However it is taking this chance because of the geostrategic gains that it sees. It is banking on its initiative in removing the logjam that has arisen in the Levant.

Speaking in the UN General Assembly on 28 Sep 2015 President Putin said that the West was making an enormous mistake by not cooperating with Assad to stop the ISIS. He said that it was only President Assad's armed forces and Kurd militias who were truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.[iii] It is a truth that few can ignore. The world would like to see the fundamentalism epitomized by ISIS reined in and in that context Putin’s words ring true.

The US has tried to present itself heading a coalition of 62 countries aiming to degrade and defeat ISIS. In effect the number is much lesser. Even a country which stated thatthe ISIS wasa threat or permitted US aircraft to refuel enroute to the Middle East became part of the coalition.[iv] Without having any boots on the ground the coalition is meaningless. It is common knowledge that scores of the US trained ‘Free (good) Syrian Army (militants) have switched sides and joined the ISIS. It is also well known that the Coalition air strikes have just managed to slow the ISIS but not stop it.

The Axis of Resistance on the other hand, comprising Assad’s Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and now Russia is much more meaningful and has the potential to make an impact on the course of events in the Levant. While the USSR had established relations with Syria right from its independence, it was Baa’thist Syria which became a Soviet protégé. This was a natural corollary to Israel being a US protégé and also the Cold War formation of the pro-west alliance, the Baghdad Pact, in which Syria was not included.

The current convoluted imbroglio in the Levant can be summarized as follows:

• The US and the Western coalition by virtue of its adherence to liberal, democratic values cannot support a dictatorial regime (Assad’s) which wreaked havoc on its own people,including use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons,to remain in power. Syria also has a history of supporting terrorist groups in Lebanon and against Israel which cannot be now swept under the carpet.
• The same coalition cannot compromise with the ISIS because,firstly, it aims to overthrow Iraq, secondly, because of its bloody tactics and lastly, because of its grandiose plans to be a Caliphate exporting Islamic idealism all over the world.
• Western public opinion is greatly inflamed against the ISIS because of its publicized beheading of a number of Western and other hostagesas also its professed apocalyptic aim of removing decadent Westerninfluence from the world.
• The US led West cannot overtly be party to a breakup of Iraq where for eight years it fought a bloody war to preserve Iraq as a state and for which it has made enormous sacrifices.
• The West cannot support the only real non Syrian resistance to ISIS,i.e the Kurds because that will alienate the only NATO member in the area, Turkey, whose support is vital to the geo-politics played in the Levant.  Turkey has the largest deployable military in NATO after the USA.[v]
• Into this witches cauldron comes theinformal support to the Sunni ISIS of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf countries and the support of Iran to Shia militias in Iraq and Syria.
• The interests of Israel, a vital US ally who also has an impact on US domestic politics,are at conflict with support to radical Islam epitomized by the Hezbollah.

In this situation of ‘damned if I do and damned if I don’t’, the Russian intervention in fact offers the only ray of hope to the West to pull its chestnuts from the fire without risking loss of face. The alternative is to commit ground troops which is an anathema to the West with the added question - commit on whose side?

What the Russians gain out of this is another riddle. To try to solve it, some reasons which can be offered are as under:

• Russian positioning in this area is a tool for grander geo-strategic goals.This is the first Russian deployment outside of its own area since the disintegration of the USSR.
• Bolstering Assad helps in getting the disparate factions tonegotiate. Russian entry has shaken up the entire picture.Ultimately it may wipe out the ISIS or get it to the table.
• It secures the Russian naval base facilities beyond the straights of Dardanelles, a traditional choke point for its Black Sea fleet. Its naval base at Tartus and airbase at Latakia, which is otherwise the largest port in Syria, are assets which Russia has had since the Cold War. They give it greater clout in the Mediterranean flank of NATO. Russia would not like to lose these assets.
• It increases Russia’s leverage to counter the sanctions imposed on it because of its actions in the Ukraine. This is in the absence of any other face saving way to back off from its support to the rebels of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics in Ukraine, a policy which reportedly even some in his inner circle and rich Russian business heads are not too happy about.[vi]

The Russian intervention which manifested in 20 aerial strike missions over Syria on 30 Sep 2015 and an equal number on 01 Oct 2015 with more to follow, has resulted in reshuffling the cards in the game being played in this region. How will the US respond to the Russian move, will it be cooperation or conflict? This is something that we will have to wait and watch.Some clarity has emerged with President Obama’s statement on 02 Oct 2015 that “ …we will not be drawn into a proxy war [with Russia in Syria]”.[vii]

What are the takeaways in the situation for India. Some of these are:

• In the realignment that is taking place in the Asia Pacific region India is edging closer to the US and its allies in the Pacific in its national interest. Yet, India still refers to Russia as its “all weather friend”. The Russian action in support of Syria demonstrates a resolve to stand by its “all weather friends”. It is a message which has appeal in some quarters in India.
• Should India realign itself with Russia which is a powerful pull being exerted on policymakers by our ‘statusquo’ propensity? Or should we go ahead to forge the new pro US tilts in our policy? The latter is being made with an eye on two goals, firstly, economic resurgence and secondly, balancing Chinese hegemonistic interests.
• The ISIS is one more threat to our secular fabric. Any action to negate this threat is in our interest.

The Russian intervention could be a game-changer in an intractable domino conflict situation that the United States had triggered by its 2003 invasion of Iraq. It opens a new chapter in the Levant. It may initially lift it to a yet higher level of crisis. In the manner that fire can also be fought with fire, this initiative of ‘putting out fire with gasoline’ may yet succeed. How the situation pans out in this poker game will depend on how the West reacts. The lines from the James Bond film Casino Royale best sum up the future actions that Russia may take, “[I]n poker you don’t play the hand, you play the man across from you”. The next move is now of the United States.