The Kremlin’s insistence on undermining U.S. attempts to achieve a political transition in Syria, and its support for the regime of Bashar al-Assad could backfire against Russia’s interests in the Middle East. According to foreign policy experts who joined this week’s discussion at the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C., Vladimir Putin is taking “a major gamble.”
In contrast to much of the international community, Moscow is not only refusing to call on Bashar al-Assadto step down, but is giving him infrastructural support and diplomatic cover. The Russian leadership, together with Communist China, has issued three vetoes at the UN Security Council blocking Western attempts to impose sanctions despite Assad’s brutal crackdown and military strikes on his own citizens. Since March 2011, the violence in Syria has claimed an estimated 30,000 lives. Moscow is continuing to supply Damascus with weapons; this week, President Vladimir Putin reiterated that his government will not be “dictated” to on arms trade.
On October 10th, Turkey intercepted a Syrian Air passenger plane carrying what the Turkish authorities described as “munitions” from Moscow to Damascus. The Airbus 320 was forced to land in Ankara, causing a diplomatic storm between Russia and Turkey. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov admitted that the plane was carrying “dual-purpose” radar equipment – presumably, to be used in Syria’s anti-aircraft systems.
According to Robert Freedman, a visiting professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, the lucrative arms sales to Syria, currently estimated at $5.5 billion, and Russia’s economic investments in that country totaling $20 billion are a key reason for Moscow’s unwillingness to see Assad go. Since a post-Assad leadership is unlikely to be pro-Kremlin, the Russian government risks losing money, as well as its naval supply and maintenance base in the Syrian port of Tartus, the last Russian military installation outside of the former Soviet Union.
Yet economic and geopolitical concerns are only a part of the explanation for Moscow’s behavior: at least as important is the strong anti-Americanism which has become, in the words of U.S. Army War College Professor Stephen Blank, “the fundamental mainspring of Russian foreign policy” under Putin. According to Blank, this attitude is manifested not only in the “asymmetric support for anti-American movements in the Middle East in order to keep Russia’s status as a great power,” but also in Putin’s belief that he is “under siege” from the West which, in his view, is determined to unseat his regime through promoting democracy.“ Putin is living in an echo chamber of paranoia,” asserted Blank, pointing to a 2006 article by Russia’s then defense minister (and current Kremlin chief-of-staff) Sergei Ivanov in which he named “interference in Russia's internal affairs by foreign states – either directly or through structures that they support” as a key challenge to the country’s “national security.”
Echoing Blank’s conclusions, Freedman noted that mass anti-government protests are the Kremlin’s biggest concern, and Putin’s support for Assad stems to a large extent from his fear of a “Moscow Spring” modeled on the recent Arab uprisings.
Heritage Foundation's Chief Russia expert Ariel Cohen (left), and U.S. Army War College Professor Stephen Blank (right.)
In the view of American experts, Putin’s policy comes at a high cost to Russia’s long-term strategic interests. “Moscow is taking a major gamble in the Middle East,” asserted Freedman, “If the gamble fails, Moscow’s policy will be in trouble.” According to Ariel Cohen, the chief Russia expert at the Heritage Foundation, “Russia is finding itself on the wrong side of the Shia-Sunni divide in the Middle East.” In his opinion, the Sunnis will emerge as “the prevailing force” in the region, and they are not likely to forget the Kremlin’s support for Assad’s Shia-Alawite regime in the majority-Sunni Syria (or, for that matter, its partnership with Iran). Cohen pointed to a recent statement by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an influential Sunni cleric associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, who declared that “Russia has become the first enemy of Islam and Muslims because it has stood against the Syrian people.” Noting that Russia is facing its own Sunni insurgency in the North Caucasus, Cohen concluded that the Kremlin “has a serious problem on its hands.”
Putin’s political opponents inside Russia have long criticized his support for the Syrian dictatorship. Boris Nemtsov, a former deputy prime minister and co-chairman of the People’s Freedom Party, has asserted that the Kremlin’s UN vetoes on anti-Assad sanctions went “against Russia’s interest” and were driven by Putin’s fear that if Assad were to fall, he would be next. Former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov described the Russian government’s behavior on Syria as “irresponsible.” Grigory Yavlinsky, the founder of the liberal Yabloko party, expressed regret that the Kremlin failed to “find common ground with the international community”with regard to Syria.
The discussants at the Heritage forum directed their criticism not only at Vladimir Putin, but also at U.S. President Barack Obama, whose policy of “resetting” relations with the Kremlin, in the words of Ariel Cohen, has ended in “enormous failure.” “The ‘reset’ did not provide any ability to resolve the ongoing geopolitical conflicts and issues [between the U.S. and Russia],” emphasized Cohen, “Unfortunately, the price of this is the blood of the Syrian people.”In the experts’ opinion, the incoming U.S. government – whether a Romney administration or a second Obama administration – must recognize that the “reset” was “wishful thinking” and conduct a new policy toward Russia. “The U.S. administration will need to give up on the dream that we can cooperate with Moscow [under its current leadership] on regional security, except on a very limited basis,” suggested Stephen Blank.
Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, has asserted that she views the position of Russia that does not take either side in the Syrian crisis, as, to a large extent, a reflection of its support for President Bashar al-Assad, Reuters reports.
With regard to Syria, James Phillips, the Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow in Middle Eastern affairs, noted that the Obama administration initially attempted a policy of “engagement” with Bashar al-Assad, appointing an ambassador to Damascus, and dispatching Senator John Kerry (D-MA) to meet with the Syrian dictator. At the same time, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton claimed that members of Congress believe Assad to be a “reformer.” “The wishful thinking proved to be unfounded,” concluded Phillips, urging the White House – whoever occupies it after January 20th – to be more “realistic” in its approach to the Middle East.
