Understanding Russian Withdrawal From Syria

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

 What forced Putin to announce a withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria? This is perhaps the most debated issue, currently, in global strategic community.

Considering Putin's seemingly abrupt announcement of intervention in Syria in September 2015 and even more abrupt announcement of withdrawal, which in reality is a major draw down, leaves no doubt that Putin wants to keep his cards hidden till the very last. This is good strategy towards denying other players the ability to anticipate his next move. Once again, he has succeeded in retaining the element of strategic surprise to himself. 

 

When Putin announced last September to intervene in Syria on the request of Syrian regime the US President Obama declared it walking into a strategic quagmire.

"An attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up [Bashar] Assad and try to pacify the population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire and it won’t work."

But it seems that once again Russian leader has outsmart the west and the US

While announcing the sudden withdrawal, Putin said that major strategic objectives were achieved in Syria in fight against international terrorism and there was no reason for Russian forces to be in there any longer. And there are certain ground realities which vindicate Putin's assessment.

There are number of dimensions of Syrian crisis from where this decision must be analyzed.  But the most important aspect of Russian intervention in Syria is that this campaign, just like US invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq, was nothing more than realpolitik where Russia has achieved strategic gains. 

During the last six months, ISIS and other anti-regime rebel groups have been battered by Russian air force and are on the defensive now. Syrian military has gotten its morale back. Asad regime is more confident than ever before. 

There is an argument, however exist challenging Putin's Syrian assessment and decision and this argument stems from the fact that ISIS still retain the control of Raqqah where its headquarter is located. 

By looking at the way Russian air force conducted its operations in Syria, it is not hard to see the actual reason behind Russian intervention was just to support its old ally in the Middle East. 

Fighting terrorism in reality is more of a rhetoric every influential player on the global chessboard is trying to use in order to further its own agenda. This intervention was part of old realpolitik than anything else.

Avoiding the Old Mistakes:

When Obama declared the Russian intervention stepping into a quagmire he probably was hinting towards Afghan-Soviet war. But it is also possible he might be indicating the predicament the US forces found themselves in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever the reason was Putin has effectively avoided that scenario. From pure operational planning point of view, Russian intervention in Syria was more of a reflection of the US strategy of expeditionary invasions where air power do most of the fighting at the beginning of conflict. Russia avoided involvement of its ground forces directly but provided all the necessary support to Syrian army both in terms of military hardware and aerial fire support. This is why 6 months long campaign didn't burdened Russian economy despite sanctions. Despite so-called withdrawal Russia will continue to have military footprint in Syria through air base in Hmeimim (in the South East of Latakia) and Russian naval facility in Tartus. Once again, Russia has followed the US strategy of maintain military bases at important strategic locations around the globe. Right now, US is doing the same in Afghanistan.

Looking At Bigger Picture:

By just looking the locations of Latakia and Turtus on the map, it becomes evident that Putin has achieved more than what meets the eye. Both these bases are located on the banks of Mediterranean Sea. NATO is expanding its presence around Russia in a strategy to contain it. These two Russian military bases in Syria along with one at Crimea can be are part of Russian counter-strategy. Regardless to the outcome of Syrian crisis, these bases would serve Russian strategic interest at global level.  

On the Question of Defining Terrorism:

While Putin boasted about how Russian forces have turned the table in Syria in fight against 'international terrorism' he put the the fundamental question of defining 'what is terrorism?' in the middle of ongoing Syrian debate around the world.

To Putin, all anti-regime rebel groups, against which Russian air force conducted its major operations, are international terrorists while the US and its allies the region (Saudi Arabia and Turkey) maintains that these groups are 'moderate' and irony doesn't end there. In fact, Al-Qaeda is an US ally of Washington in an attempt to topple Asad's regime in Syria. 

Both Russia and the US may reach an agreement on the fate of Syria but it is evident that Syrian people will have to accept a decision made 'for them' and not 'by them'. It is evident that the question of defining terrorism demands an answer now more than ever before. But as the phenomenon of using paid proxies for waging asymmetric wars against enemy states has become integral part of modern warfare, there is very grim hope that the answer of this fundamental question will be sought out. Russian state used its own proxies in Ukraine, in 2013, in order to secure its own strategic interests and this is exactly what the Washington is trying to ahieve through these so-called moderate rebels.

In the backdrop of these fact, it is obvious that the behind the rehtoric of fighting terrorism there are other factors due to which Putin has made this decision.

In order to understand the Putin's rationale, we will have to go back in history in 1970's when former Soviet Union decided to invade Afghanistan. Soviet economy was under severe strains just like it is now due to sanctions by the West on Ukrainian crisis. With a dysfunctional economy, Soviet stepped in the gorges of Afghanistan and could not pull out at the right time when it had become evident that the Soviet forces will never be able to reach the warm waters of Arabian Sea. A prolonged military intervention led to disintegration of Soviet Union.

Moral High Ground:

As the peace talks are in progress, the Putin's decision of pulling major part of its military out of Syria has positioned Russia as a peace broker. Western media analysts have an agreement that Putin move will not only provide Russia with much needed moral high ground on the negotiation table in Geneva but would also force Syrian regime to participate in talks. Putin began Syrian campaign having an end strategy in mind. On the Hmeimim base the Russians had set up a Reconciliation Co-ordination Centre, to assist the nascent peace process and had asked both local tribes and government to be part of peace process.

For Russia it is inevitable to play a major role in these negotiation so that it can continue to retain its geopolitical influence in Syria and Mediterranean Sea. Russia would like to see Damasscus as major ally in the Middle East regardless of the fate of Asad's regime. 

Ending International Isolation:

Russian intervention has played a role of ending its international isolation as well. After Ukrainian crisis, Russia was put under sanction and every major player severe its diplomatic ties to great extent, but after Syrian campaign the world was forced to reconsider Russia as influential player. It would be prudent to say that Russia has emerged a new power center in fast emerging multi-polar world. 

Conclusion:  

Russian military intervention in Syria and its decision to pulling major part of its military from that country, both decisions were primarily made to serve Russian interests than anything else. Russia has secured a military foot print in Syria and on the coast of Mediterranean Sea breaking NATO's attempt to encircle the Russia. As far as the terrorism is concerned, it has now emerged as a policy tool to be used to create a pretext for a foreign military intervention. Just to keep its military presence, Russia would act only when its ally in Damasscus would be threatened. Russia has helped its ally, Bashar Al Asad to retain its regime but at the same time, has also put pressure on him to make a compromise so that Russia can continue to work with next regime. Russia has emerged as a strong power-center in fast evolving multi-polar world.