Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has won the first round in the high stakes game he is playing by his military intervention in the Syrian conflict, because he has assured himself a place at the high table in any solution to the protracted civil war now in its fifth year. There is no shortage of American sceptics, who suggest that his position is untenable, given Western sanctions against Moscow and the falling oil price. But the future of the war-torn country is up for grabs and Russia will in future be counted in an eventual settlement.
Among the scenarios being presented by experts is Syria’s balkanisation, with Russia acquiring President Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite stronghold surrounding the air base near Latakia and the Mediterranean naval base, and the rest of the country being contested by the anti-Assad forces supported by the West and the Islamic State and its Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant variants. This is an eventuality much of the West and Arab regional powers would like to avoid, because it would sharpen the Shia-Sunni divide.
The United States has grudgingly conceded a role for Iran in a political settlement, but is staring at the prospect of an arc of Shia power stretching from Iran through Iraq, a slice of Syria, the Houthi stronghold in Yemen and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon backed by Moscow. Iran has substantial forces in Syria assisting the Assad regime with fighters, guidance and money. Now, with Russia primarily bombing anti-Assad forces, the virtuous circle is complete.
There are so many wheels within wheels that the timing of an ultimate political settlement is an open question. The Kurds are very much part of a future framework. They (of the Syrian and Kurdish varieties) are the best fighting force on the ground Americans have although the Turkish Kurds (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) are fighting government forces after a truce virtually ended. After the American failure in training anti-Assad forces, they are now dropping arms for anti-Assad troops. Turkey has been keen to carve out a no-fly zone inside Syria to resettle Syrian refugees — it is hosting about two million of them — but the new Russian intervention makes it unlikely to fructify.
The Sunni Arab world is led by Saudi Arabia, which has been bombing Yemen in alliance with other Arabs to defeat the Houthis, a Shia sect, with American logistic support, in their attempt to conquer the country. Intermittent internationally-mediated peace talks have led nowhere thus far.
How can the West, led by the United States, unscramble this omelette? Much of the region must live with the Sunni-Shia divide. By siding with President Assad, Russia has chosen the Shia camp in view of its old relationship with the regime and the Sunni space long occupied by US allies, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab powers. What President Putin is now proposing is the stabilisation of the Assad regime before bringing in his opponents and other elements into the picture.
The US has moved some distance towards Russia by suggesting that President Assad could stay for a time — perhaps as long as six months — after an all-party agreement on a transitional arrangement is inked in. But President Assad’s domestic opponents are far from reconciled to the proposal, although if the major outside powers decide otherwise they would have to fall in line.
The urgency of seeking a political settlement on Syria has been propelled by hundreds of thousands of refugees, mostly from Syria, flooding Europe. The most generous of the European Union powers is Germany followed by Sweden and Austria in taking in refugees. Germany alone is expected to take in one million refugees this year, but the scale of the influx is inviting a backlash in the loud grumbling of coalition partners, firebombing of designating refugee housing and a fall in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s popularity.
A recent EU summit decided to give a hefty aid package to Turkey in return for stopping the flow of refugees to Europe. As a further inducement, the EU decided to delay a highly critical report on Turkey’s disturbing human rights record and President Recep Tayyib Erdogan’s authoritarianism. To cap it, Chancellor Merkel herself undertook a visit to Turkey to reinforce Brussels’ argument.
Understandably, Turkey, which has been knocking on EU doors for years in buttressing its case for EU membership, is playing hard to get. It is seeking visa-free facilities in the Schengen area and speeding up of its membership application. The EU’s desperation is an opportunity for Turkey.
It is universally understood that only the major outside powers, in conjunction with the regional heavyweights, can resolve the set of problems that go to make up the Middle East crises. The American tragedy is that President Barack Obama came to power promising to end the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq led to chaos filled in by the self-proclaimed ISIS, necessitating the return of American fighter planes. In Afghanistan, the failings of Afghan troops have persuaded the US to retain thousands of troops there beyond the original deadline.
Whatever Russian deficiencies in terms of its economic weaknesses, President Putin is sitting pretty on the Syrian chessboard. He has reclaimed his status as a major player in the region even as he has helped bring about a measure of peace to eastern Ukraine by reining in Russian-supported rebels. His intervention in Ukraine, including seizing the old Soviet Crimean Peninsula, had earlier made the point that the huge land mass of Ukraine cannot be co-opted by the EU, given Moscow’s proximity to and ethnic links with Ukraine.
The ball on Syria is now in the Western court. Between the United States, the EU and the major regional players, the wise men and women must decide how to meet the Russian challenge buttressed by the Shia power equation. Europe sits on edge in the face of the refugee influx and the killing fields of Syria are being irrigated by more blood being shed.
