Subtle tactical move

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s sudden announcement last week that his country was withdrawing its military forces from Syria took everyone, including the Syrian government and Washington, by surprise.

Analysts and political commentators rushed to offer dozens of theories by way of trying to make sense of Putin’s decision.

Although many such interpretations make sense indeed, and some of the offered explanations may prove to be right eventually, the real reason remains hidden somewhere. Thus, continued speculation.

It is possible, as many have guessed, that the abrupt Russian announcement was meant to put pressure on the Syrian government to soften its position on the eve of the Geneva talks, at a time when Syrian officials’ advance statements regarding the future of President Bashar Assad were considered too adamant for an amiable entry to the talks.

It is also possible that Putin was making a symbolic gesture to his Western partners, as well as to the UN, that he would step aside to grant the precarious Geneva talks the independence needed for possible progress.

What is unlikely, though, is that Russia was hastily wrapping up its mission to avoid long-term, Afghanistan-style military entanglement, or to cut costs at a time when sanctions and falling oil prices are squeezing Russian economy to unbearable limits.

When I first heard about the Russian decision, my instant reaction was that it should not be taken at face value.

Even if Russia was in fact planning to withdraw its forces, or some of its forces, from the Syrian theatre, it was hard to imagine that Russia, with its firm commitment right from the very beginning of the Syrian crisis not to allow the collapse of the Assad regime or the disintegration of Syria, would inadvertently reverse course, particularly at the very crucial moment when its Syrian strategy was making substantial success.

Russia could not have invested so much, politically, financially and militarily in the Syrian crisis to abort its mission at this very crucial time.

As there is ample space for manoeuvre in the complex world of politics, it will not be at all difficult to maintain the validity of the Russian decision to withdraw forces while preserving full military commitment at the same time.

When the Russian president announced the withdrawal, he did not say the decision meant all forces; when he said Russian goals in Syria were mostly accomplished, he did not mean that all of them were; and when he indicated that the Syrian forces were able to complete the tasks ahead, he did not exclude the eventuality of resuming military support once needed. 

Putin clearly elaborated afterwards that departing Russian forces would be back on mission in hours if the situation requires that.

The most likely explanation is that there is consensus by all concerned parties that the Geneva talks, still struggling to make a confident start, must receive enough protection and support to gather force and proceed all the way to the very end, which will have to be a comprehensive political settlement.

If that proves to be realistic, the cessation of hostilities will continue to hold, there will be no return to fighting except to deal with the terrorists, Daesh and Al Nusra, and there will be no need to keep all the Russian forces operating in Syria.

Contrarily, full-scale fighting may have to resume in the event of failure of the Geneva talks.

Russia, at that point, will not allow its accomplishments in Syria to be undone by leaving the stretched Syrian forces alone. That will be disastrous for everyone, but mostly for Syria and its people who stand to lose most, as the case has always been.

The Syrian mess is far from over and there is a lot to be done even if the Geneva talks lead to agreement.

The terrorists, Daesh and many others, are still in control of large areas in both Iraq and Syria, they maintain considerable ability to fight and they continue to commit horrendous acts of terror worldwide.

It is amazing that major world powers, with unwavering support from all the others, have not been able to liberate Syrian and Iraqi territories from Daesh.

If any possible political settlement will be able to reconcile differences between the Syrian regime and the opposition, it will not solve the bigger problem of the presence of terrorists in the region. That needs more than the Syrian or the Iraqi forces to eradicate. Foreign help will be needed.

When the Russians came to Syria, they were criticised, although they were invited by a functioning government and a UN member. 

The Russian decision to withdraw was also criticised, obviously out of concern that the sudden vacuum may create battle imbalance, prolong the war, help the terrorists and lead to the country’s disintegration.

Let us hope the consensus on reaching a political settlement, ending the war, crushing the terrorist groups and restoring peace to a reformed Syria remains the valid agenda.