Putin ups the stakes in Syria

Russia is playing a dangerous game in Syria and it is raising the stakes there so hastily that pundits are now talking about a sharp dip, and heightened tension, in US-Russian ties, the kind of which we have not seen since the Cold War era. 

Some have even warned that the ingredients for a Third World war are in the making in light of recent military escalations by Moscow in Syria and elsewhere. 

That is an exaggeration.

Neither Vladimir Putin nor Barack Obama would want to paint themselves into a corner where military confrontation becomes the only viable option.

At the centre of the recent split is the failure to reach a diplomatic accord on the Syrian conflict.

Since the brief military truce in Syria, agreed upon by US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov last September, collapsed, the Russian position has become more aggressive and unilateral

The two sides traded accusations over who was responsible for the latest cycle of violence, but the ongoing onslaught on Aleppo’s rebel-controlled eastern district has undermined diplomatic efforts, forcing the US to suspend talks with Moscow and triggering a war of words between the two sides.

Russia’s latest veto in the UN Security Council, derailing a French resolution to halt attacks on Aleppo, has resulted in a nervous stand-off. 

It coincided with Moscow’s deployment of S-300 air missile batteries in Syria, accompanied by stern warnings by Lavrov against potential threats by the US-led coalition to target Syrian government air bases. 

Few days earlier, Russia moved nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, on its borders with Poland and Estonia.

In a calculated move, Putin suspended a deal with the US on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium, citing “unfriendly actions” by Washington.

These provocative moves by Moscow left the US and its Western allies stunned, angry and helpless.

Russia was effectively reasserting itself as the sole power broker in Syria, but what is more important, it was challenging Obama directly and aggressively.

It was also sending a clear message that Moscow had made a choice: it was now pushing through with an all-out military campaign to settle the Syrian crisis once and for all and at any cost.

Putin’s faith in military solutions is not new. He adopted similar strategies in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. 

And in spite of international outrage and economic sanctions, Moscow rarely stepped back or offered compromises.

Putin’s timing in raising the ante in Syria is easy to understand. Obama is a lame-duck president and he will not risk shattering his legacy by confronting the Russians over Syria.

Throughout the Syrian crisis, the White House’s position has been weak and perplexing. It sent the wrong signals to Washington’s Middle Eastern allies and allowed the Damascus regime to adopt hardline stances on successive political initiatives. 

Under Obama, the US has been distancing itself from the region, giving Iran a free hand to force its agenda in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. 

America’s messy withdrawal from the Middle East gave Putin a golden pass to reintroduce Russia as a superpower on the world stage.

Aside from denunciations and accusations, the US and the West can do little to challenge Moscow’s latest strategy in Syria.

At the second US presidential debate on Sunday, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump could offer a clear answer on how to handle the carnage in Syria.

Clinton suggested creating a no-fly zone, but who will enforce it?

She also talked about using leverage to bring Moscow to the negotiation table, but what kind of leverage?

Putin’s annexation of Crimea is now old news and his meddling in the affairs of Ukraine continues unchallenged. 

Yes, Russia is suffering under US and European economic sanctions, but Putin’s leadership has never been more assertive at home.

The reality is that Russia has changed the rules of the game in Syria in a bid to improve its geopolitical standing in the world. 

Contrary to the desire of some to see a political solution for Syria, Putin is now enforcing a military one, providing air cover to advancing regime forces and their Iranian allies.

Unchallenged by the US and the West, Aleppo’s fall is a matter of time. And while that will not end the conflict there, it will seriously weaken the rebels, stifle the uprising and hand over key Syrian towns and cities back to the regime. 

In return, Russia will bolster its air and naval bases in Syria and assume a greater role in the region’s affairs.

But Russia’s gambit in Syria will have to work between now and the swearing in of a new US president in January. 

Obama’s response to Moscow’s latest escalation will be calculated and reserved.

The avalanche of condemnations and warnings will continue, but it is highly unlikely that Washington will seek a military face-off with Russia in Syria. 

Putin may have decisively won this round, but can he avoid sinking evermore in the Syrian quagmire?

The writer is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.