Russia’s role in Syria

It must be admitted that the Russian President Vladimir Putin has managed to put Moscow on the world’s political map once again after almost three decades of marginalization by the new world order established after the collapse of the former Soviet Union.

It is natural that Monday’s meeting between Putin and the US President Barack Obama, held on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, dominated the world’s attention as the two powers markedly differ on several issues, particularly the crises in Syria and Ukraine.

On the eve before the two leaders’ meeting, Moscow boosted its bargaining position by signing an agreement with Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus to exchange intelligence about Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS,) and announcing that a meeting of the major regional actors, as well as Russia and US, will be held next month about Syria. For his part, US president has confirmed his readiness to work with Russia and Iran about Syria.

Clearly, Russia has found in the Syrian crisis a chance to make a forceful return to the region, a battlefield for the former Soviet Union and US during the 1960s and 1970s.

Are we to witness the return of the Cold War? It is a mistake to be under this delusion. It is true that Moscow sent attack aircraft and weapons to Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad— creating its first military presence in the region since Egypt’s former President Anwar Sadat ejected Soviet military advisers before the October War—but Putin’s televised remarks on Monday that no Russian troops would be deployed to Syria signal his intention not to be directly involved there.

In fact, the worst scenario the region may face would be to be at the center stage of a new world conflict. The best thing those participating in next month’s meeting on Syria can do is solidify a vision regarding a solution to the Syrian crisis and be prepared to send forces in case they were needed to protect or impose peace. Military presence in Syria should not be limited to Iran and Turkey only.

It should be admitted that politics is the art of the possible. This is precisely the reason behind the stark shift in the West’s stance on Syria. With most Western powers making the elimination of extremist groups rather than toppling the Syrian government a priority, they have announced that Assad can have a role in a transitional government, contradicting previous statements that he can have no role in a future Syria.

Who facilitated the spread of extremist militants in Syria, triggering the largest displacement of people since World War Two? This question is a thing of the past. What is important now is how to get those militants out of Syria before they destroy everything with their nihilist ideology. Practically speaking, when the war there stops and the search for a political solution begins, Assad will be in a weaker position than the one he is in now and will not be able to shirk his responsibility for what has befallen Syria in the past four years.

Moscow can help to find a way out of the Syrian crisis if it cooperates with Washington to impose a transition process there. It seems that there are parties in Washington who are already preparing for such a transition. It is unreasonable that US-trained fighters have surrendered their weapons to Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda’s affiliate, only two days after Washington announced their entry to Syria. Making public this supposedly confidential information is a strange thing to do in the first place.

That Moscow wants to play a positive role in the Syrian crisis and fears that extremists from former Soviet Union republics will travel to fight in Syria should not harm the Arab sides seeking to protect Syria. In fact, the Russian-proposed meeting will be an opportunity to achieve just that.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arab Today.