Sign In / Up

Add contribution as a guest

Your email will not be displayed publicly
Benefit of signing in/signing up to personalize comment

Comment as a guest

Your email will not be displayed publicly
Benefit of signing in/signing up to personalize comment


Not a member Register   Forgot Password
or connect using





Assessing the Russian intervention in Syria, one year on

By Paul Iddon 26/9/2016
Russian aircraft based in Syria. AP file photo.
Russian aircraft based in Syria. AP file photo.
In September 2015 Russia intervened decisively in the war in Syria on the side of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. One year on to the month of that intervention’s beginning presents a timely moment to assess how the battlefield in Syria has changed and what Russia has achieved in that war-torn country in the last 12 months.

“Moscow’s principal goal in Syria is clear: to preserve, if not strengthen, the Assad regime,” John E. Herbst, a former US ambassador to Ukraine and the Director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council think-tank, told Rudaw English.

“This has been the case since the first protestors appeared in Syria over five years ago,” he added, “Once the armed rebellion began in the fall of 2011, Moscow began to offer more military support. Moscow’s military surge in the fall of 2015 was prompted by the steady gains of insurgent forces – principally Islamic State (ISIS) and other militant Islamic groups – and the steady retreat of Assad’s troops in the first half of 2015.”

From September to December 2015, however, the Russian air campaign did not do much to help Assad retake any territory. That changed early the following year.

“Early in 2016, Moscow began regular carpet bombing of civilian areas populated by the moderate opposition groups backed by the West, with the exception of Kurdish fighters in traditionally Kurdish areas of Syria,” Herbst explained. “This tactic has proved successful and enabled Assad’s forces to regain substantial territory, particularly on the road to Aleppo.”

It has also taken a heavy toll on the civilians in those areas subjected to such bombing, which has displaced more Syrians and produced more refugees. Even this, Herbst reasoned, has “an additional benefit for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, because it contributes to instability in Europe. In particular, Mr. Putin would like to see the position of [German] Chancellor [Angela] Merkel weakened since she is the figure most responsible for marinating the sanctions on Moscow for its ongoing aggression in Ukraine.”

Also, a year in Syria, Herbst reasons, has enhanced the “diplomatic clout” of Russia in the Middle East region.

“Since the beginning of the Russian operation in September of 2015 the US has been trying to negotiate a stable ceasefire with Russia, again, with little success. Moscow’s interest is in weakening the moderate opposition groups so that the West concludes that Assad is the only alternative to Islamic extremists,” he explained.

Herbst considers it a pity that “Washington has not established a firm policy of striking Assad’s forces every time Moscow hits the moderate opposition.”

“Such actions would likely persuade Putin to direct his operation against ISIS, or at a minimum dissuade him from continuing his war against Western-backed forces,” he concluded.

Michael Kofman, an expert on Russia and Eurasia at the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute, says Russia knew from the start that its campaign in Syria “was not going to be quick and easy.”

“Moscow found a way to translate the use of military power into desired political ends in the Middle East, something we have struggled with repeatedly in the US. I think looking a year on it is both remarkable how much Russia has achieved on the ground with the little military power they committed,” Kofman told Rudaw English.

There is a caveat however.

“At the same time the strategic prospectus of their stay in Syria is one of diminishing returns,” Kofman added, “What Russia was surprised by is not how long they stayed but the woeful state of the Syrian armed forces. To be blunt, the Syrian Army is not a thing, but rather a composite of militias. All sides are heavily reliant on proxy groups and militias composed of foreigners, including Palestinians, Afghans and so on, beyond the known Iranian militias and Hezbollah.”

This, Kofman argues, led the Russian leadership to realize that a political solution is needed in Syria, “and not just a fig leaf process, because unlike a real army, the Syrian forces cannot hold ground.”

Generally over the course of its campaign these last 12 months, Kofman said, “Moscow preferred showpiece gains like Palmyra, and making itself relevant in the fight against ISIS rather than the exhausting battle for Aleppo.”

While they can, and indeed have, recaptured territory from their opponents with Russian help “they cannot hold it, and that means the gains made on the ground can quickly disappear into the Syrian sand. As the US has discovered in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, these countries can absorb men and money without results ad infinitum.”

Instead of helping the Syrians reconquer territory they cannot hold Kofman thinks Russia has been “quite effective at fragmenting, destroying and steadily killing its way to victory. The objective is to remove moderate opposition groups from the conflict, either forcing them to disband or radicalizing them into joining jihadist groups so that there is no viable alternative to the Syrian regime.”

The outcome of about a year of this policy has seen the latest battle being waged between the Russian-Iranian-Syrian coalition on the one side, and the former al-Qaeda affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra on the other, with more moderate Syrian opposite groups “fading in relevance as political or military” entities. This coalition Russia is working with, Kofman explained, does not share the same objectives. Russia doesn’t believe a military solution can be brought about and would rather reach a deal with the United States, while Tehran and Damascus both want to push on and vanquish their various enemies in that country.

Kofman view the failure of the latest ceasefire this September as “further evidence of an inability to reconcile allied interests – something the US has long been dealing with on its side with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.”

Timur Akhmetov, an independent Russian researcher who specializes on Turkish-Russian relations, believes that Russia has, in its first year in Syria “managed to achieve the main political goal of its military campaign, securing and consolidating the central government.”

“Russia's calculation that its military engagement in Syria would eventually lead to more dialogue with the West turned out to be right: US not only relies heavily on Russian assistance in pushing through political solution in Syria, it also find itself forced to coordinate military actions to avoid undesired accidents,” Akhmetov told Rudaw English.

Furthermore Russia’s intervention in Syria and subsequent military campaign over the course of the last year has enabled the Kremlin, Akhmetov contends, “to gain/regain its image as a leading world power.”

“Putin gained not only considerable reputation domestically, but also internationally by challenging the West. Syria also served as a good advertisement of Russia’s modern weapon systems,” he added.

However, as Russia remains in the Syrian conflict Akhmetov envisions several challenges and problems Russia will face down the road, something he considers “the price of being a leading power within this conflict.”

For one, he said, Russia will have to tactfully manage its relations with different regional countries and groups which are hostile to each other, namely the following conflicts/cold wars between: “Israel vs. Iran, Israel vs. Syria, Syria vs. Turkey, Syrian Kurds vs. Syria and Syrian Kurds vs. Turkey.”

While Russia has been trying to keep its military presence limited in Syria, Akhmetov explained, it will “eventually be forced to unofficially deploy more troops.”

And another problem Akhmetov identifies, interestingly, is Assad himself.

“With no clear political solution on the horizon Russia will eventually have to deal with Assad,” Akhmetov reasoned, “This requires an establishment of ties within the Assad clan and supporting alternatives to Assad from his clan.”


Data pager
Page size:
mvlazysusan | 27/9/2016
The Russians want the war in/on Syria to go on forever, and neither an Iranian nor Qatari/Saudi pipelines crossing Syria to Western Europe. There are no "moderate opposition" fighting the Syrian Government. The folks fighting the Syrian Government want Sharia law, and that is NOT "moderate". Since the beginning of the war, there have been three "political solutions" (Re: elections) Two parliamentary and one Presidential. Russia has begun making some nice and effective weapons systems. Russia has only about 01% of the quantity of those nice weapons they would need to be anything but a defensive force.
ehh | 27/9/2016
Good analysis and insightful. And let me add they seem like pure evil...
Missiles | 27/9/2016
The west should give the rebels missiles to shoot down both the Russian and Syrian planes. After downing 10 of Russian planes I can guarantee the Russian will withdraw. But I can see the flip side. The rebels might use it against the coalition or they might sell it to Isis. I don't trust the rebels. They had bitten the American hands before. After training the rebel and supplying them with weapons they join the Isis. If the rebels are trustworthy, the American could have supply the rebel with missiles already. That is the croix of the problem.
Carl | 27/9/2016
The Kurds (who also can count as an opposition group) are the exception to the rest of the groups fighting the brutal Assad regime. They definitely don't want Sharia law and are in fact firmly against it, that's why the other rebels groups are hostile towards them and their administration Rojava. Still well over 90% of Western aid/arms still go the Islamist/Jihadi rebels and not the Kurds (which is a scandal if you ask me). Here's a group which promotes secularism, multi culturalism and gender equality and they receive peanuts in terms of support while the jihadist groups are receiving truck loads of state of the art weapons. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey supporting these Islamist groups I have no problem understanding but Western support?
Muraz Adzhoev | 27/9/2016
At least useless and unreasonable conclusions and analysis. The "principal" problem in international political and military affairs is the domination of immoral pragmatism and double standards covered by "legitimate" national interests of all leading world and regional powers. It is absolutely evident that nothing will change seriousely for the better in the Middle East Region, in particular in Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran, until the fundamental principle of justified self-determination rights of nations, especially of stateless and autonomous-less Kurdish nation, that is purposefully, forcefully, criminally and immorally divided in the last bloody century Kurdish people between and within so called "national" borders of above mentioned "sovereign" countries, is respectfully and appropriately implemented according to the prinicipal norms of the international law and the UN Charter. The UN SC, all 5 member-states, that are obligatory responsible for global peace, security, stability, partnership and cooperation in favor of all nations, must admit that Syria is collapsed and Iraq is deadly failed, Turkeys statehood should be reformed and Iran's criminal pseudo "revolutionary" regime be recognized worldwide as illegal. The world must and is obliged to welcome justified reintegration of Southern Kurdistan and Western Kurdistan, establishment of sovereignly independent, democratic, secular and federative Kurdistan republic of united multi-ethnical and multicultural communities, components and citizens, to support the inalienable rights of the Kurdish people to constitutionally guaranteed national self-rule in autonomous Northern Kurdistan region in Turkey and Eastern Kurdistan region in Iran apparently. If the international community wants peace, security and stability in the world, then it should positively solve the key Kurdish national issue.

Be Part of Your Rudaw!

Share your stories, photos and videos with Rudaw, and quite possibly the world.

What You Say

Leon | 3/24/2019 8:03:06 AM
Sistani is not the governemnt, so get fucked. Iraq should use force to remove him.
Iraqi PM proposes parliament sacks Nineveh governor
| yesterday at 11:47 | (1)
Adam | 3/23/2019 2:49:50 PM
I wander what the Saudi royal family would say.
Gunrash | 3/24/2019 3:10:11 AM
Golan is Israeli just like Kirkuk, Amed, Mehabad and Afrin are Kurdish! Enough with the hypocrisy and selective indignation. UN is a joke.
Trump’s Golan statement draws strong regional condemnation
| yesterday at 08:49 | (4)
Adam | 3/23/2019 2:40:05 PM
Now the west especially America have the duty to reward the Kurds with real protection.
Kurde Canada | 3/24/2019 1:41:08 AM
God is no more with ISIS. They were just being used by him. They were betrayed.
SDF declare ‘total elimination’ of ISIS caliphate
| yesterday at 09:32 | (4)
TerraNova | 3/23/2019 10:02:06 PM
And now you show the world that The United States of America stands by it's allies and dose NOT abandon an ally that sacrificed thousands of brave...
Dutchman | 3/23/2019 11:18:00 PM
Trump is right when he sais that the US together with it's allies defeated ISIS. And it is also good that he wants to continue to work with his...
Trump: ISIS ‘are losers, will always be losers’
| 16 hours ago | (3)

Elsewhere on Rudaw

Mosul mourns victims of the ferry disaster 4 hours ago |

Mosul mourns victims of the ferry disaster

Grieving Mosul is not celebrating victory over more
Iraqi fishermen flounder on the Shatt al-Arab 15 hours ago |

Iraqi fishermen flounder on the Shatt al-Arab

Iran and Kuwait prevent them from fishing further more
Trump: ISIS ‘are losers, will always be losers’ 16 hours ago | (3)

Trump: ISIS ‘are losers, will always be losers’

"We will remain vigilant" more
0.937 seconds