Last week there was some hope that Russia might be coming on board with the need to do something about the steadily increasing bloodshed in Syria. The Russian foreign ministry offered to host peace talks in Moscow, and although the Syrian opposition rejected the idea, negotiations continued at the united nations in the hope of getting a security council resolution that Russia would support to put pressure on president Bashar al-Assad.
But it came to nought at the weekend, with Russia and China vetoing the already-watered-down draft resolution. Western reaction was unusually sharp — Hillary Clinton referred to it as “a travesty” — but Russia blamed the West for failing “to undertake an extra effort and come to a consensus”.
The good news is that an impressive degree of consensus has already been reached; the non-permanent members of the security council unanimously supported the resolution. The price of that was the explicit abandonment of any suggestion of military action, but neither the West nor the Syrian opposition was enthusiastic about that in the first place. Even Russia did not dispute that some sort of UN action was appropriate.
But the bad news, of course, is that in the end nothing has been done, the killing goes on in Syria, Assad will see himself as being given a green light, and relations between Russia and the West have been decidedly soured. According to the BBC, the UN vote “coincided with one of the bloodiest days since protests began last March”; the situation in Homs, the opposition’s strongest big city, seems particularly dire.
Many analysts continue to insist that Assad’s days are numbered — that dissent has progressed beyond a point where the current regime can realistically hope to put the country back together, and that internal and external pressure will eventually reach a point where Assad’s departure cannot be avoided. But that point could still be some time off; even Colonel Gaddafi, with NATO air strikes to contend with, hung on longer than many people expected.
If regime change in Syria is inevitable then it would seem to be in everyone’s interest, and especially that of Syria’s neighbours, for it to happen as quickly and painlessly as possible. Which raises the question of what Russia’s game plan is, and indeed whether it has one.
As Assad’s last major ally except for Iran — the Russian navy has a base on the Syrian coast at Tartus, dating back to Soviet times — there’s no doubt that Russia’s role is critical. But Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, facing a somewhat challenging presidential election next month, is likely to be strongly influenced in his decision making by the demands of domestic politics.
It’s sometimes suggested that Putin’s support (such as it is) reflects a Russian predilection for authoritarianism and nostalgia for Soviet dictatorship, but what seems more important to the average Russian is their country’s status as a world power. The fall of the Soviet Union was widely regretted not because of any love for communism or authoritarian rule, but because of the sharp loss of status. The key to Putin’s policy over the past decade has been his effort to rebuild Russian influence and national pride.
So from Putin’s point of view, whether Assad survives or not, and whether Syrians end up with a democracy or not, are very much secondary considerations. His priorities are probably twofold: to ensure that Russia is seen to be the decisive actor, and that Russia is seen to benefit strategically (or at least not suffer) from the outcome.
And while there might be some reluctance to help with Putin’s re-election effort, there’s no particular reason for the West to have a problem with either of those objectives. Hence the hopes last week, now disappointed, that Russia would be amenable to a deal — and the continuing hope that somewhere down the track Russian pressure, applied at the right moment, could still be decisive in ending the bloodshed.
There’s certainly no sign that Russia has any sort of sentimental attachment to Assad personally. And lest we jump to criticise Putin on that score, a quick look around the Middle East will turn up numerous examples where Western policy has been determined not by sentiment or principle but by n-ked realpolitik and domestic political concerns.
We can hardly expect Russia to behave any differently.
Off course Putin is going to do what is best for Russia and its military bases; just like Uncle Sam does. Anyone who still actually believes the UN is an organisation that only does the ‘right thing’ and is not totally run by self interest is living in the dark ages.
Charles, this wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that Russia sells over $1 Billion worth of weapons to Syria, would it? No, how cynical of me. The weapons being used against the people of Syria were probably provided by Russia.
In fact, I think from memory, that a recent deal between these countries has probably shored up more weapons for the future. Russia is not going to let such a lucrative arrangement get tied up in human rights issues. After all, both they and China kill their own citizens when it suits them, or they ‘disappear’ etc!
We’ve all read and heard about the journalists in Russia who’ve been bumped off, and Putin just does the same to his domestic political opponents. He’s probably pretty scared at the moment that Russians might ‘catch’ the disease that the people of Syria are ‘suffering’ from! Recent polls show a big slump in his popularity. He’s also become a very wealthy man at the expense of his own people!
In fact, many of us wouldn’t be at all surprised by the ‘tags’ on many of the weapons in the middle east. What about the deals done with Gadaffi when the West re-embraced him?
Call me cynical if you wish! That’s just the way it is. In fact, listening to the ‘outrage’ via Hilary Clinton is nauseating! Talk about hypocrites!
not cynical but slightly mis informedd thereLiz45
China has most of the Nth African arms market
But us western people in glass houses should not throw stones now as what does our millitary alliance do when it comes to weapons….?
btw it may be fashionable to bag Putin but the fact remains that he is totally responsible for removing the death penalty in Russia saying it is barbaric for a country to kill its own citizens. Don’t think we are about to hear Obama say such a thing now are we .
LIZ: Hi there! Yes, the Russians sell weapons to Syria: However, they also have a joint petroleum company, Al Bu Kamal. Perhaps they’ve struck oil and wish to protect that interest as well?
Hi Venise – Happy New Year to you and yours. As recently as last week, there was an item on either The World Today or PM which even gave the figures as to how much Russia gains by selling weapons to Syria. I also understand that one of the reasons why Russia is so ruthless with Chechnya has to do with resources there, and they don’t want it to be independent? That also sounds familiar doesn’t it?
Not many weeks ago there was an interview on one of the above mentioned about the resources in Afghanistan also. We all know why the invasion of Iraq took place, and we’d be either stupid or naive not to believe the same about Afghanistan. There’s a well documented opinion, that both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration ‘entertained’ the Taliban over this very issue – resources and access to ‘easy’ access to them, particularly oil. Malaya Joya in ‘Raising my Voice’ gives an outline of the grab for resources in her country.
@LISACRAGO – I have no time for the manufacturing of revolting weapons, regardless of who does it. I understand, that while Australia agreed to the cessation of manufacturing cluster bombs, we didn’t go the next step and refuse to have anything to do with countries that do – that is, the US. Fancy that? How any country can boast of being civilized, democratic and freedom loving, but still manufacture and use such revolting weapons that children mistake for colourful toys is beyond me! I don’t support the manufacture of such atrocious instruments of death and misery – EVER!
And of course re the death penalty in the US – who are those who are over represented on death row? Black people of course. In fact an angry cynic like me would agree with the view, that while the KKK don’t get rid of these pesky upstarts anymore, many states do it these days – for the public good, of course.
It was interesting to learn in the last couple of days, that Obama has increased spending on Defence by $1.5 TRILLION? Amazing isn’t it? A new beginning for America, blah blah! I fell for it too!
Putin still thinks that he’s part of the KGB, the only thing that’s changed is that it’s called something else now. He’s a glorified thug in my view! Hopefully the people are waking up. Watch how far he’ll allow ‘democracy’ to flourish if they get too pesky! Most depressing isn’t it?