Russia's entry into Syria is a grave escalation

Last week Russian jet fighters started carrying out air strikes against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) positions, as well as groups that are armed by United States and its Nato allies. In expanding its military presence to defend the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, Russia is following the lead of Iran, which has had 1,500 troops in Syria for months and is now sending more. Their allies in the fight include 5,000 Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon. The Shi’ite militant group Hezbollah is under the directive of Iran.

John McCain, chairman of the US Senate armed forces committee, has termed the swelling conflict a proxy war between the US and Russia. He accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of  “treating the US with disdain and contempt” by “inserting himself into the Middle East in a way that Russia has not been since [former Egyptian president] Anwar Sadat threw them out in 1973”.

US President Barack Obama dismissed McCain’s characterisation of the conflict. “This is not some superpower chessboard contest,” he said.

Judging from reports, it appears that Russia’s air strikes against the rebel groups came as a surprise to Washington, but they shouldn’t have, because Putin has been quite open about Moscow’s support for the regime in Damascus. While Washington sees Assad as an obstacle that must be removed, Moscow insists that the dictator can and must be part of the solution.

In Putin’s view, however, the disagreement between the superpowers involves much deeper elements. He complained at last week’s UN General Assembly that “some countries” meddle in other nations’ business in an effort to extend democracy through revolution. “Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroys government institutions and the local way of life,” Putin said. “The only way to solve this problem for good is to restore statehood where it has been destroyed.” And that, he said, includes shoring up “the legitimate government of Syria”.

He has a point. If democracy does not result from the toil of vigilance of citizens, it is apt to fall prey to strongmen seizing power in the name of maintaining stability.

But let’s not be fooled: Putin is no champion of democracy. He is, after all, a strongman ruling on the basis of not just domestic stability but that of trusted allies like Syria. If his own meddling in the Middle East means that Russia and Iran will become even more isolated in the global community, Putin is prepared to accept that consequence.

Even if Putin is right about America’s habit of intervening in other nations’ affairs, the real reason for his entry into the Syrian conflict is likely that he wants a seat at the table when the country’s fate is ultimately negotiated among the victors.

Lacking a clear answer to the question of who might best run Syria in Assad’s stead, the West can only attempt to meet Tehran and Moscow halfway. Until it has that answer, Russian air strikes will continue, and likely target US-back rebels specifically, as they did this past week. Russia is not ignoring the ISIS fighters by any means. Moscow is deeply concerned that more than 2,000 Russian citizens have joined ISIS. Putin made it clear in his UN speech that he doesn’t want them back.

Obama will have to accept Moscow’s premise that Assad must be part of the solution or else up the ante with ground troops, a scenario the US is loath to contemplate given its costly debacles elsewhere in the region.

Obama has said he is fully aware of the immense humanitarian catastrophe this conflict is generating. He adds, however, “Unless we can get the parties on the ground to agree to live together in some fashion, then no amount of US military engagement will solve the problem.”