A BATTLE ON ALL FRONTS

Amidst the recent developments in Syria, the relations between Russia and the United States, as well as the leading countries of the West, have taken such a steep turn that the observers prefer pondering about the threats of a straight military conflict due to mutual dissidence rather than a possibility of a new “cold war”. In fact, it was Syria, which at some point of time had urged both the US and Russian diplomats to enter into an intensive dialogue after the events in Ukraine. Even more recently, the parties had reported about the coordinated fight against terrorism. On September 12, Russia and the United States as mediators managed to agree on the terms of a truce between the parties to the Syrian conflict. However, it did not last long - on the night of September 19, a humanitarian convoy organized by the UN and the Syrian branch of the Red Crescent was destroyed in the vicinities of ​​Aleppo. The Western countries accused the Russian Air Force deployed in Syria since two Russian Su-24 bomber aircraft were tracked by radar at the time of the attack. The Syrian Air Force has the same type of aircraft but only the Russian pilots are able to perform night flights. Russia has called the incident a provocation, highlighting the lack of direct evidence of air attacks. Moreover, at the moment of attack, the trucks were passing through the territory controlled by opposition troops.

The actual perpetrators of the attack are not identified yet but it has become a formal reason that the Syrian rebels and government forces have announced the resumption of hostilities. Yet the informal reason could be quite different. On September 17, the international coalition led by the United States carried out air strikes on Syrian military surrounded by IS militants near the city of Deir ez-Zor, although this area was believed to be under the control of the Russian and Syrian air forces. Sixty-two soldiers were killed, and an offensive of terrorists began immediately after that. The US Central Command acknowledged the fact and stated that it was a mistake, but the Western media mentioned very little about the attacks. At the same time, the Russian media was silent about the fact that seven Russian troopers were among the victims. This information was available on the Internet only. Russia called UN Security Council urgent meeting, which ended in scandal. Just a few days after the meeting, a piece of unofficial information leaked to the Internet about an alleged pinpoint strikes by the Russian Navy located off the coast of Syria that destroyed a coordination center of foreign intelligence services in the western part of Aleppo province, killing 30 officers from Israel , USA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UK.

Although there is no evidence of attack, John Kirby of the US State Department said on October 3 that his government suspended negotiations with Russia on Syria (Washington retains only military contacts with Moscow in order to avoid possible incidents in the skies over Syria). The Americans explained this by “running out of patience” over the “failure of Russia to live up its commitments under the agreement on Cessation of Hostilities.” According to John Kerry, Russian and Syrian authorities do not seek diplomatic ways to settle the conflict and try to achieve a military victory. Moscow’s response was diametrically opposite insisting that in fact it was the US, which was not able to guarantee the main condition of cooperation - drawing border between the moderate opposition and terrorists. The Russian aviation continues to support Assad's forces in Aleppo, which became one of the symbols of resistance to opposition. The capture of the city by the government army would have great psychological advantage.

Meanwhile, the West accuses Moscow of bombing hospitals and other civilian targets, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians. According to data published by HIS, the London-based analytical and consulting center for defense and security, the number of flights made by Russian aircraft against IS forces has decreased from 26 to 17% since the beginning of 2016. The Kremlin still insists that the attacks concern only extremist organizations and calls the West to review its actions, and not only in Syria. France, on the other hand, stated that it would appeal to the International Court to investigate possible war crimes in Syria. The State Secretary John Kerry also mentioned the same.

As a matter of fact, it is not about peaceful Syrians only. On October 6, the representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense declared the readiness to employ C-400 and C-300 systems in Syria to bring down “any unidentified flying objects” over the territory controlled by the Syrian government, as they represent a clear threat to Russian troops. It was also mentioned that Russia would deploy one of its air squadrons indefinitely in Syria. The Pentagon, in turn, has warned about the introduction of its own “security measures.” At the same time, the representative of the US Department of Defense Peter Cook asked who was the target of C-300 and C-400, if the terrorists in Syria did not have aviation. On October 8, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed the transfer of Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad oblast of the Russian Federation as part of the “combat training plan.” NATO believes that Iskanders are equipped with nuclear warheads and therefore “contribute to increased tensions in the region.”

Yet another attempt to make the resolution of the situation using the diplomatic channels failed on October 8 and resulted in a new exchange of pleasantries. Russia has blocked a resolution proposed by France in the UN Security Council, which requires the establishment of a no-fly zone over Aleppo. The Russian Foreign Ministry has stated that the text of the document was “clearly dictated by Washington” and an attempt to ban the flights of aircraft over Aleppo aims at covering the terrorists of “Jabhat al-Nusra” and supporting militants. Moscow believes that the political process concerning Syria “is sabotaged by the opposition, which is patronized and protected by the West”. Following this, the UN Security Council rejected Russia’s alternative draft resolution on the plan of UN Special Representative Staffan de Mistura. The plan implied the withdrawal of Jabhat al-Nusra’s militants from Aleppo to the opposition-controlled province of Idlib.

Eventually, the Americans and their allies and partners have brought up the issue of new sanctions against Russia. WSJ reported that Germany could come up with an initiative on behalf of the entire European Union. The German Deutsche Welle wrote that there was no consensus on this issue among the German politicians. But in fact this issue is actively discussed. Incidentally, Vladimir Putin has addressed the sanctions in his relative decree made public on October 3. He suspended the Russia-U.S. Plutonium Disposition Agreement, followed by another agreement on cooperation in research and development in the nuclear and energy sectors. The Russian experts have already commented about this little-known document, especially the fact that the Americans had been unable (or unwilling) to build special facilities for industrial disposition of plutonium, and proposed storing it instead.

However, the main message of Putin is quite different. He supports his decision due to “emergence of a threat to strategic stability and as a result of unfriendly actions by the USA towards the Russian Federation”. The decree also includes a long list of conditions under which Russia might re-enforce the agreement: the reduction of US military infrastructure and the size of American troops in NATO countries, which joined the alliance after 2000, cancelling the Magnitsky Act, as well as all the provisions of the US 2014 Act on the support Ukraine’s freedom aimed against Russia, all sanctions imposed by the US on specific Russian regions, legal entities and private individuals, compensating for the damage sustained by Russia as a result sanctions, including the losses from the imposition of counter-sanctions against the USA. As someone commented on one of the social networks, it was strange that Putin did not include in this list a requirement to return Alaska. The list seems so irrational that one could suspect Putin of being devoid of common sense (which is unlikely), or that he has decided to tease “the Western partners” amidst the complex situation in Syria. The question is why he did so.

At all accounts, the overall rhetoric of both sides signals about the heated discussions. In fact, the world media and international organizations take so many liberties while covering the developments that this would have been possible only to flamboyant journalists and political analysts, and even not all of them. Thus, the Russian Foreign Ministry has stated that Washington was ready to “make a deal with the devil” meaning “to conclude an alliance with notorious terrorists” in order to “achieve the long-waited change of the regime in Damascus”. The spokesperson of the State Department John Kirby has harshly criticized Russia for its actions in Syria, saying that the terrorists “will continue to use the power vacuum to expand operations”, and will “undoubtedly” launch attacks “against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities” and Russia “will continue to lose resources, perhaps even aircraft”. The spokeswoman of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova has hit back and compared the statements of her American counterpart with a “Get ’em!” command. What ho, no less, no more! During the UN Security Council discussions about the failed resolutions on Syria, the UK’s permanent representative to the UN Matthew Rycroft has called the Russian veto “a cynical abuse of the privileges and responsibilities of permanent membership”. In response, the Russian permanent representative Vitaly Churkin has said that Britain should “stop supporting rabble worldwide and leave its colonial habits. And then the situation will be improved in many regions of the world”. These are just a few examples of diplomatic talks over the past few weeks.

The problem now is that Russia and the United States have completely different views on the situation. This is best illustrated in NYT’s recent article Russia’s Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May Be Calculated, and It May Be Working. According to NYT, “Aleppo is one of the few remaining strongholds for non-jihadist rebel groups. But months of siege forced them into a terrible choice: turn to extremists for help, or starve”. The author of the article published in one of the most influential Western newspapers believes that this is Russia’s main goal: to blur any distinction between jihadists and other rebels. At the same time, other media have hinted that the Americans can equip opposition groups with MANPADs, which can bring down Russian and Syrian aircraft. Therefore, the Western media call upon Russia to recall the Afghan experience and to ponder over its actions, which can permanently spoil Russia’s relations with the Arab world.

The Kremlin is now trying to get the most out of the situation when the outgoing US administration has essentially lost all will and desire for decisive action. Nobody in the West believes in Putin's success in Syria. After all, Russia needs a lot of resources and effort to keep the whole territory of Syria under control, while there is a little Assad can do after five years of war. This is true for the Syrian opposition as well. So, the question is what the key actors of the Syrian play intend to achieve in the long run.

Putin's intention to remain in Syria for a long time is obvious, even though it was clear ever since the Kremlin has decided to support Assad. But it is still unclear what exactly will be Washington’s response to the developments. As mentioned above, it is unlikely to expect active steps from the current US administration in Syria before the upcoming presidential elections. The rest will depend on the future president: Trump, who has a more or less conciliatory mood towards Moscow, or Clinton known for her hawkish aspirations and who has long forgotten about the “reset” button, which she had so selflessly clicked together with minister Lavrov. During the second debate with Trump, Mrs. Clinton has promised to “challenge” Putin if she won and to investigate “war crimes” in Syria. However, judging by recent statements of American politicians and publications in various media, it seems the American establishment still has no agreement about the stance on Russia. This is the very first thing that makes the current situation different from the “cold war” of the 20th century: the USSR was a univocal enemy back in that time. The situation is not so primitive now.

A serious deterioration of relations between Washington and Moscow implies a number of unpleasant moments for the international community as well. First and foremost, it means the weakening of control over nuclear weapons: if the two world powers cannot agree, then what to expect of other countries with nuclear ambitions? Furthermore, the tensions between the Russian Federation and the United States may well spread from the territory of Syria to other regions of the world, for example, Ukraine. The Central Asian countries, the Baltic region, Moldova, the Balkans, and, alas, the South Caucasus are all under serious threats. Of course, there will no direct clashes between Russia and the US/NATO, but they are virtually sorting out their relationship in Syria.