Is Russia Really Withdrawing

Is Russia Really Withdrawing?

Monday’s announcement of the Russian withdrawal from Syria was surprising to western analysts and media.  Unused to a quick insertion and withdrawal from peacekeeping missions, many had believed that Russia had engaged itself in the quagmire of Middle Eastern politics for the discernible future.

 Putin certainly appeared sincere in his intention to withdraw in the Kremlin’s televised cabinet meeting with Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, stating that,

“the objective set before the Defence Ministry and the Armed Forces is generally fulfilled, so I order the Defence Ministry to begin withdrawing the main part of our military group from the Syrian Arab Republic beginning tomorrow”

Soon reports began to circulate that Washington and Moscow had come to a secret deal over the Ukraine, or that recent economic sanctions would soon be lifted.

War or Something Like it

The reality is somewhat less surprising; Putin, ever the politician,  was engaging in some good old fashion doublespeak.  In the meeting it can be noted that Putin remarks that he wants the Russian run maritime base in Tartus and Hmeymim Airbase to continue to function and be protected from land, sea and air. Arguing that,

This part of our military group was located in Syria over the course of many previous years, and today, it must continue to fulfil the highly important function of monitoring the ceasefire and creating conditions for the peace process.

So in reality the withdrawal is merely a drawdown of certain military platforms like the Su-25 strike aircraft and Su-34 bombers that were inserted into Syria after October 2015. Remaining will be the Su-24 bombers and Mi-24 and Mi-35 attack helicopters, as well as the Su-30SM and Su-35 multirole fighters with the deadly S-400 long range air defence missiles and the shorter range systems.

Ground troops and naval cover forces protecting and operating these bases will remain and any of those forces advising and helping Syrian forces will remain in an advisory capacity. In short this announced withdrawal is merely another way for Russia to change around its equipment and personnel while at the same time not really changing its presence or undermining its assets in the country.

Reports in the last few days that Russia has continued to provide air support during the battle for Palmyra support this hypothesis as do the statements of Moscow’s ambassador to the UN’s Vitaly Chulkin  that drones would still be in use over Syria supporting the government forces. Russia also has plans to expand the Tartus naval base and utilise Syria as combat training for its new helicopters the Ka-52 and Mi-28N.

Training Grounds

If Russia is still maintaining its position in Syria, what else does it want? Thanks to the Kremlins transcript it is possible to see the reason for Putin’s sudden involvement in Syria last October. Putin was simply shooting two birds with one arrow. By supporting the Assad regime and defending its strategic interests it allowed Russia to test its weapons systems and tactical operating concepts. Or as Putin’s states,

In a short period, Russia has created a military group that is small in number but quite effective – one consisting of different types of forces and diverse capabilities.

Soft Diplomacy

Now that Russia has met its goal of supporting the Assad regime to a position of control, it appears that it is prepared for the transition to soft diplomacy as the next step. Prior to Russia’s announced withdrawal the Assad government had been playing tough at the peace negotiations. According to Joshua Landis the Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma the Assad regime had expressed “a constant drumbeat of confidence that they’re going to take back every inch of Syrian soil, and Russia is their partner.” 

However President Putin does not seem to have received that memo. Instead, Vladimir Putin has clearly indicated to Bashar al Assad that he is not wearing the big boots anymore. Rather, Putin, by announcing his withdrawal, is reminding Assad of who has provided his power in the hope that this will force the Assad regime to the negotiation table in Geneva. 

Concessions

While it is hoped that a peace deal can be reached, getting everyone to agree will be difficult. Currently the plan being tossed around by the Russian and Western powers is a one devised by John Kerry, US Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. According to The Economist both men discussed the possibility of partitioning of Syria into a federalist state based along clan, and sectarian divisions.

In this vision the territory in the west, running roughly from Latakia in the north down to Damascus in the south would be controlled by the Alawites of whom Bashar al Assad is a member. While the Syrian-Kurdish region in the north-east, known as Rojava, would be an autonomous Kurdish region and the rest of the country would be left to the Sunni opposition forces. 

Putin Russia and the New World Order

Over the last six months Vladimir Putin has changed Russia’s international role significantly. After being consider an international pariah and fading superpower after the annexation of the Crimea, the international community is now lauding Putin for his realpolitik diplomacy in the Middle East.


By combining Russia’s military power and strong-arm diplomacy, Putin has catapulted Russia back into the role of an indispensible world power , returning the international order to a multiplayer system, much to the chagrin of America. America has declared that Russia is one of the greatest threats to the international system, according to the United States Secretary of Defence Ash Carter

“Some actors appear intent on eroding these principles and undercutting the international order that helps enforce them… Of course, neither Russia nor China can overturn that order. But both present different challenges for it …..Moscow’s nuclear sabre-rattling, raises questions about Russian leaders’ commitment to strategic stability, their respect for norms against the use of nuclear weapons, and whether they respect the profound caution nuclear-age leaders showed with regard to the brandishing of nuclear weapons.”


Secretary Carter went on to state that ,

“We do not seek a cold, let alone a hot, war with Russia. We do not seek to make Russia an enemy. But make no mistake; the United States will defend our interests, our allies, the principled international order, and the positive future it affords us all”

Challenging America or Playing by the Rules?

The problem with the United States overtly aggressive stance is that it makes Putin look calm and rational. Quite simply he appears to be the elder statesman arguing that everyone must play by the agreed upon rules. In his most recent address to the United Nations President Putin highlighted the danger he saw in arbitrary actions amongst the international community.

‘Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.’

In a later speech Putin also pointed out that the United States, is trying to keep itself as the only hegemonic power in the world, in order to support its economy. Arguing that the United States keeps its allies as vassals he declared the Americans desire to democratise the world in unattainable. Explaining how Russia had already attempted that route with socialism and failed to achieve anything other than bring itself into conflict, Putin argued that we need to accept governments for what they are instead of seeking change.

Reality is not Black and White

While this all sounds like an American dressing down, taking a closer look at many of Putin’s actions over the last year proves that this is all just rhetoric.

Russia’s involvement in the Middle East for example has provided Russia with large financial benefits from contracts to construct weapon systems in Iran and a contract to construct a dome like air defence system in Syria. Each of these systems is worth millions of dollars, and will forge new markets for Russia in the future. Likewise Russia’s military actions in Syria will open up dialogue with other nations who could then fall into the Russian sphere of influence and not America’s.


Certainly Putin has already made approaches last year to the European Union to join with the newly developed Eurasian Union in an attempt to remove them from the grasp of NATO.

Pistols at Dawn ?

So does all this posturing mean that Russia and America are preparing for a global game of Risk, where Russia and America divide the world between themselves competing constantly for military, political and economic supremacy around the globe. Certainly the return of Russia from its isolationist foreign policy has meant that the international system as we know it is now in a state of flux. As America has already identified, many nations are already acting outside of the American world system to further their own sphere of influence.

For the past year and half China has been advancing its interests in the South China sea and in Eurasia. Iran, by supporting the Assad and Iraqi government, and Hezbollah in Lebanon has long seen its role in the international system as a global player. Turkey in Syria, Saudi Arabia in Yemen and Japan in the northern pacific see themselves in a similar light.

The reality then is that the new world order is really just a return to the multiplayer world order which existed prior to World War II. The question now is how will the world cope?
A Putin World Order






Vladimir Putin in his address to the United Nations last year provides a hint of how he would like the system to work. In his address he stated


‘the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders.’



For those not aware, the 1945 Yalta Conference in the Crimea was the meeting between Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt where the three leaders attempted to reorganise Europe so that peace could be maintained. While each leader had an agenda for the conference it was where it was decided that the USSR could have a sphere of political influence in Eastern and Central Europe, to protect them.


By basing his address on the foundation of Yalta, Putin is signalling that he would like to return to a world divided by spheres of influence. In such a system Russia could demand a free hand in the former soviet territories of Central Asia, Eastern Europe and in each of its former allies like Syria.


Given the tragedy that the Yalta system created in Eastern Europe and Central Asia it appears the west may need to be aware of any further rhetoric from Putin about dividing and zoning the world.