Is Syria the Most Dangerous Place on Earth?

Is Syria the Most Dangerous Place on Earth?

SYRIA was the last outpost of Communist Russia’s imperial dreams.

President Vladimir Putin did not want to let it go.

Now, according to an assessment published in the professional journal of the US Army, the Military Review, he’s won.

By direct implication, this implies a serious strategic setback for the United States.

The Syrian Civil War has seen hundreds of thousands killed in more than 12 years of fighting.

It was sparked by an uprising during what was then known as the “Arab Spring” — a democratic surge among the newly social-media linked citizens of the Middle East.

But the Arab Winter has since well and truly set in.

US trained and supplied Syrian rebels have failed to oust President Bashar al-Assad. Instead, they spent much of their force rolling back Islamic State.

Assad himself has found renewed security in Moscow’s embrace.

“The Syrian conflict will likely enter a new phase in 2018, as both Islamic State and the Syrian opposition cease to be relevant forces, and the two coalitions seek to negotiate a postconflict settlement,” the assessment reads.

“While it is far from assured that any settlement acceptable to the principle domestic and international players can be struck, for now the main outcome of this war is that President Bashar al-Assad will stay, but the Syria that existed before the war is gone.”

WAKING THE BEAR

Post Cold-War Russia has been concerned by the United States’ ongoing interventions worldwide.

It didn’t like the idea of military intervention in Libya to oust Ghadaffis’ regime. And the prospect of assertive “regime change” in its former client state of Syria was even more unpalatable.

This appeared to be the case in 2011, when then President of the United States Barack Obama declared President Assad a dictator and demanded he step aside.

Russia immediately set about blocking any intervention in Syria through the United Nations, and began quietly restocking Assad’s arsenal.

But soon Assad found himself in trouble.

His forces had retreated to a few coastal and border cities. Rebels held much of Syria’s heartland. And the black flag of Islamic State was rolling in from the Iraq desert.

So, in 2015, Moscow directly intervened.

It sent in its combat jets.

“Russia has only been directly involved in this conflict since September 2015, but its intervention has radically changed the war’s outcome,” the US Army publication states. “The natural question is whether Russia has, in fact, won a victory.”

PUTIN’S GAMBIT

Moscow, the assessment argues, didn’t want to look weak.

It was struggling to adapt to international pressure and sanctions imposed after its 2014 annexation of Crimea and the shadow-invasion of eastern Ukraine.

“Rather than giving in to Western pressure and offering concessions on Ukraine, Moscow looked to Syria to broaden the confrontation on terms more favourable to itself,” the article says. “Eventually, Russia hoped its Syrian intervention could force Washington and its European allies to abandon Ukraine-related sanctions and diplomatic isolation in the interests of achieving a negotiated settlement with Russia over Syria.”

Since 2015, Russian forces have shored up Assad’s front lines.

There have been few retreats. Now, his troops are advancing once again.

And Russian bombers are frequently seen in the skies of the last rebel strongholds, such as the city of Ghouta.

RELATED: Russia’s Su-57 stealth fighter faces-off against US F-22

“A successful intervention could offer victory on three fronts: preventing US-backed regime change in Syria, breaking out of political isolation and forcing Washington to deal with Russia as an equal, and demonstrating at home that Russia is a great power on the main stage of international politics,” the US army assessment states. “Moscow hoped Syria would offer a new and more favourable front, where the United States could be outmanoeuvred in the broader confrontation.”

Now, in 2018, Assad’s position is once again secure.

Islamic State is all but defeated.

US-supported rebel forces are being rolled back.

The Kurd separatist ethnic group in the north is buckling under a Turkish invasion.

And US/Coalition combat jets and ground-forces can do little but look on.

In this broad context, it does look as though Moscow can claim some sort of victory.

MOSCOW’S METHODS

“Russia has become a potential powerbroker, and perhaps a balancer against US influence, even if it did not embark on the Syrian campaign with those goals in mind,” the Army press article states.

Achieving such a goal was not easy.

Moscow had to destroy the Syrian Rebels’ capacity to fight. It had to fend off concerns from Turkey, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

“The risks of escalation to direct conflict between the intervening powers were considerable, as underscored by Syria’s use of chemical weapons in March 2017, resulting in a prompt retaliatory US cruise missile strike, or the Turkish shoot down of a Russian Su-24M2 in November 2016,” the article highlights.

RELATED: US troops clash with Russian mercenaries in Syria

Moscow-controlled media was prolific in showing images of its Su-30 strike fighters and Su-24 bombers on the runway of the Hmeimim Air Base. Much ado was made about a foray by Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Kuznetzov, with its battlefleet into the Eastern Mediterranean.

And cruise-missile strikes from Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers, along with those fired from submarines and warships, repeatedly made the headlines.

Meanwhile, 2000 of its mercenaries and 3000 soldiers were on the ground in Syria, ensuring pressure was being applied where it was needed most.

All the while, the battle against US-backed “moderate” Syrian rebels was being painted by Moscow as just another act in the war against “terrorism”.

TRUMP’S CAPITULATION

“Over time, Moscow achieved success on both the military and political fronts, coercing adversaries and negotiating changes to their positions one by one, though the pathway to this outcome was hardly a smooth or straightforward one,” the authors note. “Russia’s success is not unqualified, but at the time of this writing, it appears that if the campaign in Syria is not a victory for Russia, it is certainly a defeat for those who opposed the Russian-led coalition.”

But all is not clear-cut for Moscow.

The US army highlights it is not truly in control of its Syria-Iran coalition.

Which makes it vulnerable to fallout from their independent actions.

“(The) latest declaration of victory, ahead of the March 2018 presidential election, is fraught with risk since Russian forces are not just staying but further expanding the infrastructure at Tartus and Hmeimim,” the assessment reads.

International sanctions are still in place. And Russia is becoming increasingly associated with Assad’s chemical weapons attacks.

But it also notes Moscow has won international acceptance of its role as a key player in Syria’s future.

And with US President Donald Trump now telegraphing a rapid and complete withdrawal of US assets in Syria “very soon”, this would leave President Vladimir Putin as the last man standing on top of the pile of rubble that remains behind.

“In sum, Russia appears to have won at least a partial victory in Syria, and done so with impressive efficiency, flexibility, and co-ordination between military and political action,” the assessment concludes. “On the one hand, Russia’s embrace of the Assad regime and its Iranian allies, its relative indifference to civilian casualties, and its blanket hostility to antiregime opposition groups are fundamentally at odds with widely held US views on Syria. On the other hand, Russia’s “lean” strategy, adaptable tactics, and co-ordination of military and diplomatic initiatives offer important lessons for the conduct of any military intervention in as complex and volatile an environment as the Middle East.”