Carl Bildt is right about not rewarding Assad and Putin for destroying Syria by helping rebuild the war-torn country, which, apart from over 500,000 deaths throughout the seven years, could cost up to $1 trillion. Last week in a meeting with Angela Merkel, Putin called on the EU to contribute to the reconstruction, saying it would be in Europe’s interest, so that refugees could return. But Assad has “explicitly” refused to let European companies play a role, and that Russian firms be prioritised, which would allow crooks and war criminals to line their pockets.

The author says, “the last thing that Europeans should do is send money directly to Assad. A far better option is to offer direct financial support to individuals and families that are willing and able to return to their country.” Indeed, we must reject Putin’s cynical request. Last month he pressed the US and others to help rebuild areas under regime control, which would further cement Assad’s grip on power and secure Russia’s presence.

Putin is widely responsible for the Syrians’ plight, following his intervention on September 30, 2015. Russian airpower exacerbated the refugee crisis in Europe, when Germany opened its borders in summer 2015. He doubled down on his carpet-bombing, driving civilians out of rebel-held areas. It is obvious that Russia has neither the means nor “intention of footing even a small part of the bill. Apparently, the Kremlin does not feel as though it has a duty to rebuild the cities and restore the livelihoods that its bombs destroyed.” On the contrary, Putin is supercilious enough to impose his will on European leaders.

The author says, the US is not “particularly eager to help. Just last week, the Trump administration canceled $230 million in funding for the reconstruction of Raqqa and other areas liberated from ISIS. It is now hoping that Saudi Arabia will foot the bill instead.” If Riyadh were willing to contribute, it would certainly demand for the withdrawal of troops in Syria backed by Iran, on which Assad and Putin so much rely to secure territorial gains. It might also call for Assad’s stepping down in order to appease the Sunni majority population.

Besides, “it is not clear that Assad even wants displaced Syrians to return.” He is said to be exploiting the devastation on the ground “to reengineer the country’s ethnic and political composition, making it safer for his own minority sect, the Alawites.” The author says, “a new law grants refugees just one year to reclaim their property before the government seizes it; and other bureaucratic requirements seem designed to allow Syrian authorities to refuse reentry to anyone they don’t like.”

Surrounded by Sunni nations, that have backed the opposition, Assad’s Syria will remain unstable, leaving fertile ground for the Islamic State or other extremists to return. The seven-year long carnage may not be over so soon, even though Assad wants to claim victory, saying he has eradicated “terrorism.” But it is a Pyrrhic victory at “a horrible cost,” because he now “rules over the wreckage of a country.”

The author says, “US efforts to establish a “moderate” armed opposition achieved little, apart from giving the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) – an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – control of the strip of northern Syria abutting the Turkish border. The only thing left to do now is to destroy Al Nusra’s remaining enclave in Idlib and broker some kind of settlement between the YPG and Assad,” because Turkey has long warned that it will not tolerate control of much of its border with Syria by the Syrian Kurds.

But it is unclear whether the Kurds will be able to negotiate with the Assad regime and secure themselves a certain degree of autonomy. Such a move would certainly trigger outrage from Ankara.