At first glance, the recent missile attacks on Syria as a response to Assad’s forces once again using chemical weapons seemed to be another attempt to use an expensive firework display to intimidate a repeat offender to conform. Over 100 missiles fired from ships and aircraft at three confirmed targets with speculation that other facilities were also hit. US President Donald Trump described the strikes as a strong deterrent against the production and use of chemical weapons and UK Prime Minister Theresa May claimed that degrading the regime’s chemical weapons capacity would help alleviate further humanitarian suffering. However, considering that the Syrian regime had the best part of a week to prepare for the attack and that US Defence Secretary James Mattis describe it as a “one-time shot” it’s difficult to see how such actions will deter the now serial offender. So, what were they really trying to achieve?

The decision to take military action was made after the permanent members of the UN Security Council failed to come to an agreement on how to respond to the chemical attacks. Simply put, Russia vetoed any resolution put forward by the US, UK and France, and vice versa. And this is what the decision to fire missiles into Syria is really about, a deterioration of the relationship between Russia and the West. Over the past decade, relations have become increasingly hostile. As a starting point, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 is often cited, though in reality there were many warning signs prior to this, going back to Kosovo in 1999. Since then Russia has annexed Crimea from Ukraine, propped up and saved the regime in Syria, worked to undermine European cooperation, launched countless cyber attacks against Western countries, committed multiple assassinations and assassination attempts in foreign countries; including the recent Salisbury nerve agent attack in the UK, and been accused of tampering in the 2016 US Presidential elections. But Russia’s actions aren’t without provocation. Since the end of the Cold War, Western foreign policy has ensured that the foundations for the future relationship with the new Russia were built on sand. At the forefront of every Russian strategist’s mind has been the expansion of Nato into what was previously the USSR’s sphere of influence. The result is that Russia feels cornered along its European border. This has been compounded by the suggestion of Nato developing missile defence systems in Eastern Europe that Russia sees as an attempt to undermine its own defence systems. This is all in addition to what Russia sees as the US and its closest allies habit of mounting military operations aimed at regime change. Taken together, from the Russian perspective there is a genuine mistrust of Western intentions.

In response to Russia’s actions, NATO has re-deployed forces along its eastern border with multinational battalions being stationed in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and a battalion of 4,000 American troops with heavy armour being deployed in Poland. However, these forces are more symbolic than an actual deterrent. They are there to reassure Nato’s Eastern members and act as a tripwire. In addition, the West has been routinely applying sanctions against Russia. These contributed to the Russian economy slipping into recession and financial crisis. This occurred at the same time as a drop in oil price that combined resulted in the Russian currency plummeting and saw massive capital flight. Due to sanctions on financial services the government was forced to use its foreign currency reserves to relieve the economy. Sanctions and the drop in the value of the ruble also saw inflation forcing the central bank to raise interest rates. As a result, the sanctions have been credited by some for reducing Russian activity in Ukraine. Despite these setbacks, the Russian economy has now returned to growth and the sanctions appear to have done little to damage the popularity of the Russian government at home or dissuaded it from continuing to aggressively push its agenda abroad. Since sanctions were first applied, Russia has been accused of influencing both the Brexit vote and US Presidential elections; both of which resulted in outcomes that the Kremlin would consider favourable, and has helped stock disunity within the EU and between Europe and the US. This in addition to Russia’s now lengthy and expensive involvement in Syria.

However, in the wake of the nerve agent attacks in the UK and the chemical attacks in Syria, the West seems to have found a renewed enthusiasm for countering this aggression. Despite President Trump’s vocal admiration for President Putin, the US, along with European leaders condemned the attacks in the UK. What followed was the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats from the West since the Cold War. This was in spite of strained tensions between the UK and the rest of the EU over Brexit negotiations and the desire of many states in Europe to relieve tensions with Russia; in particular, Germany.

The missile attacks against Syria were a further attempt by the West to demonstrate unity in opposing what is perceived as Russian aggression against its interests. Along with the US; the UK and France also provided military assets that participated in the strikes. The actions of these states also received the verbal support of NATO as a whole; though perhaps begrudgingly. German Chancellor Angela Merkel voiced her support for the attack, but Germany did not participate.

From the face version of events the purpose of the missile strike was to show a response to Syria’s use of Chemical weapons, but beneath the surface, this was a demonstration to Russia. It was to show that West stood united against what it perceives as broader Russian aggression and support of a regime that uses chemical weapons. It was to make clear that despite the fact that an Assad victory in Syria is a foregone conclusion, Russia would not be able to solely dictate the terms of peace and that the West would have influence over the shape of post-war Syria, even if it means prolonging the conflict.

Finally, these strikes could be seen as a live fire field test of yet untested technologies; the results of which will be studied and put into scenarios for the next decade. The Russian S-400 missile system has been deployed in Syria since 2015; is considered the most advanced anti-air system currently available and was designed to counter stealth fighters such as the American F-35. While there were no reports of a direct confrontation between Russian and Western forces, both sides would have been collecting data about the others capacity to counter their forces.

Considering what this missile attack achieved from the stated intention of Western leaders, the end result can only be described as not much. To believe that a repeat offender such as Assad is going to be deterred in the longer term by such strikes would be to ignore recent history, where similar smaller actions achieved no such results. However, within broader geopolitics this action by Western power demonstrates a stark reality – a new Cold War is already well underway.