Russia’s military action in Syria raises the stakes for Europe in a significant way, but how should we react? One temptation is to pull back from anything that might smack of provocation: the Russian bear is growling; let’s see how we can quieten it down, goes that line of thinking. And talking to Russia is necessary – even more so now. But that is not the same as rolling over and making the concessions Moscow demands. That is a trap Vladimir Putin could be setting. Resilience is called for. If Europe wants better relations with Russia, firm messages are urgently needed.

First, European officials should be clear that nothing positive will be achieved in Syria if the protection of civilians isn’t put at the centre of any overall strategy. Prioritising civilians isn’t only necessary for humanitarian reasons – it is a topic that will make things slightly less comfortable for Russia: its “anti-terrorist” wars in Chechnya are a dismal legacy that should be recalled.

Russia admits targeting non-Isis groups in Syria as airstrikes continue Read more

Second, Europe should make plain to Russia that Ukraine’s independence, free choices and territorial integrity will not be bargained away for Russian cooperation in dealing with Bashar al-Assad. Russia’s moves in Syria must not be “rewarded” by European attempts to appease it through concessions on Europe’s security architecture. That would be a recipe for more Russian sabre-rattling, not less.

To fathom Putin’s motivations, it’s worth remembering a notorious quote from 2006. Describing the use of American military power, he said: “The wolf knows who to eat. He eats and listens to no one.” The same formula could now apply to Putin. Having carved out a new zone of influence in Ukraine last year, he feels emboldened to pivot to the Middle East. The paradox is that his moves mirror, in a twisted way, the very actions he has criticised in western policy in recent years. The Russian president has long had harsh words about US military bases around the world, but has now developed new Russian military bases in Syria. Putin has long spoken against western interventionism as something that fuels chaos, but now here he is very much engaged in military interventionism, in a way that adds to, rather than reduces, the level of violence.

It is key, in trying to understand Putin, to see, behind all his talk of international law, a deeply ingrained desire to cast Russia as a re-emerging superpower able to set conditions on other players, first and foremost the US. Hoisting Russia to the level of a central interlocutor with the US is essential to his domestic political narrative of being the strongman who restores cold war duality. What is happening in Syria is no doubt of historical proportions, and that is the line being fed by the Kremlin’s domestic propaganda. It is the first time Russian troops have been put in combat mode outside the former Soviet Union since the 1980s in Afghanistan – a war Putin’s regime has described as being triggered by the US, not Moscow.

So where does this US-Russia competition, as framed by Putin, leave Europe ? The temptation is already strong to try to buy Russian cooperation. Russia, not America, is Europe’s strategic neighbor, after all. The Obama administration has shown itself less interested in Europe than in Asia. But how Europeans react to Putin over Syria will weigh on our longer term strategy towards Russia. One worrying signal came from Germany’s vice-chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, who indicated that EU sanctions against Russia would have to be lifted for diplomacy to progress on Syria. That kind of logic puts Europe in a double bind. The refugee crisis has served as a dramatic reminder that Syria lies in Europe’s backyard – again, not America’s. It’s not surprising that European policymakers are struggling to make sense of Putin’s endgame in Syria, just as they have pondered his intentions in Ukraine. Keeping everyone guessing is a key feature of the Kremlin’s approach, as it plays its cards in opportunistic ways.

Some things aren’t in doubt. Russia has taken advantage of western – specifically, American – hesitation about how to address the new global security challenges whether in the Middle East or on the eastern rim of Europe. The Obama doctrine of winding down foreign engagements, and focusing on counter-terrorism (fighting Isis, but not seriously dealing with the Syrian civil war over the past four years), has been read by Russia as a gambit to capitalise on. One striking coincidence: Russia launched airstrikes on targets in Syria just days ahead of a summit on Ukraine in Paris, where Putin today met François Hollande, Angela Merkel and Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s president. It’s unlikely that the timing of the airstrikes was calibrated to coincide with that diplomatic event, but the symbolism is strong nevertheless.

Some Kremlin-watchers believe Putin is trying to shift attention from Ukraine. Either he believes his territorial conquest in Ukraine has reached a limit, or he is worried about how the campaign has been draining Russian resources at a time when the country is facing a severe economic recession. That would explain why the war in the Donbass has somewhat calmed down in recent weeks. But the military engagement in Syria may turn out to be no less costly. Some Russian security sources have been privately saying that Moscow cannot withstand a long, drawn-out air campaign.

This is why Europe should hold its ground on Ukraine, and not lift sanctions before the Minsk agreement to end the fighting is fully enforced. Time may not be on Russia’s side, as it enters the Syrian quagmire. The other thing Europe must do is think harder about the fallout from US disengagement: Obama’s failures in Syria have had dire consequences for the region, for civilians, and for Europe whose divisions have grown because of the refugee crisis. The divisions serve Putin’s strategic calculus – witness how populist political groups have applauded him. The connection between the Syrian crisis and Europe’s travails is something Russia seems to be paying more attention to than the US is. Europeans must reflect on that before they make hasty moves.