Adding Syria to the Russia-Ukraine Mix

Adding Syria to the Russia-Ukraine Mix

The Russian military presence in Syria once again points to the importance of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy initiatives against Russia in response to the Ukraine Invasion. Russia still has a vast investment in its military; it has succeeded in modernizing at least a modest expeditionary force. The economic power to extend the reach of its military has been sharply curtailed by the impact of the Obama and internationally supported economic sanctions. Were it not for the sanctions and the breach of the global rules of law by Putin in the Ukraine, Russia would be cash-strapped by low oil prices, but fully incentivized to exploit geopolitical situations for economic gain.  The venture into Syria shows that they must select opportunities based on loyalties rather than primarily for  gain.

In Syria:  A Russian Military Display

Russian military hardware and tactical coordination is on display in Syria and they have equipped the force with some weapons that would only be useful in a fight with the US and its allies.  To that extent, the entry into Syria is a provocation to the US. The Russians no doubt feel bullied and cowed by the Western reaction to its invasion of its peaceful Ukraine neighbor. Apparently, in international affairs as well as typical childhoods, the bully does not like being bullied.

The Russian weaponry on display in Syria plays well in that limited theater. They fire  long range cruise missiles at will. There is no opposition to Russia in the air, neither ISIS, Al Qaida, the Kurds, nor do the insurgent freedom fighter militias have air power. Russia also gains intimate exposure to the ground conditions and militarily important features of the Syrian infrastructure. This is similar to the deconstruction of Iraq by the US under Bush I and II. By the time of the second invasion, the US knew more about Iraq’s military than did the Iraq command and control structure.

Ukraine is still at the Apex

Russia is in position once again to broker a lasting peace in Syria; just a two years ago they saved Assad by taking his stores of chemical weapons and ending his murderous use of chemical weapons against his people. There is little to indicate that Russia did so for humanitarian reasons, since today they have committed men, money, and materiel to save the Assad regime from the destruction it deserves. The lesson of the US folly in Iraq resonates in this situation;  destroying a government - even a bad government- creates a vacuum that can be exploited by people even worse than Assad.

Although Syria takes the news focus, the apex of US-Russian relations is the Ukraine.  The commitment of the West to those 40 plus million Ukrainians to work with Western governments and economies is a vital, long-term US interest.  That it might also provoke change in Russia so that they too adopt peaceful means of achieving goals has strategic importance.  The intervention in Syria has a military component to be sure. But it also has a strategic importance based in peaceful resolution of conflicts.  The ongoing effort to restore democracy to Syria depends on removing the Assad government. Even for Russia, the political and economic costs of keeping Assad will be prohibitive, and perhaps they- like the US and its allies- are learning that diplomacy can be as effective as a bomb or bullet.

US and Ukraine- Joined at the Apex

In its defense of Ukraine, the Obama Administration demonstrated a lesson that hopefully will transcend its term and be enrolled as a tool for future usage. Without firing a bullet, the US has curtained Russian military ambition in Eastern Europe. By firing banking and other sanctions, it has had the impact of falling bombs; the Russian economy has shrunk and its military power has been limited by the suddenly short arms of its economy.

Ukraine Still Front and Center

Ukraine has become the apex or fulcrum issue in US-Russia relations.  Russia has made taking Ukraine a national cause internally, and the costs it pays in economic chaos seems a worthy sacrifice for national pride. The involvement with ISIS stands on a different ground, as it may occasion huge numbers of casualties to engage ISIS. Their numbers have swelled with large influxes of fighters estimated at over 35,000. Reports persist that some of the experienced fighters joining ISIS are ex-Chechnya freedom fighters. This indicates that Russia like the US has created conditions that feed the ISIS movement.

 Syria and Iraq

The Russian role in Syria and Iraq will be helpful if it strengthens the fight against ISIS. It will be harmful if it weakens those governments and makes them dependent on Russia for long-term security. The argument Putin makes to sustain Assad’s government in Syria is arguable. The vacuum of a missing government in Syria would be worse than the existing vacuum of a failed, murderous and corrupt Syrian government. The middle ground is a bitter pill for US policy, sustaining Assad is anathema. Replacing Assad seems easier than it is; the lesson of Saddam and Iraq is instructive, greater brutality is possible in the vacuum of power.

Prognosis

Among the favorable outcomes would be an end to the civil war in Syria so that the US can broker a clear front against ISIS.  Russia may be a key player in that scenario because it has a relationship with Assad and his government. Russia has shown something else, it has no political restrictions on putting heavy armaments and thousands of troops on the ground in Syria and Iraq. In the event of heavy fighting and disadvantageous terrain, the situation could quickly turn into guerrilla warfare against an enemy that has no physical territory or structure to defend. Of all of the involved nations, Putin’s Russia might be the least affected by rising numbers of casualties. The US can lead the diplomatic efforts and supply large amounts of training assistance, arms, and technological support like logistics, communications and drone bombers. The situation of US and Russian military forces cooperating in a field of combat is remarkable, and holds some potential for good.

the power of tides

Albert Einstein once stated that: “Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.” He did not speak of global climate change, but I apply his words to it as if it were a problem, created at a particular level of awareness.

Global Climate Change is a problem caused by people who were quite aware of the risks they created. The inventors and manufacturers of gasoline powered engines understood fully. The planned that the air we must breathe was the preferred dumping place for toxic substances and carbon wastes. A lack of understanding existed at the public level when we assumed that a few million cars, buses and trucks would not cause problems; nor would enough coal burning to power our homes and cities. The public surmised that the government would not permit massive activity that caused massive harms, and that traditional methods of food and energy production were safe because they had persisted over many generations.

When evidence mounted, and events began to cause human suffering, the level of public knowledge began to change. A cadre of thinkers who knew the connection between carbon and the atmospheric changes in process began to spread information. The counter arguments have proceeded in a similar direction; far from responsibility, they project blame elsewhere.

The marketplace of ideas has always been a cauldron. Ideas that cause greater life and abundance must compete with those that cause destruction. Human have frequently adopted ideas that caused ruin and suffering. War is an example, and reckless industrial activity is another. That poor ruse “I am not a scientist…” is actually the correct answer. The level of knowledge needed to combat global climate change from human activity is not scientific; rather it is social, it is based on survival and, to succeed, it must come from the roots. The sword and shield of climate change have the same origin. It will rise as a sword to pursue disastrous continuation or as a shield to protect populations from public knowledge. We will ultimately only accept that we, as a body of humanity, voluntarily agree to accept.

The battlefield is a metaphorical Armageddon on the landscape of human thought processes. Forces of annihilation and mercy are at painful odds. The struggle for human souls has a path through the human mind, and it is made of words and thoughts but with the power of tides.