The international community has been cautious in its comments on the rather unexpected statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin who announced the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria. Let us recall that the master of the Kremlin said on March 14 that the main objectives assigned to the Russian Ministry of Defense had been achieved, and the bulk of Russian forces would now leave the country. Even so, Russian military infrastructure in Syria, including the Khmeimim air base and naval basing facilities in Tartus, will keep operating. Officially, the remaining forces will be tasked with monitoring the ceasefire.
Some publications, including British The Times, covered it as follows: “Putin keeps West guessing with shock withdrawal from Syria.” Officials of the UN Security Council called Putin’s decision “a positive step.” “When we see forces withdrawing, it means war is taking a different step. So that is good. It came as a result of a fruitful cooperation between the US and Russia,” said president of the UN Security Council Ismael Gaspar Martins, who saw in this “a new trend for a political settlement.” Meanwhile, European leaders in Brussels commented cautiously on this decision of the Russian president. “Any steps that help achieve de-escalation of violence are very important,” Catherine Ray said; she serves as spokesperson for EU High Representative for Foreign Policy Federica Mogherini.
Meanwhile, chairman of the US Senate Committee on Armed Forces Senator John McCain believes that Putin’s statement on the withdrawal of armed forces from Syria confirms the latter’s belief that “he has killed enough of the opponents of the murderous Bashar Assad regime to ensure its survival.” However, the senator warned about the possible consequences of this Russian move. “And as Russia turns its resource and attention elsewhere, I fear that a bloody spring is coming again to Ukraine,” the senator said in a statement posted on his website.
President of the Brookings Institution Strobe Talbott is wondering what to expect next. “Putin is keeping his option of going back full-force in Syria. This ceasefire could be like Ukrainian one,” he tweeted.
Senior fellow at the Transatlantic Academy in Washington, expert of the Carnegie Europe Center in Brussels Ulrich Speck suggests that support for the war in Syria has become more expensive and risky for the Kremlin. “In Syria, Russia has become a body guard of Assad but failed to turn the tide towards comprehensive reconquest of territory. It now looks much less in control of Syria than before, and so the Kremlin leaves as long as it can sell success story,” the analyst believes.
For her part, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Lilia Shevtsova posted on Facebook that Putin took the audience by surprise once again. “Withdrawing troops when the ceasefire is in doubt, thus losing a trump card in the battle for the format of the peace process, cannot be logically explained,” she believes. In her opinion, the Kremlin’s attempt to get out of the Syrian trap does not mean changing the vector of its policy. “It is about finding a more flexible model of survival due to narrowing resource potential and unwillingness to confront the West,” Shevtsova stressed.
Doctor of Political Sciences, conflict resolution scholar, Professor of Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Hryhorii Perepelytsia believes that the statement of the Russian president on withdrawing troops from Syria indicates that Barack Obama and Putin agreed on a package solution for Ukraine and Syria. “The withdrawal means that Putin has made concessions to America on the Syrian issue during the Geneva talks on Syria. But it looks like the Americans have had to pay for it by making concessions on the Ukrainian issue, I mean the Donbas. Obviously, this will involve lifting of some sanctions at least, and forcing Ukraine to capitulate through agreeing to hold elections in the Donbas according to Putin’s scheme. However, we are yet to see what concessions the Americans have made and to what extent,” he said.
The Day asked head of the Department of Asian and African History of the Institute of World History at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Viacheslav SHVED to comment on Putin’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria and how it might threaten Ukraine.
“The decision taken by the Russian president on March 14 to order withdrawal of the bulk of his military forces from Syria is actually evidence of their failure to complete the tasks set before the Russian military and everyone involved in this gamble which began on September 30 past year.
“What did Putin want to achieve by it? First of all, he hoped to divert attention from Ukraine and obtain a springboard for negotiations with the US aiming to exchange Russia’s participation in the fight against the ISIS for the US ignoring his actions in Ukraine.
“Secondly, Putin saw that he could intervene in the affairs of the Middle East at that point, especially in Syria, and actually create a springboard there which would restore the influence of the Soviet Union, which is Putin’s dearest dream. He aimed to ensure that no decision on the Middle East could be taken without consulting Russia. It was essentially about Russia desperately trying to re-enter the circle of the most powerful and influential world powers. Of course, Putin’s other task was to keep Assad as a political figure which has turned into his obedient puppet, and to use the Syrian dictator to achieve Russian objectives in the Middle East.
“However, the Russian intervention made the Sunni world, which in fact covers 95 percent of Muslims, to feel the need to mobilize in the face of this dangerous attack. To complicate it further, a direct clash with Turkey occurred when the Turkish Air Force shot down a Russian bomber over its territory. When Saudi King Salman called on the Sunni world to unite in a single coalition, 35 states responded to his call literally within three days. Following it, Iran began to withdraw its troops from Syria. Meanwhile, a few weeks ago, Saudi Arabia hosted a military exercise on an unprecedented scale, which involved military personnel and equipment from a dozen Muslim countries.
“That is, Russia found itself facing a united front of most Muslim countries. This immediately had an impact on the internal political situation in Russia itself, where about 20 million citizens are Muslim, and overwhelmingly Sunni at that.
“On the other hand, Russian troops in Syria, rather than fight the ISIS, concentrated on bombing rebel positions, civilians, and cities in the areas that had been liberated and were controlled by anti-Assad opposition.
“Despite Putin’s best efforts and willingness to shed a lot of innocent blood through the actions of his soldiers, it did not work, and Assad remained in isolation. I think that Putin’s advisers figured out that they had to get out of Syria before things turn sour. In fact, Assad is doomed, and neither his neighbors, nor Turkey, nor Saudi Arabia, nor other countries see any future for him, so the Russians needed to stop this operation. Moreover, Putin realized that he could not fight on two fronts at once.”
Some analysts say that with troops withdrawing from Syria now, Putin can focus on Ukraine and restart active hostilities here. What do you think of such a turn of events?
“Of course, such a danger exists. Theoretically, we cannot rule out such a course of events. But it seems more likely to me that active work will begin now on a plan for conducting elections in Luhansk and Donetsk regions, which are controlled by Russia and the separatists.
“But I think that Putin has lost the Syrian campaign and is unlikely to dare to restart overt aggression against Ukraine after that. Theoretically, everything is possible with the Russians. In my opinion, the most likely scenario is a formula of imposing reintegration of these regions on Ukraine. Putin will try to leave his soldiers there and use these regions to block the further advance of Ukraine in the European direction and our rapprochement with the EU and the US.”
John HERBST, former US Ambassador to Ukraine, member of the Atlantic Council, Washington, D.C.:
“Mr. Putin’s announced decision to withdraw significant forces from Syria complements Moscow’s efforts to convene the peace talks. What we do not know is whether his intention is really to withdraw. Today we have seen continuing Russian bombing in Syria. And even if he withdraws some forces, he will still retain forces in all of the bases from which they have been operating. When Moscow announced the decision to intervene in Syria last September, it reduced its military operations in the Donbas, but did not end them.
“The US position remains that there is no connection between the Syria and Ukraine crisis. So even if Mr. Putin withdrew all of his forces from Syria that would not soften US opposition to his policies in Ukraine. And it was good to see today that EU Foreign Ministers said their policy toward Moscow would change until it fully implemented its Minsk obligations.”
