It seems that recent Russian actions, in particular its military intervention in the Syrian conflict, have once again caught the West by surprise, even though this was preceded by the illegal annexation of Crimea, and then the Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. It seemed that the West had more than enough time to work out some kind of strategy of countering Russia, rather than just recording the Kremlin regime’s violations of international law. However, there is no such strategy yet.
“Putin has his agenda. It is time we stop reacting to his – and get back to ours,” says senior fellow of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, senior advisor at Blue Star Strategies and co-director of the Transatlantic Renewal Project Jeffrey Gedmin. In his article entitled “Forget Russia in Syria,” published in The American Interest, the American expert offered his vision of what strategy the West, particularly the US, needs to counter Russia.
Gedmin believes that America did well to resist the impulse to rashly respond to Russia’s intervention in Syria. “One should never interrupt one’s enemy when he is making a mistake,” he quoted Napoleon. “If we are lucky,” the expert continued, “Russian forces in Syria will meet a similar fate as the Soviets in Afghanistan.”
He believes that the West “needs a strategy to contain him, and to prepare for improved relations with Russia once Vlad (our Impaler) is gone.” He described this strategy as follows:
♦ “First, NATO: We must provide vigorous support for alliance members at risk – at the moment, the three Baltic States and Poland. The administration’s current plans are inadequate. Additional troops and tanks on a rotating basis are okay. Infinitely better, though, is a permanently based, brigade-size, multinational force across the Baltics. NATO’s doors must remain open for countries like Georgia, Montenegro, and Macedonia if we are serious about a Europe whole and free, and if we want to get back to setting our agenda rather than perpetually reacting to an agenda determined by others.
♦ “Second, Ukraine: We need to extend robust economic, political, and military support for Kyiv. Ukraine is not peripheral for Putin; it is at the core of his concerns. Sanctions have been useful, but they need to be expanded and sustained. However, we should also target more members of the Kremlin’s inner circle, including preventing their spouses and children from vacationing or studying abroad. A step in this direction is much more likely to put pressure on Putin directly.
♦ “Third, it is imperative that we stop fretting about how we respond to Russian propaganda. Here, too, let us focus on our agenda and on the narratives we want to advance. For that, we need to work with our European allies. Our joint efforts require the use of multiple platforms – web, radio, television, social media – and creative and compelling programming.
♦ “Fourth, the sprawling kleptocracy Putin presides over may well be the Achilles heel of his regime. Corruption is not merely a byproduct of his authoritarianism. The personal enrichment of the Kremlin leader and of those closest to him needs to be documented and fully exposed. Russians need to know the extent to which Putin and his cronies are looting their country – financially, culturally, and spiritually.”
COMMENTARY
“A SECOND FRONT”
Hryhorii PEREPELYTSIA, Doctor of Political Sciences, conflict resolution expert, professor at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv:
“I agree with the author’s ideas on the proposed strategy and in particular the need for the West to have its own agenda rather than respond to Putin’s. From the Ukrainian perspective, it is good that Putin is stuck in Syria, but should he meet no opposition on the Syrian theater of operations, it may turn into a regional and geopolitical defeat, and not only for the US, but for Saudi Arabia and the EU as well. Even so far, according to reports, more than a hundred logistics support vessels have entered the Syrian ports. The Russians are shipping a lot there to strengthen their logistics and increase munitions supplies. That is, Putin really intends to launch a broad-based military campaign there to bolster the Assad regime and to create a powerful military springboard. The forces that are fighting with the West against the Islamic State will be discredited then because Russia’s influence will be much stronger. Therefore, the configuration of forces in the region and the configuration of interests will change, strengthening Iran’s hand. Iran will then take Russia’s wishes into account far more than America’s. That agreement on freezing Iran’s nuclear program which we saw reached in the Geneva format may be reduced to nothing as well. The US will then be faced again with the Iranian threat in the region, in addition to threat of the Islamic State. As a result, the balance of power in the region will swing in favor of Russia, ending this great political and geopolitical battle with a Western defeat.
“Therefore, I would not be so sure that Putin will find this war a quagmire and then lose it. Putin can easily get out of this war, as he has deployed only aircraft and special forces that can quickly relocate. On the other hand, should the Russian air group be defeated, it will be a major blow. Unfortunately, America and its allies do not think about making it happen. Therefore, they would do well to provide these rebels with air defense weapons, as they are now suffering most from the Russian air strikes.
“I have the impression that Western analysts underestimate this Russian air tactic group’s impact on the Syrian theater of war. In a vacuum of resistance, the Russians can succeed. This military success will definitely be turned into a geopolitical victory, thus undermining the US’s influence in this region of utmost strategic importance. This can be used in bargaining, when Putin will say: ‘well, I will make concessions in this region, but give me Ukraine in return.’ His main target is Ukraine, not Syria, after all. He has just opened a second front to make the West more accommodating in its Ukrainian policy.
“We have to understand how Putin’s military intervention in Syria will end. If it ends in defeat, it will be a big plus for us. If he emerges victorious, then it will be a big minus. While Barack Obama occupies the White House, he will take into account the possibility of Putin’s victory, and bargain accordingly.”
“THE WEST IS NOT READY FOR AN ADEQUATE RESPONSE”
What do you think should the Western agenda be on Putin?
“Unfortunately, the Western agenda, as revealed by the joint stance of Obama, the Europeans, and NATO, is as follows: keep the door open for Russia to return to the strategic partnership and dialog. The West has no intention to bring about a military defeat of Russia, and not only in Ukraine, but in Syria too. This allows Putin to freely escalate the war in Syria. ”
This strategy of the West is a road to total defeat, because the only thing that can stop Putin and persuade him to compromise and negotiate is the military defeat of Russia. No other diplomatic formats, no persuasion will stop Putin. He did not stop in Crimea, but rather invaded the Donbas. He did not stop in the Donbas either, but invaded Syria. He will step up this expansion. Despite the sanctions, Russia’s resources are still sufficient to wage even a two-front war. This war is local, not regional, let alone global. For a low-intensity local war, Russia has enough resources.
“For its part, the West does not offer any resistance to this campaign. This reminds me of Hitler’s occupation of Western Europe when he met no resistance, and conquered almost all of it with paltry forces. Putin goes down the same road in Syria. We have stopped him in Ukraine, but it does not mean that there will be a final and lasting peace. The war continues and Putin wages this global war against the West, but now the epicenter of the fighting has moved, I think temporarily, from the Donbas to Syria. That is all, and the war continues. The West, and especially NATO, is not ready to offer an adequate response to Putin’s challenge today.
“Yes, the alliance has moved rapid reaction units to the Russian border, but by their very nature, they cannot maintain a stable defense. They are there only for deterrent effect, nothing more. Looking at the Russian General Staff’s assessments, they do not perceive the units now deployed in the Baltic States and Poland as some serious force. Therefore, NATO should abandon completely the false idea of returning to the strategic partnership with Russia. NATO should adopt a new strategy for regional containment of Russia’s revanchist policy. This strategy should form a major regional defense system on its eastern flank, involving permanent stationing of NATO forces in the Baltic States, Poland, Romania and building up the system of military logistics there.
“After all, NATO expansion in 1999 was a political development rather than a military one. No bases were built, no proper combat training was conducted. The entire activity was centered on peacekeeping missions. Therefore, it is necessary to restore the military infrastructure that will have defense purposes rather than serve peacekeeping needs.
“Obama’s policy is one of isolationism, which is traditional for the US when they start to lose some influence. We see the policy of isolationism in action now, when Obama looks at Europe as a region of secondary importance. He absolutely rules out the use of force and involvement in wars, showing off his pacifism. Obama will not change his position.
“We must pay attention also to the fact that Obama’s administration saw military programs cut. Most dangerously, though, his presidency is the first to effectively remove the armed forces from the key priorities of American foreign policy. And so, Obama is the first president who has absolutely no strategic thinking. The loss of strategic thinking in the presidency is the most terrible situation one can think about. We are seeing how this is leading to crushing defeats of American foreign policy in virtually all regions of the world.
“As for Ukraine’s own strategy in the crisis, we do not have one, we even have no national strategy whatsoever, because the higher echelons of power in this country are guided exclusively by corporate interests. The Ukrainian oligarchic class, rich from wealth transfers, thought only of its own enrichment strategy for years, and still thinks this way. We have no strategy in domestic and foreign policy. One can discuss strategy when there is a clear goal. However, if strategy is limited to personal enrichment, strategy proper is not needed, therefore our foreign policy lacks both strategy and tactics. There are some reactive movements intended to solve very minor or temporary issues. No strategic solutions are visible.
“When they say ‘let us oust the Russian troops with the West’s support and restore our borders,’ they are dreaming, while a strategy should take into account realistic goals based on accurate predictions. If we have nothing of the kind, no strategy can be even discussed.”
