The devil who can’t deliver

By David Rohde
May 9, 2013

Picture of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad riddled with holes on the Aleppo police academy, after capture by Free Syrian Army fighters, March 4, 2013.  REUTERS/Mahmoud Hassano

MOSCOW – After marathon meetings with Secretary of State John Kerry here Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov hinted that Moscow may finally pressure Syrian President Bashir al-Assad to leave office.

“We are not interested in the fate of certain individuals,” Lavrov said at a late night news conference. “We are interested in the fate of the Syrian people.”

Lavrov and Kerry announced that they would host an international conference where Syrian government officials and rebels will be given a chance to name an interim government. The odds of the two sides agreeing are low but Kerry deserves credit for securing a small diplomatic step forward here.

The problem is that Lavrov and his boss – President Vladimir Putin – may be unable to deliver on Assad. For nearly two years, Lavrov and Putin have served as the Syrian leaders’ chief diplomatic ally but Iran has provided far more military support. Russian analysts say Washington is kidding itself if it believes Putin can orchestrate a quick and easy Assad exit.

“All of this is wishful thinking,” said Sergei Strokan, a columnist for the liberal Moscow daily Kommersant. “Moscow has quite limited influence on the Syrian regime.”

Decades from now, President Barack Obama’s decision to not arm Syria’s rebels may be condemned or praised. But a visit to Moscow this week showed that it has come at an immediate price. Washington’s failure to act created a vacuum that Putin and Lavrov used to boost Russia’s global standing.

“For the last two years, Lavrov has dramatically elevated his profile on the world stage,” Susan Glasser recently wrote in Foreign Affairs. “He has done so by almost single-handedly defying Western attempts to force some united action to stop Syria’s deadly civil war.”

Lavrov and Putin have also used Syria to bolster their standing at home. Kerry’s widely publicized visit coincided with the one-year anniversary of disputed elections in Russia that Putin used to gain his third term in office. Before meeting with Kerry, Putin fired a key lieutenant who was the architect of the system that has allowed the Russian leader to control major industries, seize most media outlets and intimidate or co-opt rivals.

With the price of oil low, Putin’s oil-dependent economy is flagging. Barring a surge in prices, massive social welfare payments are unsustainable. Corruption is endemic, consuming an estimated $300 billion a year, 16 percent of Russia’s gross domestic product. Transparency International, an anti-corruption group, named Russia the worst nation on earth in its most recent Bribe Payer’s index, which ranks firms on their likelihood to bribe.

A spate of recent laws on libel, protests, blasphemy and treason has made it more difficult to exercise basic rights, the Washington Post reported last month. Putin also recently ordered prosecutors nationwide to search for NGOS that have failed to abide by a new law requiring them to register as “foreign agents” if they receive foreign funding.

Putin is probably secure until the end of his term in 2016. But a slowing economy and public fatigue with Putin are taking a toll. In the end, the key factor may be the price of oil, the pillar of Putin’s one-dimensional economy.

“If the price of oil drops below $50 [a barrel], it is a death sentence,” said a Russian analyst who asked not to be named.

On the international stage, meanwhile, Russia is ascendant. For Putin, Kerry’s request for help marked the achievement of a decade-old goal. From the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 1999 bombing of Kosovo, to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to the 2011 U.N.-backed toppling of Muammar Gaddafi, Moscow has been largely irrelevant. Putin saw each post-Cold War American intervention as an attempt to remove opponents, not defend human rights.

“In Putin’s view, they were all victims of a cynical U.S. plot for global domination,” journalist Lucian Kim wrote last year, ”where any weapon is fair game, be it smart bomb, a pro-democracy grant or Twitter.”

Instead of being the West’s potential victim, Putin is now it’s vital interlocutor. Maria Lipman, a scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center and a leading political analyst, said Putin’s logic is simple.

“You may denounce us,” she explained, “but when it comes to the most important international issue today, you come to Moscow.”

So, with all this, why is the Obama administration turning to Putin for help? The answer is simple: the White House’s deep desire to not get entangled in Syria. To American officials, a deal with Russia is a cost-free solution. The geo-political equivalent, if you will, of a drone strike. No Americans lives will be lost. There will be little domestic political risk.

In truth, though, there is no easy way to stem the conflict in Syria, which increasingly threatens to destabilize the region. Blame  is widespread. Assad, of course, is the worst culprit. His refusal to relinquish power in the face of an initially peaceful protest movement has led to the killing of an estimated 70,000 people. In Washington, Obama allowed exaggerated fears of another Iraq to paralyze his administration.

Putin, though, has arguably been the most cynical. He exaggerated his control of Assad and may also be double-dealing.

Twenty-four hours after Kerry left Moscow, press reports emerged that Russia was planning to sell surface-to-air missiles to Syria that would make any American intervention in the conflict vastly more difficult. The Wall Street Journal reported that Israeli officials had warned the Obama administration of Russia’s imminent sale to Syria of sophisticated S-300 missiles with a range of 125 miles.

Asked about the sale at a press conference in Rome on Thursday, Kerry said Washington would prefer that Russia not provide arms to Syria and called  the missiles “potentially destabilizing” to Israel. If true, the missile sale would be a personal affront to Kerry, who lauded Putin and Lavrov in Moscow.

Sale or no sale, the proposed conference should be carried out. Both sides may miraculously agree on an interim government.

But it is more likely that the United States has lost control of the rebels, particularly the jihadists. And Russia has lost control of Assad, who retains Tehran’s backing and has killed so many people that he cannot compromise.

Syria’s downward spiral will continue.

This piece has been updated to include recent news about Russian plans to sell sophisticated missiles to Syria.

PHOTO (Insert): U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (L) gestures as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tries to fix his translation equipment during a joint news conference after their meeting in Moscow May 7, 2013.  REUTERS/Mladen Antonov/Pool

 

 

3 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

after Libya, people still want the US to intervene. really

Why should we, consider the casualties the US suffered thanks to the Arab Spring in Libya.

/because every day we don’t intervene , AQ jihadists are fighting Al-Quds supporters, so the downside is what again?

Posted by VultureTX | Report as abusive

Reuters carried an article a few days ago, quoting Lavrov extensively; in which he sounded eminently sensible.

On the basis of what Lavrov SAID, I could almost have imagined him in the place of David Lloyd George; advocating a “No Victor, No Vanquished” solution to the conflict.

If we, without good reason, strip any faction of its military power; we leave that faction naked of its ultimate guarantees of political influence and freedom from external interference, and we threaten some aspect of the pluralistic nature of Syrian society.

The question for me is whether we have good reason and right to do this. Should we support the Syrian rebels on the basis of Bashar’s brutality? On the basis of the apparent use of chemical weapons in urban areas by Assad’s men? Or on the basis of the persecutions, prejudices and inequities of forty years of dynastic rule by Assad’s family and their cronies? Or on the basis of a refusal of Assad’s government to enter into any meaningful compromise with their fellow Syrian citizens; notwithstanding their claims of being ready to negotiate, and their fair promises to hold “democratic” polls on a transitional government whilst simultaneously firing artillery into the particular parts of Syrian cities where Assad’s people want the voting turnout to be lowest?

As Kerry suggested to Lavrov, this agreement can’t just be a piece of paper…

Posted by matthewslyman | Report as abusive

Nobody wants the US to intervene anywhere, Vulture.

Found your WMD yet, you gutless scum??

Posted by NeilMcGowan | Report as abusive