While Russia is responding to US-led NATO's alleged expansionist moves in Eastern Europe, the heavy use of Russian air power in Syria has emboldened America’s doubt about Putin’s geopolitical intentions
When the Syrian war was at a climax in the mid-2015, many hoped that the crisis may lead to a “New Cold War”. However after some initial hiccups, two major powers (Russia and the US) agreed that there needs to be a “rapprochement” from all the parties to end the conflicting situation. However, the expectation was belied after one year. The two Cold War adversaries are at loggerheads over the Syrian question. This propels one to think whether the Cold War geopolitical structure is “redrawing” itself again.
What propped analysts to predict the situation is quite alarming: Russia did not agree to an American proposal to prolong “ceasefire” in Aleppo, stronghold of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The incessant fighting by Russian/Syrian forces to wrest control of the city is being considered by many Western countries as “war crimes”. Russia, on the other hand, is accusing the Western countries of their “double speak”. Blaming both Jabhat al-Nusra and the West for bringing the Syrian crisis to a stalemate, President Vladimir Putin at the recently held Valdai Club meeting claimed, “You declare war on terrorists and simultaneously try to use some of them to arrange the figures on the Middle East board (Syria) in your own interests, as you may think.”
The phrase of “Cold War” gained more prominence when Assad in an interview with Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda last month said, “What we’ve been seeing recently during the last few weeks and maybe few months is something like more than Cold War, less than war, a full-blown war...” In the Vladai Club meeting, Putin also echoed the same line. Using Syrian impasse as a background, he further said, “We already had this opportunity after the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately, we did not take advantage of it.”
The recent precariousness of the situation can be evident from the fact that a convoy of International Red Cross engaged in humanitarian assistance in the Aleppo region on September 19 got hit by an “Aerial bombing”. Though there was international condemnation of the ruthless act, later on this issue provided opportunity to both the US and Russia to blame each other for the heinous act. One may recall here that both sides are interested in resolving the prolonged conflict in Syria. However, complicating the task to bring stability are some core issues over which they failed to reach a consensus. For instance Washington considers Assad as a war criminal, but Russia treats him as their “blue-eyed boy” in Syria.
The US lodged a strong protest with Moscow for its role in the Aleppo attack and even threatened to “withhold” itself from cooperating with Russia. Washington holds the position that it was because of the joint action by Russian and Syrian Air Force in Aleppo that the aid party got hit. On the other hand, Russian Foreign Ministry in a press release claimed this act is being carried out by Jabhat al-Nusra. Moscow to substantiate its claim added that the rebel force is operating in collusion with the US. Though the blame game has continued, what is posing a grave danger to the desired Syrian peace is the derailment of negotiation in which both Russia and the US have vital stakes.
A few months back, both the countries agreed to create a “Joint Implementation Group” (JIG) in which they see eye to eye to “take all reasonable measures to eliminate non-combatant casualties”. The coordinating centre of JIG was located in the neighbouring Jordanian capital city. However, the point that requires a closer scrutiny here is that despite agreeing to bring normalcy to trouble-torn Syria, both the external powers have taken the polar opposite positionsIJ
Western allies like France and Germany are quite vocal about Russia’s role in Aleppo. Calling the Aleppo attack as “war crime”, the French Foreign Ministry demanded “holding special session of UN Human Right Council”. The German Foreign Ministry urged upon the international community for a “tougher financial sanctions” on Russia. However, other European countries took a different position keeping their geopolitical interests in mind.
What is aggravating the matter are opinions emanating from various quarters that the Syrian crisis may contribute to a full blown war between Russia and the West. This can be inferred from recent actions by both the parties. The first such instance was Russia’s “suspension” of the Plutonium Management and Dispossession Agreement, which it signed in 2000 with the US and “ratified” in 2010. As per the provisions of the agreement, both the sides agreed to “dispose 34 metric tonnes of weapon-grade plutonium”.
The Bill to seek “suspension” of the treaty was introduced in the Duma last month and was approved with an overwhelming majority. The reason, which Moscow is giving for “suspending” the agreement, is “technical” in nature. But it can be inferred from the fact that the mutual antagonism between Moscow and Washington, along with the way the American and NATO forces are penetrating into the East European region (which Russia considers as its “own sphere of influence”) is most important factor . This move on part of Moscow will also have a repercussion on global disarmament project.
In addition to the “suspension” of “Plutonium Agreement”, Russia is moving its deadly sea freights to the shore of Mediterranean Sea through North Sea as well as British Channel. Since some of these Sea coasts are located near England, the Royal Navy, as disclosed by the Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, has also dispatched its own naval fleets to keep tabs on the movement of Russian naval ships. This is a policy of “encirclement” which the British navy is pursuing since long. Though Russia is consistently stressing on the fact the naval carriers, which are moving towards Syrian coast, has nothing to do with the Aleppo impasse and it is a routine movement. Despite Moscow’s denial, the deployment of Russian naval fleets in the Syrian coast can be understood from the fact that the US in June sent USS Porter to the Black Sea, considered as vital to Russia’s “strategic sphere of influence”.
The Russian policymakers considered the whole incident as “provocation” and the present movement of naval freights in the Mediterranean region may be considered as a counter-strategy to that of the US as well as NATO States. Russia is also responding to the NATO’s expansionist policy by creating new “military brigades”, augmenting anti-missile shield as well as deploying advanced missiles to protect itself. In addition to above measures as reported, Moscow is mulling to open its Cold War-era bases in Cuba which can directly encircle America and in Vietnam where Washington has deeper strategic interest. Further, in order to ensure its perennial presence in Syria, Russia has signed an agreement with the Assad regime to deploy its air forces without any time period. The same was ratified by Russian lower House recently. Similarly, it is also entering into a “tripartite agreement” with Iran and Syria to resolve the Syrian cauldron. All these developments demonstrate that we are really in the midst of a “New Cold War”. It appears that the Syrian crisis is looking as a mere symptom of a larger crisis world is going to face in near future.
India on its part is taking keen interest in resolving the Syrian standoff in a peaceful manner. Because of its “historic linkages”, “energy and economic compulsions” as well as the need to “fight radical forces”, India is keen to stabilise the situation. During his visit to Damascus in June this year, Minister of State for External Affairs MJ Akbar
held extensive talks with the Syrian President. As reported, Assad appreciated the
“objective role played by India” in “stabilising the situation”.
One may recall here that India also took keen interest in the Geneva Peace Process formed to stabilise the situation in Syria. On India’s push, BRICS Summit held in Goa urged “upon all parties involved to work for a comprehensive and peaceful resolution to the conflict taking into account the legitimate aspirations of the people of Syria, through inclusive national dialogue”. The Summit Declaration has also stressed upon effective measures to curb radical and terror groups operating in Syria. India has better leverage with both the US and Russia and can play an fruitful role not only in resolving the conflict in Syria but also checkmating the Cold War syndrome, which is the direct fallout of misperception between these two rival powers.
(The writer is Assistant Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)