President Putin's Syrian mistake?

30 September 2016

 

 

Premise — soft power

 

Even in a world dominated by hard-nosed Realpolitik, a nation's soft power should not be squandered.

 

 

President Putin's Syrian mistake?

 

Al Jazeera's Marwan Bishara recently pointed out that Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin's arrogance lost him may previously have been his successful strategic ploy in Syria.

 

Putin inserted the Russians into the Syrian Civil War in a presumably order-bringing way. His intervention contrasted favorably with American dithering. People suddenly took the Federation seriously.

 

Realpolitik, played properly, would have seen the Federation subsequently consolidate its "responsible hegemon" gamble. For appearance's sake, Russia should have worked harder to keep the recently negotiated Syrian cease fire.

 

Russians and Americans might both have sold themselves as constructively inclined international players.

 

 

Instead — foolish tit for tat-ism happened

 

First, U.S. President Barack Obama lost control of his chain of command — if he ever had any:

 

 

Secretary of State John Kerry busily negotiated a Syrian cease fire. Ostensibly with his Commander in Chief's blessing.

 

Meanwhile, the American Secretary of Defense and his underlings inferably did their best to scuttle it.

 

As a consequence, an allegedly mistaken U.S. air strike killed Syrian troops.

 

Take that, cease fire.

 

 

With the American transgression, Putin evidently decided to abandon his previously successful "Russia as useful hegemon" strategic position.

 

Thinking tactically, the Russian president apparently decided to slip in three tactical "tits" to America's "tat".

 

A Russian-initiated assault on a UN aid convoy paid back the American air strike misstep. And shortly later, two (probably Russian encouraged) Syrian hospital bombings put a de facto end to the cease fire.

 

Where the Russian Federation could have come across as peacefully wiser and more self-controlled than their American adversaries, it just tried to outpoint them in purpose-lacking viciousness.

 

 

Salt into injury

 

The Russian position seems to illustrate the "I'm so dumb, I have no idea the impression I'm making" strategy:

 

 

The US is "on the verge" of ending talks on Syria with Russia . . .

 

On Wednesday, at least six civilians were killed when air strikes hit two hospitals in rebel-controlled parts of Aleppo.

 

The . . . hospitals were hit before dawn, forcing both to shut temporarily . . . .

 

Al Jazeera's Diplomatic Editor James Bays asked Bashar Jaafari, Syria's UN ambassador, if his country had bombed the two hospitals.

 

Jaafari walked away laughing, without giving an answer.

 

"It's not clear why he was laughing considering his country is being accused of war crimes in Aleppo," said our correspondent.

 

[John Kerry] said the US has no indication of Russia's "seriousness of purpose" and discussions made no sense at a time when Russian and Syrian warplanes were bombing rebel-held areas of Syria's second largest city.

 

The joint bombardment of Aleppo has left more than 400 people dead and at least 1,700 wounded since last week.

 

Sergei Ryabkov, Russia's deputy foreign minister, said the US threat to suspend talks on Syria over the bombardment of Aleppo's rebel-held areas constitutes "an emotional breakdown".

 

 

© 2016 Al Jazeera News and News Agencies, Syria's war: US-Russia talks 'on verge of ending', Al Jazeera English (30 September 2016) (resequenced extracts)

 

 

In other words, Russia's Syrian ally laughs over bombing hospitals.

 

And the Russians then accuse Americans of being emotionally too fragile to tolerate war crimes.

 

 

The moral? — The Russian perspective is probably not going to be widely influential

 

President Putin's previously accumulated soft power in Syria just went down the drain.