The current frequency of interaction between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu often raises questions. In particular, analysts stress the special “chemistry” of relations between the two statesmen, also stressing that “Putin supported Netanyahu” on the eve of the parliamentary elections held in Israel on April 9. It is difficult to deny the importance of personal contacts in bilateral relations. However, the decisive factor is still the logic of bilateral interests and the existence of common interests and ideological attitudes.

It may not be well known that Israel appeared on the world map largely due to the support that it received from the Soviet Union. After the establishment of official relations in 1948, diplomatic relations between Israel and Russia were broken twice – a unique situation – to be fully restored only in 1991.

During the period of the late USSR, Israel, as the “main ally outside NATO,” was viewed in Russia as a U.S. puppet in the Middle East. At the same time, within its Middle East policy, the USSR was approaching Arab countries with noticeable bias.

The USSR’s obstruction of Jewish immigration led to the adoption of the notorious Jackson-Vanik amendment by the United States in 1974, restricting U.S.-Soviet trade. Despite the fact that free immigration from the USSR was allowed in 1985, the Amendment was canceled in 2012. Moreover, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of a number of new states, including the Russian Federation, led to a mass exodus of Jewish citizens to the United States, Germany, and Israel. In order to compete for qualified Soviet expats (engineers, doctors, scientists, intellectuals and many others), the Israeli special service “Native,” specially created for the repatriation of Jews in 1951, notably enlarged its activity.

As is known, after the U.S., in some areas, Israel is the first innovative country in the world. It is difficult to deny the fact that in many respects this was made possible thanks to the successful repatriation policy of the citizens of the USSR/Russia to Israel. Nowadays, the Russian-speaking diaspora of Israel, whose number is around 1 million, has an influential force in the country. A significant proportion of the cabinet and Knesset deputies are Russian-speaking Israelis.

On the other hand, the image of Israel has undergone a marked improvement in Russia, compared to a complete rejection of the Jewish state in the Soviet period. The fact that Russia did not support the relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to the “new old capital” Jerusalem and that it did not support the recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory did not prevent dialogue between Russia and Israel. In the end, the State of Israel did not recognize the independence of Ossetia, Abkhazia and the return of the Crimea peninsula to Russia.

The image of Israel has undergone a marked improvement in Russia, compared to a complete rejection of the Jewish state in the Soviet period.

There are several principal circumstances for Russia in its consistent effort to build a healthy relationship with Israel.

First of all, Israel did not join the U.S.-imposed anti-Russia sanctions, which found widespread support in the West. This allowed for both parties to have full-fledged trade and economic relations, especially in the high-tech sphere, which are not in the shadows of any reciprocal economic restrictions.

Second, Russia and Israel are on the same side of history in assessing the events of the Second World War, acting jointly against attempts by a number of countries, especially young EU members, to re-write history in order to justify or completely eliminate Nazism and the Holocaust from history.

In this regard, it suffices to note that from 2018, Israel began to celebrate Victory Day over fascist Germany on May 9. The celebration of Victory Day in the Second World War takes place in Israel on the same day as it does in Russia. Israeli soldiers not only participate in various celebrations in their country on this occasion but they are also honored guests at the annual Victory Parade on the Red Square in Moscow.

Thirdly, an agreement on visa-free entry has been in effect between Russia and Israel since 2008. For obvious reasons, in Russia Israel is perceived, without exaggeration, as the main destination of religious pilgrimage. In addition, Israel made an obvious bet on Russian patients for its medical services sector. The large influx of Russian patients led to the formation of a special segment of the healthcare industry, targeting Russian-speaking clients.

The fact that Israel did not join the U.S.-imposed anti-Russia sanctions, and the fact that Russia and Israel are on the same side of history in assessing the events of WWII as well as the visa-free entry between the two countries have allowed bilateral relations to flourish. 

Despite the fact that there are enough reasons for disagreement between Russia and Israel in the Middle East, these three listed circumstances, coupled with a large Russian-speaking diaspora in Israel, allows for the two states to build working relationships.

Russia was an active participant in the process of concluding a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the fact that from an Israeli point of view, Iran is a direct threat to the existence of the Jewish state. In addition, it is necessary to note that Iran, along with Russia and Turkey, is an important participant of the Astana process on the Syrian Civil War, with whom Russia is engaged in an active political dialogue. However, as we see, Russian diplomacy quite successfully balances its relations with Iran and Israel.

Even the incident where the Syrian air defense system shot down Russian II-20 reconnaissance aircraft in September 2018 did not lead to a deterioration of Russia-Israel relations. This was despite the fact that the Russian state’s official rhetoric was that the plane was put under fire as a result of provocation arranged by the Israeli Air Force.

Russia was an active participant in the process of concluding a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the fact that from an Israeli point of view, Iran is a direct threat to the existence of the Jewish state. 

Nevertheless, Israel is perceived in the Russian political establishment as an important partner in the Middle East, balancing relations between Russia and Arab countries. At the same time, the Russian leadership positively notes that Israel demonstrates an understanding of Russian interests in spite of its strategic relations with the U.S. and NATO. It should be repeated that the fundamental point for Russia is that Israel shares the basic ideological attitudes with Russia and in the Russian case seeks to pursue a more independent foreign policy from the U.S.

Israel is also a valuable trade and economic partner for Russia. The trade over between the two countries in 2018 amounted to around 2.7 billion dollars, where exports of goods from Russia stood at 1.95 billion dollars, and exports from Israel at 760 million dollars.

Beyond these figures, it is important to note that Israel is a partner of Russia, both potential and acting, in a number of innovative areas including defense technologies, agriculture, medicine, and computer technologies. Russia is quite serious about technological cooperation with Israel and about adopting the advanced Israeli experience in building an innovative economy.

Israel is perceived in the Russian political establishment as an important partner in the Middle East, balancing relations between Russia and Arab countries. 

This context of relations, as well as the intensity of the processes in the Middle East, primarily in Syria and around Iran, lead to incessant contact between the two countries at the highest level. Over the past 10 years, the number of meetings between President Putin and Prime Minister Netanyahu reached 14 – which is more than the number of meetings conducted in the previous history of bilateral relations.

This gave many observers reason to talk about the special relationship between the two heads of state – Putin and Netanyahu – but the truth is that whatever relations are at a personal level, they cannot have a decisive contribution to bilateral relations without a solid fundament of mutual interests.

Let us list again, the multi-million Russian-speaking diaspora in Israel and the not so numerous but influential Jewish diaspora in Russia, trade and economic relations, the same worldview regarding the Second World War and the fight against modern Nazism in the West, as well as religious and historical ties exist between Israel and Russia.

At the same time, there are many channels of communication and dialogue between the two countries: both official and unofficial, as well as the media. The Israeli point of view, in particular, on the processes occurring in the Middle East, is constantly present at the central channels of Russian media and therefore is well known among Russians.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that Russian diplomacy seeks to establish balanced, equidistance relations with all countries, including the Middle East. It can be said that despite the difficulty and sometimes impossibility of this task, Russian diplomacy has certain successes on this matter, as can be seen in the case of Israel.

Before a trilateral meeting, Putin acknowledged his Turkish and Iranian counterparts’ support in preventing the Syria’s disintegration. “It would not have been possible to end the military process in Syria without the roles of Turkish and Iranian leaders. With the support of Turkey and Iran, the disintegration of Syria was prevented,” he said.

The talks lasted two hours, with Putin saying that they were detailed and included all aspects of the Syrian settlement.

In a joint statement at the summit, three guarantors declared that they would continue to cooperate for the sake of reducing violence in Syria. The three presidents also reiterated their strong commitment to supporting the independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria.

The guarantor countries also emphasized the confidence-building measures in order to speed up the search for political solutions in Syria.

Fast, secure and continuous humanitarian aid; release of detainees and identification of missing persons were pointed out as the measures necessary.

Turkey and Russia, together with Iran, are the guarantor countries that brokered a cease-fire in Syria in December 2016, leading to the Astana talks, which are running parallel to the Geneva talks for peace in Syria.

Erdogan

President Erdogan said “The world has witnessed the positive results of establishing a close working environment between Turkey, Russia, and Iran on the Syrian issue.”

The talks in Astana, Kazakhstan are the “best example” of this, the Turkish leader added.

He pointed out; “Exclusion of terrorist elements — that target both Syrian political unity and territorial integrity and our country – from the process, will be among Turkey’s priorities.”

Turkey is stating from the beginning that it is against any form of “problem-solving” with the role of terrorist groups PYD, YPG which are PKK’s Syrian affiliates.

Erdogan repeated that Turkey cannot share a platform with any terrorist organization that poses a threat to its national security.

Erdogan referred to the Geneva talks under the auspices of the UN, and said the National Dialogue Congress would contribute to the Geneva process.

Putin

President Putin – claiming that the summit was a means to strengthen the territorial integrity of Syria – said the Astana process prevents the division of the country which is now moving towards a “new phase of political solution” and added that he sees the possibility of an end of the war.

He also expressed his gratitude to the Turkish and Iranian leaders for welcoming the idea of holding the Syrian National Dialogue Congress regarding the solution of the Syrian crisis.

“The presidents of Iran and Turkey supported the initiative to convene an all-Syrian forum-congress of the national dialogue in Syria. We agreed to hold this important event at the proper level and ensure the participation of representatives of different sectors of Syrian society,” Putin said after the talks in Sochi on Wednesday.

Rouhani

President Rouhani said “We are pleased to see that the three countries have agreed on Syria’s territorial integrity, independence and unity, and we are in close cooperation to ensure peace and stability in Syria.”

He said that the trilateral meeting is significant in opening up a “new prospect” to settle the situation in Syria.

Rouhani also emphasized that Iran is serious in its fight against international terrorism and is ready to offer help to other countries.

He also reiterated Iranian support for Syria’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, saying there should be no foreign intervention in Syria’s internal affairs “without the consent of the legitimate government of Syria.”

Putin-Assad met on Monday

Before the summit with the Turkish and Iranian presidents, Putin met Assad who came to Sochi with an unannounced visit on Monday.

Putin informed Erdogan and Rouhani about the results of his 4 hour long meeting with Assad and about the regime’s “readiness to carry out constitutional reform and stage a free, UN-supervised election.”

Following the talks with Assad, the Russian President held phone conversations with the heads of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which made analysts suggest that the violent conflict in Syria could be coming to an end.

Syria has been locked in a civil war since early 2011, when the Assad regime cracked down on pro-democracy protests with unexpected ferocity. This led to the military conflict between the Syrian opposition groups and the Assad regime over the war-torn country’s territory.

Now, in its seventh year, the war in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of people and displaced more than 12 million, causing a refugee crisis all over Europe and its neighboring countries.

*Written by Suna Nur Sarihan. 

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan held a joint press conference with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin after a meeting held in Sochi, Russia.

President Erdogan arrived to the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi on Monday morning. This is Erdogan’s third visit to Russia and the sixth meeting with Putin this year. The two leaders discussed Russian-Turkish bilateral relations, the joint fight against terrorism and the Syrian peace settlement.

Erdogan stated that relations between Ankara and Moscow were pleasing as they have reached “a very advanced level.” During the visit an agreement to focus on political rather than military solutions for Syria was also made.

Improvement in trade relations

Putin underlined that bilateral relations between the two states have been restored since the downing of the Russian warplane by Turkey over the southern Turkish border, two years ago.

He added that the two sides are likely to fully compensate the decline that occurred in the trade volume over the last year. The reason behind this optimism is that the trade volume between Turkey and Russia has increased by 36 percent in the first 9 months of 2017.

Emphasizing that certain limitations should be lifted in order to accelerate the increase in trade volume, Putin told reporters that during the meeting with Erdogan, they discussed in detail the issue of removing remaining restrictions on agricultural products.

Affirming his counterpart, Erdogan said that “in order to reach the target we declared as 100 billion dollars, we have to remove all obstacles including the visa before our businessmen. It is of great importance that the visa exemption is restored.”

Turkey’s Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant to be launched in 2023

President Putin stated that the issues of strategic cooperation were also discussed at the meeting and that the construction of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant is currently on the top of the political agenda.

He said that the construction by Rosatom will begin soon, and that the projected date for the completion of the plant is 2023 – the 100^th anniversary of the Republic of Turkey.

Focus on a political solution in Syria

The two leaders also discussed regional and international issues, including recent developments in the Syrian crisis.

“We believe that the Astana meetings and de-escalation zones have contributed to a certain extent to reduction of violence in this region,” Erdogan stated.

“We have agreed that at present, grounds allowing us to focus on the political solution of the [Syrian] issue have emerged,” he said, also pointing out that Ankara stresses the importance of the joint statement by Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump on Syria, issued after the recent contacts of the two leaders in Vietnam.

Putin agreed that the joint work of Russia, Turkey and Iran as guarantors of the Astana peace settlement process for Syria had already given results. He emphasized, however, that the long-term stabilization efforts in Syria should be strengthened, especially with regard to a political settlement.

During Putin’s visit to Ankara on Thursday, many issues were laid on the table including Syria, northern Iraq and bilateral relations.

During a news conference delivered by Putin and Erdogan, Erdogan told reporters that the two parties had “discussed regional issues including Iraq and Syria. We both agree on the territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria.”

While new peace talks for solving the Syrian crisis were laid by the UN earlier this week, Erdogan said that “As Turkey and Russia, we have reconfirmed our determination to maintain our joint will and close cooperation to find a political solution for the Syrian conflict.”

In reference to the referendum that took place in KRG-controlled areas in northern Iraq, Erdogan re-emphasized that this vote had “no legitimacy” in terms of the Iraqi constitution and international law.

Syria

In regards to the process in Syria, Putin stated that the establishment of de-escalation zones in Syria have given “significant momentum” to the Geneva process, referring to the peace talks between the Syrian regime and opposition envoys.

Thanking Erdogan for his commitment and effort to solve the Syrian issue, Putin added that “it was really difficult to carry out the workings of these de-escalation zones.”

During a meeting in Kazakh capital Astana on May 4, the guarantor countries – Russia, Turkey and Iran – signed a deal to establish de-escalation zones in Syria.

S-400 payments and bilateral relations

Both Erdogan and Putin said that they had a “productive” meeting and exchanged views on the areas of regional politics, trade and energy.

Erdogan mentioned that the two leaders agreed to boost economic ties even further, noting that the trade volume between the two countries had increased over 22 percent in the first seven months of the year.

He reiterated Turkey’s desire to increase mutual trade volume up to $100 billion.

The S-400 defense missiles that Turkey purchased from Russia have been on the security agenda not only for the two countries but for NATO and the western security alliance.

The S-400 is Russia’s most advanced long-range anti-aircraft missile system and carries three types of missiles capable of destroying targets including ballistic and cruise missiles.

It can track and engage up to 300 targets at the same time and has an altitude ceiling of 27 kilometers (17 miles).

On Friday a Russian presidential aide confirmed that Moscow has received an “advance payment” from Turkey for the S-400 missile defense system.

Earlier this week Turkish Defense Industry Undersecretary Ismail Demir confirmed that the delivery of the missile system would begin within two years.

After the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia was preoccupied with domestic reforms and works of reconstruction for almost ten years. Under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin since 2000, the country first entered a period of recovery followed by a steady growth. During this period, Russia gave priority to the issue of Chechnya, which was regarded as a significant security problem. Following its victory in the Second Chechen War, Russia was able to form an authority in the region, giving momentum to internal economic and political stability. More, the new regime began focusing upon developing its military force, ensuring it became capable in defeating external threats.

Hence, Russia’s military interventions in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria are reflections of this strategy. At this point, in order to understand Russia’s strategy and what it requests from the international arena, Putin’s historical speech delivered at the Munich Security Conference in 2007 and Russia’s state doctrine must be addressed.

Putin’s Munich Speech and Doctrines

The speech Putin delivered at the Security Conference in Munich in 2007 had drawn great reactions. In fact, the speech was called the Putin Doctrine. In his harsh criticism against the unipolar world system, Putin’s words that drew the most attention were the following:

“However, what is a unipolar world? One might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”

The points emphasized by Putin in Munich can also be regarded as the priorities of the Russian state doctrine. The Russian Federation shapes its domestic and foreign policy based on three main principles:  first, the National security doctrine, which assesses internal and external threats and specifies functions of the governmental bodies in this domain.  Second, the Foreign policy doctrine, which outlines general political purposes and priorities in the international arena and finally, the military doctrine, which defines external threats to the country and ways and means of national defense.

Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia adopted four national security doctrines (1997, 2000, 2009, 2016), four military security doctrines (1993, 2000, 2010, 2014) and four foreign policy doctrines (1993, 2000, 2008, 2013). When we examine these doctrines, two main emphases come up which never change: A unipolar world cannot be accepted, a multi-polar world order is required for international stability and NATO’s expansionist policy is a national security threat for Russia.

These two main points are the backbone of the doctrines. For a multi-polar world order Russia wants to form a new power center with countries like China, India and Iran under the umbrella of International Organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)Moreover, the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization formed by the former Soviet bloc countries are a part of Russia’s initiative towards establishing new blocks.

While attempting to form these kinds of new power centers, Russia is also trying to prevent NATO’s expansionist policy towards its borders. Hence, the 2008 Georgia and 2014 Ukraine military interventions are significant signs of Russia’s determination on this issue. On the other hand, with the military intervention in Syria in 2015, Russia moved its power struggle with the West far away from its borders.

Military Interventions and New Cooperation

Russia has defined NATO and the EU’s expansionist strategy towards Caucasian/Eastern European countries as a national security threat. Especially the “color revolutions” taking place in Georgia and Ukraine in the 2000’s have greatly disturbed Russia. NATO’s expansion strategy towards the Russian borders created the necessity for a counter move in terms of Russia’s interests. In fact, the Russia-Georgia war had been the first indication in this regard.

The Russia-Georgia War did not bring an end to the struggle for influence in the former Soviet geography among the US-EU-Russia triangle, on the contrary, it caused the struggle to deepen further. Six years after the war, as a result of Ukraine forming closer relations with the EU, Russia first occupied Crimea and then annexed it in contradiction to international law.

The economic and political sanctions towards Russia applied by the Western countries following the occupation of Ukraine were not enough to deter Putin. With the military intervention in Syria in 2015, Russia took revenge of the Libya operation conducted during the Arab Spring, gaining the upper hand against the West. By getting involved in Syria, Russia has shifted the international attention away from Ukraine and saved itself from further pressure. Just like a player being trapped in a corner of the “go” board moving to another corner of the board in order to rescue itself from this trap, Russia which was trapped in Ukraine moved the “stone” to Syria.

http://thenewturkey.org/ex-soviet-state-fighters-in-daesh/

Russia has obtained significant power in international politics as a result of these three military interventions. Apart from the military interventions, it also established a security circle in the region by signing new military agreements with Central Asian countries, Armenia and Belarus. In addition to its involvement in Syria, Russia also seeks to enhance its military relations with Libya and Egypt by signing new military agreements.

Another country with which Russia deepened its relations during this period is Turkey. After the aircraft crisis, relations between the two countries returned to its former level.  There are still numerous areas of conflict between the parties, particularly the Syria crisis. First of all, Russia’s cooperation with the terrorist organization PYD in Afrin disturbs Turkey. In addition, the Russian occupation of Crimea is a security threat for Turkey in the Black sea region. More, Russian sanctions are still in effect on certain Turkish products despite the agreement between the two governments. These are only the apparent problems that the two countries have to deal with at first. Nevertheless, the two countries continue working together in the Turkish Stream Project and the Akkuyu nuclear power plant project, which are strategically important. The talks held between the two countries on Turkey’s purchasing of S-400 air defense system from Russia is also quite significant. Russia by acting mutually with NATO-member Turkey in some certain strategic projects in energy and military areas is sending a message to the West.

The Obstacles to the Goals

The prospect of Russia being able to prevent NATO and the EU’s expansionist policies depends on several factors. At this point, Russia should first of all overcome domestic structural problems. Firstly, it needs to speed up economic modernization and address the issue of corruption in governmental organizations. In the report entitled Theses on Russian Foreign Policy, prepared by the Center for Strategic Research (CSR) and the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) in 2017, the following inference is highly important as quoted: “The underdevelopment of the Russian economy and its governance institutions poses a much more significant threat to the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity than realistic military threats that Russia is already well protected from.”

Russia’s extreme economic dependence on energy revenues is another important problem. The share of petroleum and natural gas in Russia’s budget revenue is approximately 45 percent. Despite the high energy revenues gained between 2003 and 2013, the Russian industrial structure has not been revived yet. Furthermore, the economic and political sanctions of the West following the Crimea occupation have placed the Russian economy in a difficult situation. Alongside these domestic issues, Russia’s dependence on China is also an important factor in its quest to become one of the important power centers of the multi-polar world system.

Although Russia is an important military and political power, its economic deficiency prevents it from fulfilling its long term global policies. This is where China comes into play. Russia is the largest crude oil and natural gas supplier of China. In the past where Russia has experienced problems with its western counterparts on energy security, it automatically turned to China and secured new energy agreements. Russia also exploits SCO against the West in the international politics. Not only Russia but also China has influence on SCO countries. Indeed, China has greater influence on SCO than Russia. While China and Russia may be perceived as strong allies, their political interests do not always coincide and this can be displayed by the economic rivalry over Central Asia. Ultimately, Russia’s place within the global power structure. Although the two countries seem like strong political allies, political interests of China and Russia do not always coincide. The economic rivalry over Central Asia is a good example of this. One way or another, Russia’s place in international power politics will depend on the course of Sino-Russian relations.

http://thenewturkey.org/can-turkey-benefit-from-a-strategic-alliance-with-russia/

Turkey is another key country for Russia, whose success is related to aligning its political interests with Turkey’s interests in the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Black Sea and Middle East. A similar situation is also true for Turkey. If Russia wants to solve disputed problems with Crimea, Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, it has to consider Turkey’s interests as Turkey has historical, cultural, and political links with the region. Another topic is energy. Instead of Russia, Western consumers support Turkey as an alternative energy route from the Caspian to Europe, as Turkey has been considered a reliable partner for Caspian producers and their exports. All of these factors force Russia to take into consideration the geopolitical importance of Turkey. The two countries may coordinate their policies to ensure security and stability in the Black Sea and continue their efforts to stabilize Syria and the Middle East. The “aircraft crisis” has shown both sides that an enmity between Turkey and Russia would only lead to a lose-lose situation.

A unipolar world order is not an option for Russia, which considers Western powers at its borders a potential national security threat. The real challenge for Russia is tied to her ability in dealing with internal structural problems and its relationship with China and Turkey, which will be decisive in determining Russia’s position in world politics.

The Syrian crisis is in its fifth year and there is still no workable solution in sight. On the contrary the recent developments especially the Russian military involvement in support of the Assad regime will only escalate the gravity of the situation.

From the outset, Russia, along with China and Iran, sided with the Assad regime. Yet, the alliance has a relatively long history. It dates back to the beginning of the 1960s when the socialist secular Ba’ath party took over power in Syria (1963). Russians opened a military base in Tartus, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. This collaboration hit its peak after the death of Jamal Abdel Nasser, with his successors leaping into the arms of the USA. In the 1970s, Hafez Assad as a “secular Baathist,” after taking power in Syria, searched for a cover for his sectarian rule and legitimized it by lending his support to the Palestinian cause. Hafez Assad started to fight against the USA, Israel’s main sponsor, and thus befriended Russia, the enemy of imperialism and supporter of the “struggle of people.” Russians continued to support Hafez for years in various fields: military, economic – the Euphrates dam project for instance – and in many scientific missions. Syrian political propaganda about steadfastness and confrontation always included the readiness of Moscow to build an air defence bridge in case of a war with Israel.

Relations started to weaken in 1986, during the Perestroïka years, when the issue of the Syrian debt to Moscow (13.4 billion USD) was highlighted. Having problems with Russians, Hafez Assad turned to the USA and adopted a more friendly approach towards it. Assad’s troops participated to the international coalition led by the United States during the Second Gulf War against his old enemy, the Baathist Saddam Hussein. In time, relations between Russia and Syria strengthened again starting in 2001 when Russia wrote off the parts of the Syrian debt and lowered it to 3.6 billion USD; the pace of rapprochement and cooperation has been increasing since.

In the last five years Russia has been a keen supporter of Bashar Assad and eventually, decided to intervene militarily in Syria and as it claimed to fight terrorism and takfirist groups. But why did the Kremlin actually intervene? What is the truth about its intentions? And most importantly, how should we read this intervention?

http://thenewturkey.org/rebalancing-turkey%E2%80%99s-foreign-policy/

It is clear that the USA’s role as sole superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been seriously challenged with Putin’s coming to power. It is also clear that Putin, with his upbringing and military intelligence mentality, wants to restore Russia’s old glory and perhaps even fulfill the country’s most important strategic dream of gaining a foothold in the Mediterranean Sea.

Such an ecclesiastic welcoming by the Russian Orthodox Church will fuel religious sentiments and can create an explosive ground reaction  and resistance in Muslim streets. Confirming this understanding, the first heralds of what will follow came in the Islamic fatwas released by Saudi Arabian religious authorities to fight Russians in Syria

First, there is no doubt that the Russian intervention in Syria is a wrong decision. Putin was and is still supporting Assad, in his war against his own people. Yet the error does not lie in this only – at the end of the day nobody cares about civilians. The error is that Russia will probably sink in the Syrian quagmire just as the United States sank in Iraq, and the elimination of “extremist takfiris groups” will take a very long time. Russia doesn’t seem disturbed by this factor, as it announced lately the expansion of its military base in Latakia to accommodate 200 additional aircrafts, as well as the expansion of the port of Latakiato, a harbor which can host an aircraft carrier and more than 12 battleships. It thus becomes clear that the Russians have come to stay and that they have tied up their survival in the region with Assad’s survival.

It wouldn’t be irrelevant to say that Russian intervention will turn the war more destructive, more destabilizing and more catastrophic for everybody with higher levels of damage and losses. Due to the Russian viewpoint on military action and its definition of success for military campaigns – Russian intervention in Chechnya is the best example- this intervention will force more Syrians to flee from conflict areas, meaning more refugees knocking on Europe’s doors. Furthermore, it gives Assad more power and strength to continue his political actions and course.

One of the most prominent manifestations of destabilizing the relative stability of the region was Turkey’s harsh response to the Russian aircraft violation of its airspace. It is known that the United States and Russia have reached a memorandum of understanding regarding flying over Syrian skies and that Israelis guaranteed the safety of their skies during Netanyahu’s visit to Moscow only a day after the Russians declared their intentions to conduct air strikes in Syria. Yet due to the fact that NATO has long borders with Syria and with the “Islamic State” (via Turkey) the possibility of an accident between the two powers remains as a threat to global security for the indefinite future.

On the other hand, Russian intervention will increase the indignation among Arab countries, particularly the ones who were and still are continuing to support the revolution of Syrian people against Assad and insist on his departure as a precondition for negotiations to build the Syria of tomorrow. It is possible that Saudi Arabia may become keener to supply Syrian opposition with more money and weapons to reinforce its statute and strengthen its position vis-à-vis the Russian-Iranian Shiite alliance with which Saudi Arabia is in open war on the Yemen front.

Moreover, to Muslim discontent Russia is no longer a communist atheist state, but a growing Christian power. Communist Russia was never really welcomed in the Muslim world and will not be welcomed now as it debuts its military intervention in an Arab Muslim country from a religious standpoint. The Russian Orthodox Church has blessed the military intervention, calling it a “holy war.” Such an ecclesiastic welcoming by the Russian Orthodox Church will fuel religious sentiments and can create an explosive ground reaction  and resistance in Muslim streets. Confirming this understanding, the first heralds of what will follow came in the Islamic fatwas released by Saudi Arabian religious authorities to fight Russians in Syria. Sunni Islamic extremism will inevitably be pushed further, an extremism that has become the focus of the Russian Christian-Iranian Shiite-Assad axis. Again, this will not result in anything but more extremism and more bloodshed.

The sad reality is that the Russian mistakes of today are only paid for by unarmed Syrian civilians who have seen their country torn to pieces by war for the last five years.

By intervening in Syria Russia has stopped any incentive for dialogue between parties. The rebels have declared their rejection of the United Nations’ mediation which they had previously accepted. The Assad regime, on the other hand, never displayed any real intentions to partake in dialogue and does not seem to hesitate in escalating the destruction of the country in order to keep its position.

It is evident that after the launching of bombings on the “terrorists,” Russia seems to desire to deprive the West of any partnership in a future political solution, by targeting not only ISIS troops, but also striking the moderate factions close to Washington, and all the forces opposed to the Assad regime. Russian aircrafts are reportedly avoiding bombing ISIS sites in addition to the fact that ISIS and Russians are concurrently trying to destroy Syrian opposition, in accordance with their own ambitions: Russians for the reasons mentioned above and ISIS in order to establish itself as the sole Sunni power keeping back the Shiite tide.

Most probably even if Russia has enjoyed some success in the first phase of its plan, the next stage will not be an easy one. The Russian military air force and artillery are empowering the Syrian regime where it already has a formidable superiority over the insurgents, namely firepower, yet leaving Assad’s key problem, manpower, unaddressed. It should be noted that many local sources confirm that defections from the Syrian army are still continuing to this moment.

More Islamic extremism won’t please the West, will bring more conflicts in Syria, and reshuffle the cards. The United States and Europe will not be in favor of standing idly in front of a new escalation of extremist forces – the world has not yet finished with the monstrosity called ISIS. United States jets have already bombed a mortar factory belonging to the non-jihadi Jaysh al-Sunna rebels, who were preparing to hit the Alawite Mountains.

In the end, we must not forget the fundamental fact that Bashar Assad did not earn his presidency by elections, as his father, and his regime is accepted as a repressive and dictatorial regime. Putin is also far from being perceived as a democratic leader; he is pretending to seek a “political solution” that comes on the back of soldiers, aircrafts and advanced missiles in Syria. Napoleon once said “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” The sad reality is that the Russian mistakes of today are only paid for by unarmed Syrian civilians who have seen their country torn to pieces by war for the last five years.