Putin’s plan for Syria

Only Russia has a clear goal—we should join it or stay out

by Rachel Polonsky / October 9, 2015 / Leave a comment

A man holds portrait of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin (R) and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad (L) during a rally in support of Syrian regime in front of the US Embassy in Moscow in 2012. © ANDREY SMIRNOV/AFP/Getty Images

As David Cameron prepares the way for a vote on bombing in Syria, Britain faces an ugly choice: whether to back Russia in targeting Islamic State, if that also means propping up President Bashar al-Assad—see James Harkin’s July 2013 cover story and Bronwen Maddox’s piece “Which side is Britain on?”. That is clearly Russia’s goal, and its deployment of aircraft and other forces gives it the upper hand. Rachel Polonsky argues here that this is the best course. Many would disagree, and see backing Russia—and Assad, whose military has killed so many Syrians—as a false answer and the fuel for civil war or for the country splitting. But many will agree, too, that the west has to talk to Russia—and that it has no clear plan of its own.

After Vladimir Putin’s meeting with Barack Obama at the United Nations on 28th September, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson Maria Zakharova was relayed live from New York to the Moscow studio of Special Correspondent, a popular talk show on Russia-1, the state-owned television channel. The theme was the end of the unipolar world order—of the west’s ability to shape the world as it would like, above all the Middle East. “We would prefer not to have been right,” Zakharova said, with the more-in-sorrow-than-anger tone of an exasperated schoolteacher.

If in the Middle East, she continued, we saw a single example of a developing democratic state with flourishing citizens of the kind that the advocates of the unipolar world promised their methods would bring, perhaps we might trust the west’s proposals. Instead, we see nothing but poverty, ruin and terrorism, and an evil spreading across continents, threatening Europe and…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days. But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Prospect’s Top Thinkers—which salutes the scientists, philosophers and writers reshaping our times. We’ll also send you our weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics, economics, history, science, literature and the arts. You can, of course, unsubscribe from this newsletter at any time.

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

11888764185f6937f47bf1f6.56731655

Go to comments

Comments

R Fairless
October 10, 2015 at 10:19
Who in their right mind would want to takes sides in a civil war? The rebels adopted the name Freedom to give themselves authenticity and that was obviously enough for Cameron and Obama. British and American troops have been there helping to train and arm the rebels and they are really active participants in a civil war that has little to do with the security or interests of America or Britain. Al-Asaad has never been an enemy of either country but was faced with insurrection from rebels of doubtful religious and political origin. Had we not enterfered the resurrection would have been suppressed long ago saving many thousands of lives and much hardship. But no, the UK and USA had to add to their long list of failures from which they have not learned. If there is still a modicum of common sense left in either country they should leave it to Russia to solve the problem.
Harry Collier
October 10, 2015 at 12:49
Sounds good sense to me. When will politicians learn that we do not always lap up what they spout? This was the downfall of Tony Blair's reputation: the belief that the British people and politicians would accept whatever they were told by The Authorities.
Mark C.
October 10, 2015 at 23:01
At last, a clear, balanced and genuinely informative exposition of Russia's intervention in Syria, refreshingly free from the usual misleading propaganda which seems to be uncritically promulgated by the rest of the mainstream British media. I found it helpful that Rachel Polonsky carefully and evidentially reconciles what we have been told by the British media with the reporting in Russia and also with what those who care to look can easily discover about the situation from the alternative media (for example, to watch Putin telling it how it is - see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww )
Dima
October 28, 2015 at 14:57
I applaud you! That's the real journalism!
Andrey K Russia, Samara
October 28, 2015 at 15:11
Thanks to the author for attempting an analysis of the real situation in Syria and the actions of all parties, rather than the standard set of horror stories and clichés, used in most publications.

Rachel Polonsky is a lecturer in Slavonic studies at Cambridge University and author of “Molotov’s Magic Lantern: A Journey in Russian History”