Comment: This is a great example of the pathological thinking typical among American authoritarians: arrogant, ideological, and totally divorced from objective reality. It's no wonder the American empire is breathing its dying breaths.
© AP Photo/Alexander Kots, Komsomolskaya Pravda
With each Russian escalatory step in Syria, the situation only seems to get worse. Critics pile on, citing it as an example of President Barack Obama's "failed" foreign policy, calling for Obama to "do something" — confront Moscow, punish it for its reckless behavior, reassert leadership. But what would that something be?
Across the political spectrum, there are calls for a more muscular U.S. approach in Syria. Some are talking of proxy battles, while others are calling it a new Cold War and declaring a need to act tough to restore American credibility. But before the U.S. tumbles into something, it's worth taking a step back and asking what Russian President Vladimir Putin aims to get out of this, and whether, if measured by his own goals, this brazen military intervention will work. I think the answer is no - which should guide how the U.S. should respond.
Comment: First, a little bit of truth. Chollet is right about one thing: America has no credibility. But notice how the solutions proposed by 'some' are typically American. As if "acting tough" (i.e. killing more people) is a way of restoring credibility. That's largely what got you there in the first place, guys!
Let's start with Putin's stated objective for his intervention in Syria: fighting ISIS. This claim is preposterous. Few Russian strikes are taking place in Islamic State-controlled territory; the air campaign is focused on the opposition that is primarily fighting Assad. This is consistent with Putin's inverted logic of the conflict, which — as he stated at his UN General Assembly speech last week — is as follows: Assad not only has a right to stay in power, but he in fact is the key to solving the ISIS problem. Unlike the United States and most of the rest of the world, who see the Syrian leader as a driver of the conflict, Putin asserts that Assad is the solution.
Comment: So many lies, so few sentences. 1) The claim isn't preposterous. Russia is striking IS targets, as even Chollet admits by saying "few". But sure, there are other objectives, like taking out the CIA-trained head-choppers and cannibals turning Syria into chaos. 2) Fighting the 'opposition' by necessity includes fighting ISIS: they're both there for the same purposes (establishing a Jihadi state and taking out Assad). 3) There's nothing inverted about the logic that says a democratically elected leader has the right to stay in power if his people choose him (and Assad's people have chosen him, repeatedly). Just because the U.S. and "most of the rest of the world" (whatever that means!) say differently, that doesn't make it true. On the contrary, the U.S. is the prime driver of the conflict through their training, arming, and funding of the head-choppers in the first place.
Russia's motivation is simple: to protect Assad. Putin believes he is defending a basic principle against "outside intervention" that seeks to bring down an allied government—as he's angrily watched happen over the last 15 years in Serbia, Iraq, Libya and Ukraine. And Russia's military role in the Syrian conflict is hardly new. They've been there from the beginning as one of Assad's only allies and chief weapons suppliers. Russian personnel have been on the ground throughout.
Comment: So far so good. Is Chollet gaining some actual mental faculties?!
Seen this way, Putin's moves are driven primarily out of fear and weakness, not confidence and strength. He sees his only ally left in the region on the ropes and therefore Russia had to come to his defense. Russia wants to maintain the only military outpost it has in the region, anchored by a key naval facility in Tartus.
Comment: Nope! What is this guy smoking? Only a quivering weakling would support an ally from an illegal foreign intervention aimed at killing him and installing a puppet regime, we suppose. At least, that's the way Chollet seems to see the world. How American. If your 'enemy' makes a move that is at once brilliant, courageous and strong, simply call it weak and fearful. That says a lot of Chollet's opinion of his readers' intelligence. They should feel insulted.
Now that Russia has decided to go all-in to back Assad, it will have to be there for the long haul. It may enjoy some tactical battlefield successes. But defeats and mistakes are just as likely (or, as shown by Russian missiles landing in Iran, perhaps more likely). And for Russia to maintain its position it will require a continuing supply of resources and higher costs, which will prove harder to sustain over time.
Comment: Oh boy... 1) No, it will not have to be there for the long haul. Especially since killing CIA tools seems to be a lot easier than the world thought it would be. 2) No Russian missiles landed in Iran. Get a grip, Chollet.
Putin also wants to use the military intervention in Syria to change the subject from some of his troubles at home, particularly the situation in Ukraine and Russia's economic tailspin. This seems to have worked in the short term. But like Ukraine, as the Syria intervention grinds on—and especially if Russian casualties mount—it's very likely the Russian public will quickly sour on the intervention.
Comment: The Russian economy isn't doing so bad as you think. And also, the last time we checked, Russians overwhelmingly supported the Russian position on Ukraine. And Putin's popularity keeps rising. Again, what is Chollet smoking?
And finally, there's the view that Putin's actions are an effort to maintain geostrategic relevance. At the very least, Putin wants to ensure Russia remains a player in the region. But some claim that Putin has his eyes on a bigger prize: by stepping in where the U.S. has refused, Russia is trying to fill a leadership vacuum.
Comment: Partially true, but Chollet is using the juvenile dictionary. Russia is relevant, and it is a major player. It's not so much that there is a leadership vacuum; more that Russia has finally chosen to show the world in a big way what a real leader looks like.
Putin's open alliance with Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad only isolates Russia in the region, though. He is going after the very Syrian opposition that countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey have expended tremendous resources in trying to supply. And he's found himself even further isolated in the world.
Comment: LOL! Even when Russia makes friends and signs massive trade deals, it becomes more isolated. How's that for inverted logic? Let's just put it this way. Saudi Arabia? Turkey? No civilized nation would count it as a 'plus' with such regimes as friends. One word, Chollet: BRICS.
When you add this all up, it is very hard to see how Putin's intervention in Syria is going to end well for Russia's position in the Middle East, or anywhere. Moreover, it seems likely that this will boomerang back on Russia by making it an even more enticing target of Sunni extremists.
Comment: Is that a threat, Chollet? Your buddies in the State Department would know, having directed those "Sunni extremists" for years.
So what should the United States do about it? First, it should continue to condemn and isolate Russia; this should include exploring new economic sanctions. Second, it should increase support for the moderate Syrian opposition. Although the U.S. equip and train program as originally designed has floundered, there are other ways it can provide direct military support to the opposition—as it has with the Kurds in Iraq—which press reports suggest the administration is considering.
Comment: Wow. Talk about delusional. There's no rational reason to 'condemn' Russia, and the U.S.'s attempt to isolate Russia has been laughable - not to mention the joke of sanctions. As for increasing support for the 'moderate' opposition, that is rich: just train more terrorists. No wonder the States has lost any semblance of credibility.
Third, the U.S. and its European partners need to maintain unity, especially in our collective commitment to NATO Allies like Turkey. One could envision Putin trying to drive a wedge in the Transatlantic Alliance by provoking a crisis with Turkey—a prospect he may be testing with recent airspace violations—probing whether we would come to its defense. And fourth, the U.S. and its coalition partners need to press the fight against ISIS, making clear that Russia's escalation is not causing us to back off.
Comment: "Maintain unity"? Try "enforce total compliance".
While Russia's escalation only makes Syria worse, the U.S. needs to avoid a knee-jerk reaction and instead practice strategic patience. Although many foreign policy pundits seem to be fixing for a fight with Putin, we need to remember that even his own stated goals are unachievable. Like in Ukraine, Putin has gotten himself into a situation that he doesn't know how to get out of—and will only prove costly.
Comment: Hypocritical windbag. Russia making Syria worse?! Look in the mirror, Chollet!
Putin is no great strategist. He doesn't play chess, he plays checkers. However remote, the only silver lining that could potentially emerge is now that Putin has gotten himself in too deep. Once the costs become too high, that he will have to sue for peace, and in that process he may be willing to use his leverage to get Assad out. This is one area where President Obama's patience can be a great asset, because the answer here is not for Obama to be more like Putin.
Comment: We can only hope that people like Obama actually follow Chollet's advice, because it is so harebrained and so at odds with reality that it will only hasten the U.S. to fail harder and faster. And the world has been waiting long enough for that to happen. In fact, Chollet's advice is so bad that we wonder: maybe he's one of Putin's infamous Kremlin trolls! Or maybe he really is that dumb.
Derek Chollet is a Defense One contributor. He is also counselor and senior advisor for security and defense policy at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. During the Obama administration Chollet served most recently as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs and in positions at the White House and State Department.
"Putin is no great strategist. He doesn't play chess, he plays checkers. However remote, the only silver lining that could potentially emerge is now that Putin has gotten himself in too deep. Once the costs become too high, that he will have to sue for peace, and in that process he may be willing to use his leverage to get Assad out. This is one area where President Obama's patience can be a great asset, because the answer here is not for Obama to be more like Putin."....[Link]