Russia’s key role in Syria is only likely to magnify

The Syrian situation is becoming ever more complicated for the Trump administration, writes Michael Young

Russian president Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with newly-elected president of Georgia's breakaway South Ossetia region Anatoly Bibilov at the Bocharov Ruchei state residence in Sochi, Russia. AleShow more

One interpretation of the April 4 chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun in Syria is that Russia was aware that it was coming. It permitted the attack to happen, principally because it sought to test the administration of Donald Trump and renew with the Americans the unwritten arrangement over Syria that had prevailed with the administration of Barack Obama.

No doubt much remains unclear in such a view. Did the Russians really know about the attack? An unidentified senior US official made this assertion in the second week of April, pointing out that a Russian-operated drone had flown over the hospital where the victims of the chemical attack were being treated, after which the hospital was bombed, evidently to remove any evidence of what had happened.

But beyond that, the close collaboration of Russian and Syrian officers at the Shayrat airbase, from which the aircraft that bombed Khan Sheikhoun took off makes it unlikely that Moscow was caught unaware. Russia has strongly denied any responsibility, but the political context of the attack was itself revealing.

The Russians recall that the United States granted them considerable latitude in Syria after the Ghouta chemical attack in August 2013. At the time the Russians had headed off an American military response in exchange for removing Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile. Yet the move also turned Russia into an indispensable partner for any progress in Syria. Moscow was given considerable power to affect outcomes there.

When Mr Trump came into office, Russia had no guarantees that the unwritten arrangement would be revived. It is quite possible that the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was a way of obliging the Americans to reopen a dialogue with Moscow over Syria in which the previous understanding would prevail.

The assumption could well have been that Mr Trump’s declared desire to avoid any involvement in Syria would push him to cede political progress in Syria to Russia. Though the Americans did bomb Shayrat airbase, this seemed more a cosmetic form of retaliation than any fundamental shift in the US role in Syria. Nothing since then has suggested that Mr Trump plans a different approach in Syria from that of Mr Obama.

That is, perhaps, where we must seek an explanation for Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement on April 29 that Russia wanted to cooperate with the United States over Syria, particularly on the issue of fighting ISIL and Al Qaeda. The statement, made in the presence of the Jordanian foreign minister, Ayman Al Safadi, was a subtle shift from previous statements by Russian officials, in which they had insisted that it was up to the coalition to adopt Russian positions on Syria.

By affirming Russia’s willingness to participate in the anti-ISIL and Al Qaeda coalition, Mr Lavrov was hinting at a return to the previous Russian-American understanding over Syria, whereby the Obama administration had allowed Moscow to take the lead in addressing a political endgame there, in exchange for collaborating with Washington against ISIL. That Mr Al Safadi endorsed Mr Lavrov’s statements was a sign that the mood in the region is changing in a way that suits Moscow.

A conversation on Tuesday between Mr Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin, the first since the American bombing of the Syrian airbase, suggests the Russians are making headway. The two men agreed to intensify their cooperation over Syria. The US also agreed to send a representative to the Russian-led Astana talks over Syria, a key forum allowing Moscow to shape diplomatic outcomes there.

Russia has not wavered on this. It initiated the Astana process to put a foot in the door, without however challenging the United Nations negotiating framework. Moscow realises that the UN is the only path towards an internationally recognised solution in Syria. Rather than replace this, it has sought to create parallel momentum elsewhere – in Astana and through its improved relations with Turkey and the Arab states – to give itself greater diplomatic weight in the UN process.

The Syrian situation is becoming ever more complicated for the Trump administration, which has no clear Syria policy. The Americans find themselves lost amidst an escalating Turkish-Kurdish confrontation in northern Syria.

By offering to work with the international coalition, Russia presents itself as the party most able to mediate between all sides. Given this position, its say in a Syrian settlement can only increase.

It doesn’t take great perspicacity for Mr Putin to see that there is disarray in Washington, especially over Syria. What better time to push the US into a corner and force it to make a choice that benefits Russia? After all, Mr Putin easily did so with the far more clearheaded Obama administration.

Michael Young is a writer and editor in Beirut

On Twitter: @BeirutCalling