Deciding Syria’s Fate At Munich

Feb. 19, 2016

This year’s Munich Security Conference (February 13–14) provided the forum for some troubling signals regarding the state of the relationship between the U.S./NATO and Russia. On the one hand, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev accused the U.S. and our allies of creating an atmosphere of confrontation reminiscent of the worst of the Cold War.

Medvedev argued that the sanctions imposed by western countries in response to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, the February 2 announcement by President Obama of a fourfold increase in U.S. spending in defense of Eastern Europe, and recent criticisms by NATO’s leaders aggravated tensions and could destroy what remains of 25 years of effort to improve U.S.-Russian relations. He spoke of a “new Cold War” emerging just when cooperation between the west and Russia is essential.

On the western side of this debate, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg placed the blame squarely on Russia, arguing that Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, its large-scale exercises along NATO’s eastern border and its recent increased flights of nuclear-armed bombers in the Baltic region were meant to intimidate it neighbors and undermine European stability. While President Obama’s decision to strengthen our forces in Eastern Europe is symbolically important and reverses years of cutbacks, a recent RAND Corporation study concluded that, should Russia decide to invade the Baltic States, NATO could hold out for less than three days.

The president’s proposed increases will partially address the imbalance, but realistically NATO is not going back to a Cold War deployment of 300,000 troops. Russia’s advantage in land forces will remain.

But there have been opportunities for dialogue. One point of common ground is that both U.S./ NATO and Russia agree that the greatest threat to global stability today comes from Islamist terrorism and the utter chaos in today’s Middle East. Both sides seem to acknowledge that we have a common interest in getting the Syrian civil war under control.

Where interests intersect, diplomats usually can find ways to cooperate. So while Medvedev was criticizing Washington in one speech, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry were agreeing on two potentially significant steps toward reducing the high level of tensions.

First, they agreed to “explore the possibility of convening a meeting of the NATO- Russia Council.” That carefully worded announcement signals that both sides see some potential value in reopening a forum to discuss the widening gulf that has developed ever since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014. That’s a start.

The second possible breakthrough was the announcement of an agreement among 17 countries to a “cessation of hostilities” in Syria. Due to begin as this paper goes to the print, this falls short of a ceasefire and apparently would allow the conflict’s many outside players to continue supplying their favored combatants. Although no Syrian groups actually doing the fighting have yet signed up to this idea, they depend on outside sources for funding, weapons and supplies. So it is at least possible that the fighting may halt, at least long enough to allow humanitarian relief to get to the starving civilians caught in the middle.

This cessation — the first international effort to stop the war since 2012 — is desperately needed. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians are now trying to flee an ever-tightening noose around what was once Syria’s largest city, Aleppo. The Syrian army, backed by Russian air strikes, Iranian weapons and advisers and the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, seems poised for a final push that could turn into a bloodbath.

With the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran backing the cessation, it may create the diplomatic time and space needed to open fuller discussions of how to bring the broader civil war to an end. This is where the relationship between Moscow and Washington becomes so important. Despite our deep differences, we now have a chance to do something together to would save lives.

Obviously nothing about the Syrian civil war has been resolved; the Islamic State has not been defeated; the fundamental divide between Sunnis and Shiites is getting worse; and we’re not going to agree with Russia over its bombing campaign. Moscow seems convinced that ending the civil war by handing President Assad a victory in Aleppo will provide an outcome that is preferable to endless warfare. Russian diplomats argue that strengthening Assad’s hand will provide him with a seat at the negotiating table from which a settlement can be achieved. Once that happens, the Russians argue, only then will it be time for all sides to focus on defeating the Islamic State.

The U.S. does not agree with this Russian gambit, but we have failed to put forward a viable alternative. If Moscow’s strategy works in Aleppo, the subsequent steps will be dictated by Moscow, not Washington. That fits perfectly with Russia’s broader objective throughout this conflict; namely to ensure that Russia’s longtime ally, the Assad clan, is not overthrown, and therefore that Russia’s military interests and its bases in Syria are preserved.

Since nothing that Washington has tried until now has had a decisive effect on the Assad regime or the Islamic State’s holdings in Syria, it appears from Secretary Kerry’s statements at the Munich Conference that the Obama administration has chosen to follow Moscow’s lead.

Like bickering schoolchildren, the two global superpowers have been trading accusations at the Munich Conference and moving forces around in ways that heighten the risk of unintended conflict. But with Syria apparently headed for a showdown, it is time for dialogue.

Like any relationship, there are two sides to every story and in this case, both Russia’s and NATO’s statements and actions have caused a worsening of an already fragile relationship. By capitalizing on a temporary halt to the fighting, if one materializes, Washington and Moscow could take the lead in a diplomatic effort to find a solution for the Syrian people. It’s time to tone down the rhetoric on both sides and give it a try.

Jack Segal is a retired US diplomat who served in senior positions at the State Department, the White House and NATO. He and his wife, Karen Puschel, co-chair the International Affairs Forum, whose next event – “Is ISIS A Threat To Central Asia,” will be held on the NMC campus on March 17 at 6pm.