There can be no denying that Russia — or more specifically Vladimir Putin — has played an instrumental role in negotiating a decrease in the level of violence in Syria (although all-out peace in the war-torn nation still seems like an unobtainable goal).
By pressuring Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to accept (albeit not necessarily comply with) a U.N.-brokered ceasefire with a not-too-subtle carrot-and-stick approach to military backing, the Kremlin has effectively managed to maintain a slow-simmer status quo in a country that has seen more than 250,000 dead and at least 11 million displaced refugees in the last five years.
True, the death toll in Syria continues to mount, but the pace of the dismal cycle of bloodshed has diminished, at least temporarily, and that, for the most part, is thanks to Putin.
By alternately deploying armed military sorties and threats (and actions) of contingency withdrawals, the Russian president has managed to keep Assad in check when no other foreign power could do so.
Simply put, Assad listens to Putin, mainly because he doesn’t have any other powerful allies who are willing to shore up his government with munitions and airstrikes.
But Russia’s intervention into the seemingly endless irreconcilable impasses of a country that seems destined to irresoluble political posturing and brutal conflict has not come without a cost.
According to some estimates (based on data collated for The Moscow Times), Moscow’s military presence in Syria — including cruise missiles, bombing raids, supply runs, infrastructure and ground personnel — has cost Russia more than $150 million so far, and that doesn’t even include the price of the warplane downed by Turkey late last year.
So what does Moscow get out of all its efforts and financial investments in Syria?
To begin with, the Russian venture makes it clear that, like it or not, the Western alliance of the United States, Europe, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (which has steadfastly maintained that there can be no resolution to the Syrian crisis as long as Assad remains in power) is going to have to accept, at least for now, the despot leader as the legitimate and duly-elected president of Syria.
And it has showcased Russian military equipment for prospective international buyers. (Last year, Moscow exported defense planes, helicopters and other gear worth more than $15.5 billion.)
But most of all, Russia’s intervention in Syria has allowed Moscow to prove itself to once again be a major global political player (despite Putin’s carefully worded comments to Western news sources late last month stating that he believed that the United States is the world’s sole remaining superpower).
In essence, the money and resources spent by Russia have been a potent propaganda tool, purchasing coverage in the world’s media of Putin’s astute political statesmanship.
Putin has used military means to obtain his diplomatic objectives.
Edging out a gun-shy Barack Obama, Putin has effectively leveraged his way into the dominant position at the international negotiating tables on Middle Eastern affairs, showing that he is the only force that can bring a semblance of peace to a region torn by centuries-old sectarian conflicts, unstructured rebel factions and fanatical jihadism.
For better or worse, Russia has become the global luminary in the international war on terrorism and the chief military protagonist in the Middle East, a force to be reckoned with.
Having successfully displayed his military prowess in Syria, Putin has now become the only conceivable gatekeeper for a possible negotiated peace, not only Syria, but throughout the entire region.
And with no other political champion in the offing, the world has no other choice but to acknowledge his authority.
