ASSESSMENT REPORT Russian Withdrawal from Syria: Is the Clock Ticking for Assad? Policy Analysis Unit | Mar 2016 Russian Withdrawal from Syria: Is the Clock Ticking for Assad? Series: Assessment Report Policy Analysis Unit | Mar 2016 Copyright © 2016 Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies. All Rights Reserved. ____________________________ The Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies is an independent research institute and think tank for the study of history and social sciences, with particular emphasis on the applied social sciences. The Center’s paramount concern is the advancement of Arab societies and states, their cooperation with one another and issues concerning the Arab nation in general. To that end, it seeks to examine and diagnose the situation in the Arab world - states and communities- to analyze social, economic and cultural policies and to provide political analysis, from an Arab perspective. The Center publishes in both Arabic and English in order to make its work accessible to both Arab and non-Arab researchers. Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies PO Box 10277 Street No. 826, Zone 66 Doha, Qatar Tel.: +974 44199777 | Fax: +974 44831651 www.dohainstitute.org Table of Contents Introduction 1 The Context of Russia’s Military Campaign 1 Conflicting Priorities and Motives Behind Russia’s Overture 3 Russia’s Gambit and the Impact on Negotiations 4 RUSSIA’S WITHDRAWAL FROM SYRIA Introduction Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised onlookers with his announcement on Tuesday, March 15, that he would withdraw most of Russia’s combat forces from Syria, stating that Russia’s military campaign had “achieved most of its aims” in Syria. Although he denied that the withdrawal of Russian forces was a measured aimed at pressuring Bashar Al Assad into being more cooperative with the peace process, Putin press spokesman Dmitry Peskov did point out that Russia’s immediate aims in the Syrian conflict involved “intensifying [Russian] efforts to achieve a settlement in Syria”1. The Context of Russia’s Military Campaign While the stated aim of Russia’s military intervention in Syria was to quash ISIL before it “could carry out operations in Russia itself” – a reasonable proposition given the hundreds of Russians nationals reported to have joined the group – an examination of the targets chosen by Russian airstrikes reveals that Moscow’s main military operations in Syria primarily targeted (moderate) armed Syrian opposition. This suggests that throughout its military campaign, Russia’s prime objective was to address the balance of powers and, ultimately, prevent the total collapse of the Syrian Army. This would, in turn, allow the Assad regime a chance to engage in negotiations without having been completely defeated. Yet the Russians would soon discover the enormity of the task they took upon themselves: five years of continuous fighting had taken a massive toll on the Syrian Army, which had found itself incapable of securing even the smallest strips of territory seized by the opposition, even with the aid of intensive Russian bombardment. The Russian military was put to the test soon after the launch of its military campaign, during the battle for the Hama countryside in October 2015, when Syrian rebels managed to stop the advance of Russian tanks with the aid of US-made TW shoulder launched missiles. So painful was Russia’s humiliation that Assad was quickly called to Moscow for consultations. 1 See “Putin says Russians to start withdrawing troops from Syria, as peace talks resume”, Denis Dyomkin and Sulieman and Khaldi, Reuters, Tuesday, March 15, 2016: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast- crisis-syria-russia-pullout-idUSKCN0WG23C 1 ARAB CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND POLICY STUDIES In parallel to its push to drive back the Syrian opposition, the Russians simultaneously undertook a political charm offensive that would both prevent them from becoming embroiled in a war of attrition and ensure that they had clear channels of communication with the United States. Dialogue with Washington would secure Russia’s position as a vital partner on a number of issues related to the Middle East. Indeed, the Vienna peace talks for Syria, to which Russia was a party along with 16 other nations, was launched within a month of Russia’s first involvement in the Syrian conflict. Multilateral negotiations rapidly evolved into bilateral talks between the United States and Russia, which saw all of the other parties sidelined—including the major European powers US’s European allies, and Iran, which had always pressed Russia had previously insisted on it being involved in any peace settlement over Syria. The result of these discussions eventually took the shape of the Vienna Accord, a communique which included a roadmap to resolve the conflict in Syria, and which was adopted by UN Security Council Resolution 2254 (December, 2015). The communique included demands for a non-sectarian governing body; a ceasefire/cessation of hostilities; an amendment of the Syrian constitution; and the holding of UN-supervised legislative elections within 18 months of the ceasefire. In spite of the failed Geneva III peace talks, which only served as a cover for Russia to continue its bombing campaign while its allies in Damascus capitalized on their military gains, the White House and the Kremlin eventually managed to come to an agreement. On February 11, 2016, on the fringes of the Munich Security Conference, Russian and US representatives came to an in-principle agreement on the broad outlines of a peace settlement in Syria. The final details covering the scope of the ceasefire and, in particular, those opposition groups which would not be covered by its terms, were ironed out in a phone call between presidents Obama and Putin on February 22, paving the way for the ceasefire to take effect on February 27. Notwithstanding multiple major infractions by the regime and its allies, the ceasefire has stood strong in the days since. This reflects Russia’s determination that this ceasefire holds, something which France’s Defense Minister recognized when he noted that Moscow’s planes were no longer targeting sites controlled by Syria’s moderate opposition2. 2 “Russia has ‘practically’ stopped hitting moderate Syrian rebels: Le Drian”, Reuters, March 14, 2016: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-france-idUSKCN0WG2ED 2 RUSSIA’S WITHDRAWAL FROM SYRIA Conflicting Priorities and Motives Behind Russia’s Overture The decision to partially withdraw from Syria coincided with the resumption of talks in Geneva. Putin’s decision to inform Assad of the move with an unceremonious telephone call is further evidence of Russia’s discontent with the Syrian regime’s seeming disdain for a series of US-Russian agreements which culminated in UNSC 2254 and UNSC 2268 (February 26, 2016), both of which specified mechanisms for the monitoring of ceasefire in Syria. For some time now, increased tensions between the Kremlin and its allies in Damascus have been increasingly visible. Russia’s UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, described Moscow’s irritation with the Syrian president’s stated wish to reclaim all of the territory lost during the past five years of conflict. He pointed out that Russia “has invested very seriously in this crisis, politically, diplomatically and now also in the military sense. Therefore, we would like that Bashar Al Assad should take account of that.3” Making matters worse, the Syrian regime announced their unilateral decision to hold parliamentary elections in April 2016, going against UNSC 2254, which envisages all elections be part of a final resolution of the Syrian crisis. Iran’s seeming support for Assad’s plans to hold elections in April—communicated to Moscow’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhal Bogdanov during his latest visit to Tehran—only served to further irritate the Russians, exposing how Assad was willing to play his two main international backers against each other4. Combined, these developments suggest that Putin’s decision to partially withdraw Russian forces from Syria on the eve of the recommencement of the Geneva process was a consequence of growing discrepancies between Russia and its allies in the Syrian conflict over what to expect from the negotiations process. Abetted by Iran, the Syrian regime is categorically against a final peace plan which removes Assad from power. This was clearly expressed by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, who offered the regime’s interpretation of the clauses of UNSC 2254, suggesting that the transitional period entailed only “replacing one constitution with another” and conceding that the 3 “Russia warns Assad not to snub ceasefire plan”, Alexander Winning and Christian Lower, Reuters, February 19, 2016: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-idUKKCN0VR287 4 For a discussion of the visit and Russia-US cooperation on Syria, see “Russia satisfied with cooperation with US on Syria”, TASS Russian News Agency, March 7, 2016: http://tass.ru/en/politics/860988 3 ARAB CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND POLICY STUDIES Syrian opposition would be allowed to join a government while emphasizing that Bashar Al Assad’s presidency was a “red line”. Muallem also attacked UN envoy for Syria, Staffan De Mistura, for the demand that free parliamentary and presidential elections take place within 18 months of the formation of a comprehensive, non-sectarian governing body5. These differences of opinion reflect a deeper, fundamental divergence in the aims of what the various parties backing the Syrian regime hope to achieve during this stage of the conflict. While Damascus and Tehran are committed to an outright destruction of the Syrian opposition militarily and politically, Moscow’s actions are rooted in its desire to remain an effective and critical player in the Syrian arena. This means, in effect, that Russia must prove its willingness to cooperate with the United States in stabilizing the region, even if its role is to be that of a junior partner to Washington.