Dick Krickus | The Lithuania Tribune
Article published in russiaprofile.org on 17 February.

Why did Russia veto an Arab League plan to end the slaughter in Syria by removing Bashir Assad from power? A number of explanations have been provided: the Kremlin wants to protect a regime that purchases its military hardware to the tune of $5 billion; it covets Russia’s only Mediterranean Naval base at Tartus; and Prime Minister Putin is exploiting the crisis to convince the international community that Russia is still a power with which to be reckoned.

At the same time, by snubbing the Arabs and the West, Putin has bolstered his image among Russians who are tired of foreigners– the “arrogant Americans” in particular–dictating to them on matters of global significance. Like Putin they believe Washington is responsible for the Arab Spring and is intent on doing the same thing in Russia. By standing tall, he enhances his prospects of winning the March presidential contest in the first round.

That said, the conventional wisdom is that Bashir Assad’s days are numbered and whatever short-term gains are derived from Russia’s UN veto will be nullified in the long term. In Syria itself, Assad’s opponents have been appalled by Russia’s rejecting diplomatic efforts to “end the killing” and claim that foreign minister Sergei Lavrov’s meeting with Assad in Damascus encouraged the dictator to escalate his brutal crackdown.

Likewise, the veto has angered the entire Sunni Arab community. The Muslim Brotherhood has urged Arab governments to boycott Russian goods and break diplomatic relations with Moscow. The head of the Arab League, Nabil Elaraby, has chastised Moscow for ignoring the brutal killing of mostly unarmed civilians in Syria—according to the UN, 6,000. Sympathizers from North Africa, Iraq and the Levant are  threatening to provide the Syrian rebels with arms and even fighters. When Assad is gone, most Sunni Arabs will deem Russia an enemy, not a friend of their people.

Simultaneously, while Putin may dismiss Western critics, business analysts have warned that his Syrian policies are further evidence that he is living in a bubble–out of touch with events at home and abroad. Consequently foreign investors will not risk money in a country led by a man who has a hard time accepting reality.

Daily and relentless visuals carried by the global media, Al Jazeera in particular, have stoked growing international outrage. Images of children whose bodies have been ravaged by bursting artillery shells or sniper bullets have fed mounting enmity toward Assad and calls for the international community to arm the rebels.

Putin and his critics, however, are in agreement that the conflict in Syria must be contained and that arming the rebels would produce just the opposite outcome. Consequently, even pro-democracy Arab commentators reject the advice of Senator John McCain that they should be provided with weapons. That action would spawn a wider war that not only involved Syria but Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Turkey, and a host of other parties  like Hamas and Hezbollah,  that would envelop the region in violent, uncontrollable mayhem.  With this outcome in mind, the Obama administration has rejected calls for the U.S. to arm the insurgents.

Alas, prospects for an early end to the blood-letting are not good. Assad has a well-armed security force of 300,000 plus a committed base of Alawite and Christian supporters along with powerful commercial allies. Meanwhile, his opponents are divided and without a single charismatic leader to unify them. Consequently, since there is no quick solution to the crisis in Syria, Assad may remain in power for a long time. In face of what could be a huge catastrophe, one would hope that Russia would work with the Americans, Arabs and Europeans to avoid a regional war. Unfortunately, it may be too late. Something approaching a surging cold war chill makes such cooperation unlikely even though it serves the vital security interest of all sides.

Dick Krickus is distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Mary Washington and has held the H.L. Oppenheimer Chair for Warfighting Strategy at the U.S. Marine Corps University.