No peace through bombing

While Russian President Vladimir Putin has been saying all along that he was bombing Syrian targets principally to prop Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Russian prime minister told the Russian Rossiya TV Channel last week that the Russian military intervention was intended to protect Russian interests and not to keep Assad in power.

Whatever the real reason for Moscow’s bombing, the Syrian people, as evidenced by the high casualty rate among civilians, nearly a month of intensive Russian bombardment has not made much difference on the battlefield.

On balance, Moscow would emerge from its military involvement in Syria losing face and, above all, its image and stature among most Arabs.

Russia has always stood by the populist causes in the Middle East; now, all of a sudden, it decided to take Damascus’ side, a stance that is not exactly popular among the Arab and Muslim peoples, with the exception of Iran, perhaps.

Maybe Putin has other objectives behind his military intervention against a populist movement in Syria. Maybe Russia’s national interests call for the establishment of an advanced military base along the Mediterranean Sea, to checkmate the US and other Western powers in the region.

Russia already has a naval base in Latakia, on Syria’s shores, and it may be planning to have yet another.

Whatever the case, Moscow is losing the image that it once enjoyed and this could be the biggest loss that it could incur in the long run.

There are rumours that Russia may suspend or stop its indiscriminate aerial bombardments of Syrian towns and cities, having realised that it is too costly.

Moscow should stop its reckless policy in Syria and confine its intervention to the promotion of a peaceful resolution of the Syrian conflict on the basis of Geneva I platform.