Russia’s invasion of Syria and its strategic impact on Turkish national security

Despite the fact that President Vladimir Putin claims that his invasion of Syria and military activity in the country aims to combat Daesh, the Russian airstrikes targeted various groups of the Free Syrian Army in a number of provinces. Furthermore, military analysts stress that Moscow’s announced motives are not in line with the advanced air defences placed by the Russians at Humaimam Base; they cannot be directed at Daesh because the extremist group does not possess any aircraft or missile systems. The real purpose of these systems is the establishment of a full air buffer zone in the area, which has coincided with NATO’s withdrawal of its missile defences and Washington’s initiative to withdraw its Patriot missiles from the Turkey-Syria border under the pretext of modernising the batteries. This was followed by the withdrawal of the only aircraft carrier in the region, leaving the air space east of the Mediterranean open to Russian aircraft.

Strategically speaking, US actions can be explained as an attempt to make Syria bait for the Russians in order to drag them into the Middle East, given the region’s complexities and contradictions, and involve them in the regional problems in an attempt to break the link between Moscow and China and distance Russia from the vital Pacific region. The purpose of this is to single out the Chinese dragon, which poses the greatest threat to US strategic interests.

Putin has relied on China’s understanding of his invasion of Syria and its support in the UN Security Council. He also relied on the Russia-Iran coalition and coordination because he knows that Tehran does not want to wait for the Americans to continue their game of restricting what can be done in the area. Instead, Iran prefers to coordinate with Moscow to arrange its upcoming regional role. Russia and Iran are in agreement about speeding up a resolution of the Syrian war and sharing the cake, while the US and Europe have adopted a completely opposite strategy. They are not in a hurry, and Obama even made a statement saying that the war against Daesh may last twenty years.

There is talk about a new Baghdad alliance in light of the establishment of an intelligence information centre by Russia, Iran and the Iraqi and Syrian governments, as well as Hezbollah, under the pretext of the war on Daesh; such talk is premature. In addition, Russia is re-planting itself in the region through its renewed strong relations with Egypt, which has openly supported its invasion of Syria; the government in Cairo claims that it will contribute to the elimination of terrorism. Perhaps Russia is counting on arranging a better relationship with Saudi Arabia if it is successful in reaching a political solution for Syria without the inclusion of Bashar Al-Assad in the medium term. However, what will Russia’s military presence in Syria mean in terms of strategic consequences for Turkey?

It is clear that the Russian president, along with the Iranians, is aiming to restore his country’s Tsarist glory and dreaming of reviving the age of empire following the failure of the nation-states established by the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement. He is cooperating with the Iranians and supporting them in their measures to revive the Sasanian Empire. This has encouraged Tehran’s mullahs to declare war on the Arab world and try to encircle it. It also explains the Orthodox Church’s blessing of the Russian invasion of both Crimea and Syria and to regard it as a holy war. This is not strange for this church, as it still calls Istanbul “Constantinople”, the capital of the Orthodox world that must be liberated from the Turks.

If Russia manages to occupy Syria and stay there, then it will have more or less surrounded Turkey on three sides: Crimea in the north, Armenia in the east and now Syria in the south. Russia’s armed presence in Syria is no longer limited to one military base in Tartus, so it has become clear that this is a long-term project across the whole country; the war on Daesh will dictate this. The attempt to penetrate Turkish air space was a test to gauge Turkey’s readiness and sensitivity, as well as the extent of NATO’s support for Ankara. I believe that these violations and provocation will continue under the pretext of being “accidental”.

With coordination between Russia and Israel on one hand and Russia-Iran on the other, the Iranians’ introduction of ground forces to fight in Syria suggests that there will be a full-blown siege of Turkey. Herein lies the greatest challenge for Washington, Paris, London and Berlin in their dealing with Putin’s attack and its effects. Will they stand with Turkey, which has protected their eastern borders with the Russians for the past six decades?

It is clear that the Russians are taking actions based on strategic rather than tactical motives and objectives. Their motivation will not be curbed by a few billion dollars in trade or sanctions which did not deter Iran, let alone Russia.

The Turkish leadership’s desperate attempt to separate economic relations from political pressure, making trade exchanges a source of hesitation and a hindrance in making firm strategic decisions, will have catastrophic consequences that will threaten Turkey’s security.

The time has come for Turkey to resist America, just as Saudi Arabia did when the Yemeni conflict started to have an impact on its security. Turkey, the large and powerful regional force, should take bold measures with regards to the Syrian crisis, not by entering the war directly, but by backing the Free Syrian Army with qualitative arms that will enable it to confront the Russian and Iranian invasion. By doing so, it will protect its history, people, the unity of its territory and its own strategic security.

Translated from Al Khaleej Online, 6 October, 2015

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.