Day: August 3, 2021
Russia is an option, but not a good one
While I’ve had lots of agreement about my assertion last week that there are no good American options for Syria, some of my friends are still hoping for the US and Russia to make progress on the political front. This idea certainly makes sense in principle. The Russians are a strong military force inside Syria and have lots of political clout, not only with President Assad but also with what is left of the Syrian opposition, the Kurds, the Turks, and the Iranians. Their main interest in Syria would appear to be maintaining their bases there, which the Americans have never really opposed. Having spent a good deal, they also want to benefit from Syria’s reconstruction. Unlike the Iranians, Russia does not threaten Israel, though there is rumint that they are shifting towards blocking its bombing inside Syria.
But that is too narrow an assessment of Moscow’s interests. The Russians would like a stronger role throughout the Middle East and want to make trouble for the West while protecting autocrats. They like the higher oil prices their cooperation in OPEC+ with Middle Eastern oil producers has brought. They see economic and political opportunities in American withdrawal from the region. And they want to re-assert the sovereign rights of leaders who, like Vladimir Putin, don’t have genuine support from their people. Preventing “regime change” has become the Russian equivalent of Biden’s “promoting democracy.”
Moscow is not going to defenestrate Assad, or even open the window so that the Syrian people can do it. While they talk smack about him to any Westerner who will listen, they in fact have supported him even when he undertook military offensives they had advised against. Moscow doesn’t see anything better (for its interests) than Assad on the horizon. If the Russians had any intention at all of seeking alternatives, they had an excellent opportunity to signal that during the UN Security Council debate this month on cross-border aid, which the West favors because it provides assistance to Assad’s opponents without requiring his approval. The Russians by contrast took a hard line and allowed only one cross-border point to remain open for six months, or maybe a year.
Is there anything the West could do to change Moscow’s behavior? We can try. The Biden Administration has shut down work by a US company that was planning to help the Kurds in eastern Syria produce and refine oil production from one of Syria’s main fields. The Kurds as a result will have to continue to sell a good part of it, one way or another, to the regime, which controls the only remaining refinery in the country. Not surprisingly, a Russian-controlled company has now indicated it is willing to return to Syria to produce some of that oil. It is hard to believe the Americans didn’t understand the consequences of their move in shutting down the US company.
The question is this: what did Biden’s people get in exchange for giving a Russian company control of a major source of Syria’s oil? So far, the answer seems to be “very little,” perhaps only the UNSC resolution holding that one cross-border assistance point open. Could they have gotten more? It is hard to tell, but my guess is not much more. The Americans just don’t have enough bang in Syria, where their troops are hunkered down providing intelligence, logistical, and other assistance to Kurdish-led forces who are trying to deal with Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, local issues, and sometimes the Turks.
American and European policy on Syria has focused on sanctions and holding back reconstruction assistance until there is an “irreversible” way forward on a political solution. That position is holding for now, but not producing any significant diplomatic results. In the meanwhile, Syrians suffer the consequences. Assad is careful to feed his supporters before the opposition and to throw any reconstruction contracts the Iranians and Russians are willing to fund to their companies and to his own cronies. He hasn’t survived more than 10 years of civil war without figuring out what it takes to stay in power. Moscow occasionally plays a mediator role in negotiating a ceasefire here and there but shows no sign of pressuring him to prepare a political transition.
I’ll be glad to be surprised. But at least for now, Russia is not a good option.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 3
– Politico has a revealing article on the Biden NSC staff in its afternoon newsletter. I’m not sure that link will work, so here’s the text.
SUPER-SIZING THE NSC: The National Security Council has significantly increased its staff in the first six months of the Biden administration, adding between 50 to 70 more staffers than under the Trump administration, two people familiar with the matter tell Daniel.
The NSC’s staff roster is now between 350 to 370 people, according to the sources, an increase of roughly 20 percent from what the NSC looked like in the summer and fall of the last year of the DONALD TRUMP administration, when it stood at around 300. The increase in staff is due to the addition or reconstitution of six new policy directorates focused on Biden administration priorities and the staffing growth of other directorates like the China and cyber directorates, whose head ANNE NEUBERGER also carries the title of deputy national security adviser. (There are now four deputy national security advisers.)
“We have needed to rebuild the scaffolding of how the national security policy process should work,” a senior administration official said. The numbers haven’t previously been reported.
— The NSC has reconstituted a pandemic response team after it was dissolved under the Trump administration before Covid. That directorate — one of the NSC’s larger teams — is built not just for Covid, but for a whole-of-government approach to prevent and handle future pandemics.
— ERIC GREEN, a career Foreign Service officer, has been made head of a new directorate primarily focused on Russia (affairs regarding Moscow were formerly part of the Europe team).
— National Security Adviser JAKE SULLIVAN created a new directorate focused on emerging technologies, led by TARUN CHHABRA, to coordinate policy around tech competitiveness such as addressing the semiconductor shortage and improving U.S. policy on issues like AI and quantum computing.
— The Biden White House has also reconstituted teams devoted to climate, democracy and development
Around half of the NSC staff under Biden is focused on enabling roles: such as security, IT and facilitating core NSC processes like policy paper coordination and secure video conference capabilities. The vast majority of the 350 to 370 staffers are detailees from other agencies, whose salaries continue to be paid by their home agency.
The current staffing size of the NSC, which includes people supporting the White House Situation Room, whose numbers grew in the Obama and Trump administrations, is roughly comparable to what it was during the Obama administration, although at times the overall NSC staff under Obama was higher than it is now. Trump and former National Security Adviser ROBERT O’BRIEN shrunk down the size of the NSC because of GOP concerns about a bloated bureaucracy but also after some of its current and former employees, like FIONA HILL, testified against Trump in his first impeachment.
“There were great staffers on the prior NSC, but you had a White House leadership who often didn’t want it to carry out its proper function,” the senior administration official said. “There were real gaps when we walked in. When you’re actually using the NSC and not making foreign policy by tweet, it’s gonna require a different footprint.”
In other news, here’s former dean Cohen’s reflection on Afghanistan.
He references a book by Carter Malkasian, which is explained and reviewed in Foreign Affairs.
Task & Purpose blames military eating disorders on the fitness tests.
Lawfare has good suggestions for a US offensive cyber policy.
But Defense One has a typical but misguided column urging a single department of cyber security. The centralize argument is attractive but can’t account for the many different needs and responsibilities. After all, are we really stronger with a single DHS?
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
