Vladimir Putin has succeeded in getting the New York Times to publish a column detailing his views on the Syria situation. He took the opportunity to critique U.S. foreign policy more generally, but that isn’t particularly interesting. The only important part of his column is the following:
The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
Yes, let’s do that. But let’s also be mindful that we have begun delivering lethal aid to some of the rebels. We are ramping up a proxy war against the Assad regime. Russia, Iran, and Hizbollah are giving aid to the regime. But, if both sides are truthful, neither of us wants the Assad regime to completely collapse because we all recognize that religious minorities in Syria are facing the threat of a bloodbath. This is one of the reasons that the regime is so ruthless and it explains why they retain so much internal support.
Our policy is a very difficult one, because we can’t simply struggle for complete victory and we don’t want to keep the civil war going with more lethality. If there is a tolerable outcome, it is probably going to involve the regime shedding its leadership in exchange for protections against sectarian reprisals. We might want to take Syria out of Russia’s sphere of influence, but we’d probably be better off using Russia’s equities in Syria to force some kind of political settlement. The advantage of this strategy is that we can avoid taking more than co-ownership of the Syrian civil war. If we bring down the Alawite regime, we will be responsible for not only what happens to the Alawites, but also the Shiites, Christians, Druze, and even the Kurds. But if we allow Russia to remain as the protector of the regime, we may be able to compel the Sunni rebellion to make concessions in return for their share of power.
We have to recognize that although the Assad regime is loathsome and ruthless, they are protecting religious minorities and represent, to a degree, the pluralistic and ecumenical history of tolerance in Syria. While they oppress the majority, they protect everyone else. Their leadership has committed so many crimes against humanity that they cannot be allowed to continue in power, but their opponents must not be allowed to commit the same kinds of acts in reprisal.
If Russia follows through and helps disarm the regime of chemical weapons, that can serve as a model for some kind of coordinated strategy to bring the parties to the table for an agreement that involves something less than total victory for any side.
We must resist the desire to win outright because winning outright would make us the sole owners of Syria’s future and it would make us responsible for the ethnic and sectarian cleansing that would inevitably follow.
As a nation, we are not built to understand this kind of conflict.
