By Wang Li
On April 21, one week after the U.S.-led airstrikes against Syria, Russian FM Lavrov said that Russia would sell S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria unconditionally. Since Moscow denounced the recent US-led missile strikes as an “aggression” against Syria and violated international law, selling S-300 missiles to Syria seems to be logical.
As it is well-known, the powerful weapon of S-300 has a range of up to 125 miles and the capability to track down and strike multiple targets simultaneously with lethal efficiency. It would mean a quantum leap in Syria’s air defense capability and pose a strong challenge to any upcoming menace from airstrikes. Before U.S-led airstrikes against Syria last week, Moscow had refrained from providing Damascus with such advanced S-300. Yet, now Russia openly rejects Western demands to halt such sales.
As a matter of fact, Russia had made explicit warnings to shoot down U.S. missiles prior to the airstrikes and even to target the missile-launchers. These threats are part of a wider Russian strategy aimed at showing the entire world – and the Middle East in particular – that Moscow stands by the Assad regime no matter what horrors it unleashes. Russia was supported widely by the world with an argument for the role of the United Nations and the field–trip investigation of the alleged chemical-weapons sites in Syria. Meanwhile, Russia was sure to demonstrate the extent and the efficiency of its deterrent capabilities, including S-300 missiles system, which is regarded as the key to any nuclear power.
Ironically, U.S.-led airstrike against Syria aimed to damage Assad’s chemical-weapons program and to deter the murderous regime in Damascus from unleashing alleged chemical weapons on its own people. Yet in reality, the strikes are more of an indication of “Russia’s success at causing Western powers to limit their actions and opt for extreme caution in their response to Assad’s regime”. Since Russia’s actions are guided by a cold, hard logic, by standing firm alongside its Syrian client, it sent a message globally that any Middle Eastern state which aligns with Russia will gain the essentially unconditional backing of a great power whose overall purpose is to rebuild its global power status and boost the value of Russia as a trusted great power.
The West outfoxed?
In diplomatic field, Russia also shows its position. On the same day of U.S.-led airstrikes against Syria, a sovereign state and also a client state of Russia, President Putin denounced the attack as “the U.S. is deepening a humanitarian catastrophe.” In both legal and moral terms, U.S.-led coalition’s military action openly violated international law, norms and practices. As the fully-armed nuclear powers and the permanent members of UN Security Council, the U.S., Britain and France deliberately ignored the high authorities of the United Nations. Just one day ago, Secretary-General Guterres called for the creation of an independent panel that “could determine who used chemical weapons in Syria, as the absence of such a body increases the risks of a military escalation in a country already driven by confrontations and proxy wars.” Yet, the three powers arrogantly rejected the appealing from international community.
Why the Trio acted so? Postulating his ‘anthropo-geographic inversion’ as a pattern in current international relations, professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic was predicative and accurate on the MENA dynamics: “…it is an absolute imperative for the external/peripheral powers to dominate such a pivotal geo-economic and geopolitical theater by simply keeping its center soft (e.g. by pre-empting, preventing or hindering the emancipation that might come through any indigenous socio-political modernization and economic diversification). This is the very same imperative that has remained a dominant rational of inner European and Asian machtpolitikfor centuries.”
Professor concluded on instruments used, too: “An exceptional fact that the Middle East is a cradle of all four monotheistic religions is thus turned into its own paradox. Fueled by severe socio-economic exclusions and exacerbated by exploitation of the Shia–Sunni and of Muslim–Jewish–Christian antagonism, political radicalization is surely one of the most convenient instruments of subtle control aimed at preserving local governing authorities predatory-alienated, unauthentic and weak, if not incapacitated.
“The Winner takes it all” – but, who is standing small?
In summary, Russia has appeared as a winner with dual identities: one is a defender of a small country worn by the 8-year civil war; other is a strong military power which has potentials to challenge the hegemony of the United States and its key allies. Although China did not openly align with Russia militarily, Beijing and Moscow once again insured their consensus on the Syria crisis. First, Russia alongside China and many other states denounced the military strikes on Syria by the US, UK and France as a violation of the basic principle of prohibition of use of force in international law and run contrary to the UN Charter. Second, the use of force against Syria on the ground of “punishing or retaliating against the use of chemical weapons” does not conform to international law. In this case, we shall not forget the precedent of the Iraqi issue. That historical lesson should be learned because it is very irresponsible to launch military strikes on a sovereign state on the ground of “presumption of guilt”. Third, China and Russia are more convinced than ever before that they must deepen their strategic partnership of coordination in light of the latest U.S. national security report defined Beijing and Moscow as “global competitors”. Because of this, Russia, working with China, Iran and many other states, is definitely able to challenge the United States and its key allies globally.
Wang Li is a professor at School of International & Public Affairs (SIPA), JLU. He is a Post-doc Research Fellow at Keck Center for International & Strategic Studies, Claremont McKenna College. Li holds a PhD in Political Science from University of Aberdeen; UK, MA in International Studies & History from University of Montana; MA in Contemporary World History and BA in Modern History & English from Nankai University, China. Current research interests include international governance, China’s foreign & security policy, US-Sino relations.