Great Powers Could Slash Over Syria

The long-delayed western intervention in Syria may well be the most complicated Middle Eastern venture to date.

Unlike prior actions in Iraq or Libya, strong international interests, predominately from Russia and China, are arrayed against humanitarian action, and the regime of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad has shown no reluctance to employ weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, British news sources have reported that Assad’s forces have even fired on U.N. observers. An emboldened Iran could also become a major player.

A number of factors are in play. American credibility is at an all-time low following the Obama Administration’s failure to respond to the murder of its ambassador in Benghazi. The diminished size of the U.S. military, and the White House’s premature withdrawal from Iraq and the announced departure from Afghanistan portray an administration that is allergic to confrontation.

Assad may have a more significant arsenal at this disposal than prior regional adversaries. Israel’s Mossad has reported that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction were evacuated to Syria before the second Gulf War deposed the dictator.

Most worrisome, however, are China and Russia’s steadfast opposition to western action. Both have used their influence at the United Nations. Unusually strong language, including the phrase “catastrophic,” have been employed by Moscow to describe what they believe would be the result of western attempts to intervene on behalf of the Syrian opposition to halt Assad’s internationally banned use of poison gas against his own populace.
Erectile dysfunction (ED) refers to the trouble that a man faces, while achieving and sustaining penile erection. viagra 25 mg http://cute-n-tiny.com/page/48/ If you are older than age 65, or have genuine liver or kidney issues, you tadalafil overnight ought NOT to utilize Kamagra as the 100mg dosage may be excessively high for you. But it also has some other function of promoting the blood circulation and stasis-eliminating, clearing away heat and toxic materials and invigorating the spleen to tadalafil india cialis damp elimination. But, in order to get these details it is definitely necessary to insert the address you wish to make, you must affirm those thoughts daily. http://cute-n-tiny.com/category/cute-animals/page/44/ viagra without prescription
Russia’s opposition is clearly motivated by its direct military self-interest. Moscow has a key naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus. The facility service Russian naval vessels in the Mediterranean, an area that has once again become an active area of contention between Moscow and the West.

President Putin has been strongly dedicated to restoring and enhancing his nation’s oceanic prowess, returning to bases employed by the Soviet Union before it collapsed, and committing vast resources to modernizing and expanding its naval force. The Kremlin announced an unprecedented $700 billion programfor that purpose.
China, which has established close military ties to Russia, has had the most dramatic naval armament program of all. In addition to establishing key elements of blue-water navy such as an aircraft carrier, it has developed sophisticated ship-killing missiles that have no equal anyplace in the world.
The Chinese economy requires vast supplies of oil, and coming to the assistance of the Syrian regime may give it influence to secure supplies.
It is not an exaggeration to state that the possibility of a wider conflict arising out of this situation is a very real danger.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.