July 15, 2012
By Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.
The Interfax news agency reported Tuesday that a Russian naval squadron, including an antisubmarine ship and three marine-landing craft, left Severomorsk in the Arctic for the Mediterranean. Several more ships will join it en route. Together, they will pay a call to Tartus, Syria, Russia's only naval facility outside of the old Soviet Union.
Russian officials have denied the port visit has anything to do with the ongoing internal conflict in Syria. But Moscow seems to have become increasingly pessimistic that the Assad regime can survive. In June, Russian military officials were reported to be entertaining the possibility that it might be necessary to send the "naval infantry," as marines are known in Russian, to Syria to protect infrastructure and evacuate approximately 30,000 Russian citizens.
Since the mid-June collapse of the Annan plan and the departure of UN observers from Syria, the question has not been whether Assad will survive but rather how much blood will spill before violence culminates and what will follow next.
As much as Moscow would likely hate see the Assad regime go, Russians may be realizing that state resistance will make things worse. Power transition is the only way to avoid even more tragic post-civil war outcomes. That's why this week Moscow is hosting representatives from the Syrian National Council (SNC), one of the two main opposition groups, who have come to discuss transition mechanisms and convince Russian leaders to drop Assad.
On July 9, Russia's deputy head of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation unexpectedly announced that Russia would not sell any new weapons to Damascus as long as the situation in the country remains unstable. As Syria's major international ally and arms supplier, Moscow seems to be trying hard to persuade Assad to seek settlement with the opposition.
Prior to that, on the eve of President Putin's visit to Israel, Russia announced it would not sell long-range antiaircraft S-300 missiles to Damascus. The sale probably would not take place while Assad is in power, and Moscow's growing ties with Israel -- including technological cooperation and tourism -- may be more important than the destabilizing arms sales for which Damascus may have no hard cash.
There are now three most-plausible scenarios in Syria: an all out civil war, a unilateral intervention by NATO, or a Yemen-style political transition. The last scenario would be optimal for the West, Turkey, and the opposition's Gulf supporters -- but not for Russia. It would require the Assad government to transfer its authority to a transitional body of technocrats and hold free elections in a year. Such a transition wouldn't be easy and could fail at any step of the process, not least because the opposition rejected a similar plan proposed by world's powers in Geneva on June 30.
Some might view the potentially impending regime change in Syria as a victory over Iran, which is allied with heterodox Shia Alawites, the current ruling minority in Syria. Others might see it as a victory for the Gulf-supported Sunnis, something that may further complicate the already destabilized region. The Alawites' fall could throw Syria into chaos, precipitating the decay of the post-Ottoman state's complex political and ethnic alliances. It could also facilitate a Sunni Islamist groundswell that may not lead to democracy and modernization.
A civil war in Syria would have a significant impact on its neighbors. Israel could face a heightened risk of conflict resuming along the cease-fire line on the Golan Heights, where the Assads have enforced quiet since 1974.
For Russia, the fall of Assad would mean the loss of its only naval port outside the former USSR and the loss of a considerable weapons market. Following regime changes in Egypt and Libya, Syria and Iran are Russia's last remaining clients in the Middle East. Moscow would hate to see them go.
This article originally appeared at The National Interest, an Atlantic partner site. Follow @TheNatlInterest on Twitter.
First appeared in The Atlantic
Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.
Visiting Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation
Read More >>
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 450,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2014, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973