Russian strikes unlikely to ‘radically change’ Syrian conflict

While Moscow's intervention has given a morale boost to president Bashar Al Assad’s forces, experts say gains on the ground have been muted and that for now, Russian air power alone is unlikely to significantly shift the tide of the war.

Moscow has claimed an impressive list of military accomplishments since launching strikes on September 30, saying on Tuesday it had destroyed 287 command centres, 52 training camps, 40 sites where bomShow more

BEIRUT // Since Russia began its bombing campaign in Syria, its jets have carried out more than 1,600 sorties and struck at least 2,000 targets.

Moscow has claimed an impressive list of military accomplishments since launching strikes on September 30, saying on Tuesday it had destroyed 287 command centres, 52 training camps, 40 sites where bombs and rockets were manufactured and 155 fuel and ammunition depots.

But while the Russian bombardment — primarily against rebel groups fighting the Syrian government — has given a morale boost to president Bashar Al Assad’s forces, experts say gains on the ground have been muted and that for now, Moscow’s air power alone is unlikely to significantly shift the tide of the war.

“The psychological impact was more significant than the military impact,” said Karim Bitar, director of research at the Institute for International and Strategic Relations. “The changes on the ground were rather minimal, but it certainly helped Assad consolidate his rule over the areas he was already controlling.”

Russia’s entry into the war does not change the fact that Syrian government forces and their allies have been worn down - in numbers and morale - after years of fighting rebels.

“The regime and the Iranians both suffer from major manpower shortages. I don’t think that’s going to change — it’s hard to bomb your way out of that,” said Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It might make it easier for them to take some territory, but the question is can they hold it? And politically can they hold it? I’m still doubtful.”

Mr Bitar said he does not see Russia significantly trying to intensify its military involvement in Syria.

“I do not think that the Russians want to radically change the situation on the ground,” he said. “They want positions that would help them protect their interests at the negotiation table.”

While Russia says it got involved in Syria to fight ISIL and other extremist groups, most of their strikes have been against more moderate rebel forces. According to a Reuters analysis published last month, nearly 80 per cent of Russia’s strikes were conducted in areas where ISIL does not maintain a presence.

“Clearly they are not in the region for ISIL ... they’re there to defend [Syrian president Bashar] Assad,” said Thomas Pierret, a Syria expert at the University of Edinburgh.

For Russia to target ISIL would depend “on the kind of threat ISIL is presenting to the regime”, he added.

ISIL threats to regime troops in Aleppo, for example, could force Russia to focus more attacks on the group.

Last month, the extremists seized a road that serves as the only supply route to government-held western Aleppo, cutting off the regime’s forces in the city. However, on Wednesday, Syrian state television said government forces had successfully managed to retake the narrow ribbon of territory tethering Aleppo to the regime’s heartland further west.

Despite evidence that Russia is deliberately targeting rebel groups fighting the Syrian government, Moscow maintains its strikes are limited to ISIL and “terrorist” organisations. On Tuesday, Russia’s defence ministry said it had struck 24 targets using co-ordinates supplied by “representatives of the opposition”. The statement did not elaborate on the identity of the opposition representatives.

Russia’s military action in Syria has also been seen as impacting other foreign interventions in the country.

The Russian intervention has been the most intense foreign air campaign in the conflict and comes at a time when coalition strikes appear to be dwindling.

Last month, the coalition mounted just 117 air strikes in Syria — the lowest tally for a full month since their bombing campaign began in September 2014. On some days, no strikes at all have been claimed by the coalition.

As Russia entered the war, the United States refocused its Syria strategy to give more support to Kurdish-dominated fighting groups in the country’s east. The forces in eastern Syria — unlike anti-government rebels in the west — are preoccupied with the fight against ISIL and are not targets of Russia’s strikes.

Russia’s entry in the war and the US’ shift of support to forces in the east “essentially divides the country into different international spheres of influence”, said Mr Tabler.

While Moscow has heralded the statistical success of its bombing campaign and seems to have pushed the US into a corner militarily and diplomatically regarding Syria, Mr Bitar warned that the increased risks Russia now faces could outweigh any rewards its involvement brings.

“We are already seeing the blowback effect with the increasing risk of Russia becoming the new far enemy for the entire Islamist galaxy and there could be repercussions in Russia itself,” he said.