It is still unclear what Russia has gained from its Syria intervention

Putin, after his surprise intervention in Syria, has now again surprised everyone with the announcement of withdrawal from Syria because the objectives have been met. Now, as is usually the case, many are wondering and arguing over either Putin’s genius political play or his weakness and failure. There have already been several articles arguing that Putin’s has succeeded once again in catching the U.S. and its allies flat-footed and forcing them to deal with the current situation in Syria according to his preferred interests. These articles argue that Russia has again out maneuvered the west and has succeeded in its goals, to the detriment of the U.S.’s strategic goals. A closer look at the current state of affairs provides a more unclear picture of Russia’s success or failure in Syria.

Putin’s declared goal in his Syrian intervention was to shore up the government in Damascus and assist it in it’s fight against international terrorist. If the was indeed the objective, then it is hard to see how that mission can be considered a success when there are still powerful terrorist groups on the ground.

One issue that was brought up as important was the prevention of Russians who have joined terrorist groups in Syria from returning to Russia with the experience and know-how that would allow them to cause significant damage in Russia. To show the success in that specific mission, Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s foreign minister announced that 2,000 Russian foreign fighters in Syria were killed. This victory through body bags might be considered a victory, but by siding with the Alawite regime in Damascus, and its Shiite allies in Tehran, in the bombing and fighting of Sunni populations in the country, he has most likely alienated a large number of his own Russian Sunni Population which is close to 20 million people. 2,000 Russian terrorists killed might be offset by a much larger number who are now joining the fight. It is estimated that the surge of central Asians and Russians joining ISIS has increased by 300 % since June of 2014, according to the Soufan Group.

There is also the theory that Russia was showcasing its newly developed weaponry, such as the new Su-35 fighter, and its new Kalibr cruise missiles, a number of which crashed in the Iranian desert. The use of cruise missiles was not tactically necessary since cruise missiles are usually used to penetrate air defenses that the rebels don’t posses, not to mention that they are more expensive (?) than the use of regular bombers. Though intervening in a civil war in order to show off your weapons to potential clients is not what you would consider strategic behavior by a superpower.

One possible success is that it pushed the rebels to compromise more during the negotiations on keeping Assad. Lucian Kim, writing for FP wrote that the most important unnamed objective for Putin was to break through the international isolation that descended on him in the wake of his Ukraine intervention. The intervention, this argument claims, has forced other countries, and the U.S. in particular, to talk to Russia again. This is a very common argument used to demonstrate Putin’s success in Syria, but the idea that his behavior in Syria, and the widely reported bombing on civilians, will reduce the negative view of him, make him a reliable partner, and reduce his isolation is highly questionable. Just because he forced the other kids on the playground to talk to him, does not mean that the view of him as a bully has faded in any way.

Many have also argued that Putin has avoided the predicted quagmire that he was going to find himself in, in Syria. But that is very short sighted since the Russians are still maintaining their Hmeymim air base and Tartus naval facility in Syria and will still maintain a presence there. If the war starts turning in the favor of the rebels again, can we be sure that Russia will not get dragged in again to rescue its ally or protect its assets there? The point is, a minor presence can always lead to a quagmire, just ask the U.S.

As the BBC correspondent asked, “was the withdrawal a sign of Russia’s strength or weakness? Was it tactics of a master politician or a forced retreat? Had Russia run out of targets? Or run out of patience with Assad? Or run out of cash?” as with all things in the world, the answer lies somewhere in between those binary points.