If the goal of Vladimir Putin’s intervention in Syria was to preserve the rule of Bashar al-Assad, writes Ari Heistein, then the results are mixed: Assad is still in power, but he has won back relatively little territory and he remains vulnerable. But Putin did succeed in achieving aims of a different sort:
First, Putin’s intervention on behalf of Assad further undermined U.S. credibility as an ally. The autocrats of the region watched President Obama demand that Egypt’s President Mubarak step down in 2011, and then stand idly by as his successor Mohamed Morsi was overthrown. . . . Meanwhile, Russia demonstrated dedication to its only ally in the Arab world by continuing to support the Assad regime throughout the Syrian civil war and ultimately intervening on its behalf. This certainly increases Moscow’s appeal as a potential partner for autocratic Middle Eastern regimes in the future. . . .
Second, Russia exploited tension between critical partners in the U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition and turned them against each other. . . . Third, Russian participation in the Syrian civil war defied the Western notion that foreign policy should be guided, at least in part, by moral principles. As Putin often criticized the U.S. for the chaos it caused in Iraq and Libya due to its desire to replace dictatorships with democracies, he demonstrated the benefits of unabashed opportunism and maintaining the autocratic order. . . . Putin paid no political price for ruthlessly bombing hospitals in support of the autocratic Syrian regime.
Read more on National Interest: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/did-russia-win-syria-15561