By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The EU’s support for Ukraine and its global role dominated the leaders’ meeting, with a unified approach deemed crucial for maintaining international influence. Kallas highlighted the contrast between a “might makes right” world order and the EU’s commitment to rules-based international relations. The collapse of the Syrian regime was viewed positively, exposing the weakness of Russia and Iran. Consequently, the EU plans to explore collaboration with Syria’s new leadership to shut down Russian military bases.
Read the original article here
Russia’s not invincible, a recent statement from a prominent EU diplomat boldly declared, pointing to the Syrian conflict as evidence. The assertion challenges the perception of Russia as an unconquerable force, a viewpoint that seemingly gained traction before February 2022.
The argument hinges on the demonstrable limitations of Russian military might. Consider their Black Sea fleet, significantly diminished after suffering substantial losses in the Ukraine conflict; a country lacking a robust navy inflicted these blows. This underscores a significant weakness, suggesting that Russia’s military capabilities are not as absolute as some might believe.
Furthermore, Russia’s failure to achieve air superiority in Ukraine, despite facing an opponent without a conventional air force, adds to the argument. This inability to dominate the skies, against a comparatively weaker adversary, highlights further limitations of Russian military power and strategic planning.
The Syrian civil war, specifically the collapse of the Assad regime, serves as the core of the argument. The diplomat highlights this event as a clear demonstration of Russia’s vulnerability. Despite being a key ally and providing substantial support to the Assad regime, Russia’s intervention proved ultimately insufficient to prevent its downfall. The implicit message is that even with extensive involvement, Russia couldn’t secure a victory in a conflict of such magnitude.
The implication is that Europe should not underestimate its own collective strength in the face of perceived Russian dominance. This perspective suggests that a unified Europe, leveraging its economic and political power, could be a far more formidable force than it often seems to perceive itself to be. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine and global shifts in power dynamics underscore the need for a unified European front.
This argument directly challenges the commonly held belief that Russia possesses some kind of inherent invincibility. The diplomat’s assessment implies a more nuanced reality, suggesting that Russia’s power is exaggerated and its military effectiveness less than absolute. This should encourage a recalibration of how the international community assesses Russia’s true capacity for projecting power.
Some counterarguments acknowledge that the Syrian conflict might not be a perfect parallel to the situation in Ukraine. Russia’s involvement in Syria was limited, and the Assad regime’s eventual downfall is not solely attributable to a failure of Russian support. However, these counterarguments don’t negate the primary point: Russia, in Syria, showed limitations and fallibility that directly contradict the myth of its unbeatable military.
Another counterpoint suggests that the relative success of Russia’s involvement in Syria compared to their involvement in Ukraine is a matter of scale and internal dynamics. The focus on Syria was a sideshow, while the main effort was in Ukraine. The scale and intensity of the conflict in Ukraine are vastly different than those in Syria. The significantly higher levels of resource commitments, losses, and overall struggle in Ukraine, while not discounting Russia’s performance in Syria, arguably serve to strengthen the EU diplomat’s point that Russia isn’t invincible.
While some argue that the diplomat’s statement is overly simplistic or even naive, the underlying message remains impactful. The narrative that Russia’s resources are infinite and its capacity for warfare inexhaustible is challenged. The argument encourages a more measured approach to understanding Russia’s capabilities, and cautions against overestimating its power.
The events in Syria, coupled with the Russian performance in Ukraine, demonstrate vulnerabilities within the Russian military and its capacity for strategic success. This re-evaluation of Russian capabilities has significant implications for geopolitical strategy, underscoring the need for a thoughtful assessment of Russia’s actual strengths and limitations within the broader context of global politics. The EU diplomat’s statement, therefore, encourages a reevaluation of assumptions about Russian power, urging a realistic assessment of both its capabilities and its vulnerabilities.