By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The EU initiated contact with Syria’s new authorities, signaling a potential lifting of decade-long sanctions contingent upon the removal of Russian and Iranian influence. Preconditions for sanctions relief include a political transition ensuring minority representation, human rights respect, and rejection of terrorism. Specifically, the EU demands the closure of Russian military bases in Syria, citing concerns about their role in regional instability and European security. These demands were supported by multiple EU foreign ministers, reflecting a unified stance on the matter.
Read the original article here
The EU’s implied offer to the Syrian authorities—lift sanctions in exchange for expelling Russian forces—presents a complex geopolitical gamble. It hinges on the idea that severing Syria’s ties with Russia is a significant enough blow to outweigh any short-term economic benefits derived from the alliance. The strategic importance of Syria as Russia’s conduit to Africa is undeniable; removing this access could cripple Putin’s ambitions in the region and put considerable pressure on his regime.
This strategic move by the EU is also predicated on the belief that the Syrian government, despite its reliance on Russian support, is capable of prioritizing its own long-term interests. The brutality of the Assad regime, propped up by Russia, has caused immense suffering within Syria. The offer of sanctions relief might be a powerful incentive to finally sever ties with a partner whose support comes at a steep human cost. The EU’s proposal acknowledges that for Syria, this is a difficult choice, weighing immediate gains against future stability and security.
The potential success of this strategy depends heavily on the Syrian government’s assessment of the situation. The prospect of renewed economic relations with the EU, even if it comes with the significant risk of increased instability from a Russian response, might be considered worthwhile. While the short-term reliance on Russian weaponry is undeniable, a long-term perspective might favor improved relations with the West, opening up access to potentially superior weaponry and a more secure economic future. This requires a careful weighing of immediate risks and long-term rewards.
There’s a clear “carrot and stick” approach here. The EU is offering the “carrot” of sanctions relief, a substantial benefit for a sanctioned nation. The “stick” is the implied consequences of continued cooperation with Russia, including potential instability and continued international isolation. This approach acknowledges that mere sanctions are often ineffective without a clear path to normalization and enhanced economic prospects.
The inherent risk of Russia’s response to any Syrian move towards the West should also not be understated. Russia’s support for Assad is deeply entrenched, going beyond mere military assistance. Putin might view a Syrian defection as a profound betrayal, potentially prompting more aggressive action in the region, or perhaps increasing support to groups hostile to the Syrian government. This highlights a significant potential downside for Syria.
The Syrian authorities’ decision will also depend on their trust in the EU’s commitment. The EU’s credibility is crucial here. A perceived lack of commitment to the promises of sanctions relief could lead Syria to remain entrenched in its alliance with Russia, even facing growing internal and external pressures. Transparency and clear communication are vital to the success of this diplomatic effort.
Furthermore, the internal dynamics within Syria will significantly influence its reaction. While some may favor distancing from Russia, others might be deeply invested in the existing relationship. Factions within the government, including those linked to specific patronage networks intertwined with Russia, might resist any attempt to shift alliances. This underlines the complexity of the situation and the various factors at play within the Syrian government.
The potential impact on neighboring countries and regional stability is also a significant consideration. Russia’s influence extends beyond Syria. Any shift in Syria’s allegiance could have wide-reaching ramifications. Other authoritarian regimes aligned with Russia, such as those in Belarus, Venezuela, and some African nations, might question the stability of their relationship with Russia. The extent of this potential domino effect is impossible to predict accurately. This presents a further challenge for the EU’s strategy.
In conclusion, the EU’s subtle pressure on Syria presents a fascinating case study in realpolitik. The success of this strategy depends on a complex interplay of geopolitical calculations, internal Syrian dynamics, and the credibility of the EU’s offer. The ultimate outcome remains uncertain, but the effort itself represents a significant shift in the West’s approach to the Syrian conflict and underscores the complexities of international relations in the 21st century.