Last Monday, as the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Syrian Civil War approached, President Vladimir Putin declared that he would withdraw a significant portion of Russian forces from Syria after five months of supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime with military assistance. This announcement coincided with the continuation of UN-facilitated peace talks in Geneva that had been suspended in early February. What do you think of Putin’s withdrawal of his armed forces, and what do you think this will mean for Syria?

Zach Goulet ’16

Putin’s decision to withdraw “the main part” of Russia’s forces makes sense in light of his original aim: demonstrating Russia’s power as a global player. Putin needed to affirm his long-standing commitment to Syria without a costly conflict. With the price tag on Russian operations nearing $500,000,000 and with the Geneva peace talks looming, the stars aligned for Putin. By withdrawing now, Putin hopes to put pressure on Assad (who remains committed to a military victory) to negotiate with the opposition, and gracefully avoid a quagmire. The withdrawal leaves Assad in a slightly better position but still entrenched in a stalemate. We can expect Russian support to continue short of major ground operations. With a permanent naval installation and air base to remain behind, Russia stands ready to rebalance in favor of Assad at a moment’s notice.

Zach Goulet ’16 is the Middle East section editor of the Brandeis International Journal.

Jessica Star ’17

As David Swanson states in his work “War Is a Lie,” “War causes more suffering and death than anything war can be used to combat.” Putin is withdrawing forces because he believe that the purpose of the 6 month intervention had been achieved, which if that purpose was to kill innocent individuals, then he succeeded. Although I see it as positive that Putin decided to withdraw Russian forces, the fact that they were even sent in the first place is problematic. Just about a quarter of a million individuals lost their lives or were severely injured for an unnecessary war, which in my opinion is repetitive. The idea that this coincided with the UN peace talks in Geneva is not all too surprising. Putin’s decision came out of virtually nowhere, so it fits almost too perfectly that it would occur at the same time as the peace talks. From an optimistic standpoint, I am thrilled that Putin is moving in a direction towards peace, but at the same time, I am skeptical to see if he will actually remove all the Russian forces in Syria.

Jessica Star ’17 is a sociology undergraduate departmental representative.

Vardges Tserunyan ’17

Putin’s decision to terminate the Russian campaign in Syria was as unexpected as its launch earlier in October. Despite the risk of a stalemate, which was widely quoted by western leaders, Russian airstrikes dramatically improved the situation in Assad’s favor. Given Russia’s painful experience with Islamic extremism (Chechnya war in 1990s), ISIS was the primary target, which ended up losing 20 percent of its territory (including profitable oil fields) under Russian air strikes. Along with strengthening his ally and damaging an enemy, Putin improved his public image by posing himself in the eyes of Syrians as someone, who came, did the job and then left after initiating peace talks, in contrast with the West, which is ‘stuck’ in the region for a decade. The bottom line is that Putin and Assad strengthened their positions while Syria remains in chaos, torn between the pro-Russian government, pro-Western rebels, Kurdish forces and ISIS.

Vardges Tserunyan ’17 is a Wien International Scholar.

Ravi Simon ’19

Putin’s intervention has been swift, decisive and stunningly effective. Five months ago, the Assad regime was on the ropes. ISIS was gaining ground rapidly and government offensives had largely stalled. Putin moved Russian air power into the country and began bombing rebel forces. Banking on the political will of the United States and its allies to continue to bomb ISIS, Putin claimed he would help drive back radical jihadists while bombing moderate rebels. In this way, Putin has stabilized the Assad regime’s position, let the U.S. do most of the work bombing ISIS and received relatively little diplomatic condemnation for bombing the few groups which might have been able to form a legitimate, workable government in the country. Putin is now content to withdraw, with Assad’s government now in the position of power for talks in Geneva. I think the U.S. might learn from Russia’s example on how to conduct interventions in the Middle East.

Ravi Simon ’19 is a member of the Brandeis Academic Debate and Speech Society. He also writes for the Brandeis International Journal.