Russia intervened after a formal request from the Syrian government headed by President Bashar al-Assad.for military help against rebel and jihadist groups. Russia’s primary objective has been to help the Syrian government fight and get back its territory from the control of al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State and the Army of Conquest, including groups backed by the USA.

Russia had no intention to surrender Syria: it was an ally; the Syrian Orthodox Christians trusted Russia; geopolitically the war was getting too close to Russian borders. But the main reason was Russia’s annoyance with American high-handedness. The Russians initiative also implied that they did not appreciate the US assuming the role of world arbiter.

Syria would not have approached Russia if the US had been sincere in its action. In fact it pursued a half hearted strategy. For several months the US administration carried out its operation but it could not eliminate the extremists. The US led coalition carried out air strikes against ISIL But what was witnessed; the terrorist groups consolidated their grip; US attacks resulted in further expansion and strengthening of the ISIL. At the end of September 2015, a joint information centre in Baghdad was set up by Iran, Iraq, Russia and Syria to coordinate their operations against ISIL

Decline of American hegemony is also manifest in Germany quitting the anti-Putin Alliance created by the USA. Germany has in fact officially welcomed Moscow’s readiness to engage with Syria and launch an initiative to end the war with the Russians and the French. Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen welcomed Putin’s involvement in the fight against the extremist Islamic State.

Yet another incident has been former British prime minister Tony Blair’s confession that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was responsible for the emergence of the Islamic State militant group in the Middle East. Blair told that “there are elements of truth” in the assertion that the war caused the rise of IS. Blair’s decision to take Britain into the Iraq war based on false claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction remains hugely divisive.

According to Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov prior to the start of its operations in Syria, Russia invited the U.S. to join the Baghdad-based information center but received what he called an 'unconstructive' response; even Putin′s proposal that the U.S. receive a high-level Russian delegation and that a U.S. delegation arrive in Moscow to discuss co-operation in Syria, was likewise declined by the U.S.

From the beginning the western world has one simple design; force Assad out of Syria. Their so called fight against the ISIL or other terrorist groups was simply an eye wash. They were more interested in patronising the group owing allegiance to the USA. In this regard the observation of the US secretary of state, John Kerry, is candid; “I made clear that Russia’s continued support for Assad risks escalating the conflict and undermining our shared goal of fighting extremism if we do not also remain focused on finding the political solution”. It is worth mentioning that the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov had earlier urged intensification of efforts to find a political solution to the war. He said Moscow was ready to coordinate with the US in fighting terrorism in Syria. He also said Russia would be ready to help western-backed Free Syrian Army rebels if it knew their locations.

But instead of responding positively to the Russian offer, the USA and its allies were portraying Russian intervention as a threat to the world peace. This is purely a case of double speak. In this connection the remarks of Putin are worth mentioning. Dismissing US criticism of his country’s air campaign in Syria, Putin has accused Western governments of double standards and using some of the rebel groups as pawns to fit their wider agenda in the Middle East. What was most unfortunate was the USA was classifying terrorists as moderate and non-moderate. Probably Obama administration wanted to convey that the moderate terrorists kill people in a moderate way.

Putin's dramatic escalation of Moscow's participation in the Syrian civil war transformed Russia into the 'rising regional hegemon', it put US on backfoot. Iraq announced the establishment of a joint intelligence-gathering centre with Iran, Syria and Russia, symbolizing the new 'Shiite-crescent' alliance stretching from Iran across the northern Middle East to the Mediterranean, under the umbrella of Russia.

To assuage the sentiments of his allies the US President Obama characterised Putin's foray into Syria's civil war as a sign of weakness, which is destined to fail: 'Mr Putin had to go into Syria not out of strength, but out of weakness because his client Mr Assad was crumbling and it was insufficient for him to send arms and money.' Nevertheless even the independent observers hold that launching air attack against the enemies of Bashar al-Assad's regime signifies a boost to Putin's foreign policy standing. Russia was in fact positioning itself as the only crusader against terrorism and as a critical actor in the future political shape of the region, just as France and Britain were in 1916 when they developed the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

While USA has been concerned of its own interests and gains, Russia is trying to put together an alternative anti-ISIS coalition, with Iran and the Syrian government. Its relationship with Iran — another important player in supporting al-Assad — gives it additional leverage. Russia played a constructive role in the long negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme.

Russia wants to be taken seriously in the Middle East. Syria provides an opportunity. The U.S. has failed to find a diplomatic breakthrough, and a year of airstrikes against ISIS has only added to the strength of terrorists and rebels. Russia also intends to use the opportunity to exploit emerging differences among Western governments worn down by four years of failure in Syria and apprehensive about an even greater flood of refugees. If peace had been more attainable in Syria, this approach might have been acceptable. But the Western formula aborted at the embryonic stage. The reason was there was utter lack of sincerity on the part of the USA to eliminate ISIS.

Putin’s motives in Syria are multiple; while he wants to distract attention from the unfinished adventure in Ukraine; he wants Russia to regain its stature of a great power acting boldly where the USA has failed. He is also genuinely worried about jihadists joining ISIS and then coming back to Russia. Such a situation would be disastrous for Russia.

Iraq’s support to Russia is based on the element of genuine concern for peace in the region. For it Russia’s intervention is an answer to their failure to turn the tide after 16 months battling the jihadists of Islamic State (IS) in north-western Iraq. “The US and its coalition did nothing,” says a policeman, back from a month on the front. “Finally we’ll have a real coalition with the clout to contend with IS.” A couple of months back Iraq signed an intelligence-sharing agreement with Russia which infuriated the Americans.

Russia has the strategic goal of challenging US hegemony in favour of a more multipolar world. Quite interestingly as China and Russia support the idea of a multipolar world against American dominance, they will tacitly back each others’ attempts to defend their own spheres of influence. (IPA Service)