Has Putin strengthened the UK’s case for military action?

Russia’s upper house of parliament has today voted to approve military action in Syria, following talks between Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama at the UN General Assembly on how best to combat ISIS. The first Russian air strikes have already taken place in Homs and Hama Province.

It is too early to speculate, but Russia’s decision may remove the main barriers to Britain involving itself in anti-IS air strikes in Syria, as it has done in Iraq. First of all, Jeremy Corbyn was clear at Labour’s conference yesterday that a ‘few more bombs’ would not resolve any issues in Syria without a political solution backed by the US and Russia. If it is now the case that both countries are committed to military action to remove ISIS then it will ultimately become easier to precipitate a political solution.

Furthermore, the coalition the US has gathered to fight IS is seen by its detractors as a tool of Sunni sectarianism. Nearly all the countries involved have supported the Syrian rebels to various degrees over the past five years and the likes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have very little interest in supporting an inclusive Syria for all ethnicities. Following its key role in the Iran nuclear deal, Russia may be able to bring the country, which sees itself as a key defender of Shia interests, to the table to achieve the diplomatic solution Corbyn has called for, and which the initial anti-IS coalition could never achieve.

Back in the UK, a huge obstacle for many MPs is that of legality. While the House of Commons showed no hesitation in voting for air strikes in Iraq after an invitation from the country’s government, no such invitation has been received by the Syrian government, which means any strikes would be illegal under international law. However, Russia has now received such an invitation.

Whatever one may think of the way President Assad has conducted the war against rebel forces, his administration is still recognised by the United Nations as the legitimate government of Syria and therefore Russia’s air strikes are unquestionably legal.

Talks earlier in the week were of Russia joining the anti-IS coalition led by the United States and while this may be a little farfetched, some sort of understanding with Putin and Assad could legitimise any future British strikes in Syria.

However, all this assumes that the intentions of both sides are benign.

Between two ‘safe zones’

It will not have escaped Putin’s attention that Turkey, over the summer, proposed a ‘safe zone’ in Syria for those fleeing IS. Recently this idea has been gaining traction, with the French Foreign Minister stating two days ago that talks were already underway to discuss how a safe zone could be implemented.

This may all seem a perfectly innocent way to protect civilians and stem the flow of refugees to the EU, but Putin will rightly be suspicious. He will see any implementation of a safe zone as a ‘land grab’ by foreign powers supporting the opposition to weaken Assad’s hand in negotiations. He will also be hugely concerned that high level diplomats have suggested this could be implemented through a no-fly zone, mirroring the NATO response to the Libya Crisis. Considering IS do not operate aircraft, a no-fly zone could only be aimed at the Assad government.

If Putin has concluded that these measures will eventually be adopted, then Russia is most likely acting in Syria to pre-empt them. This is quite possible if, as reported today, Russia is attacking opposition fighters not affiliated to IS. As pressure grows on all parties to agree to negotiations, Putin would see a number of swift Syrian Army victories to strengthen Assad’s hand as highly desirable.

If this is the case, it will be more difficult to force Corbyn’s hand and get him to allow Britain to enter a war with the potential of fighting on opposite sides to the Russians.

Whatever the reason for Russia’s intervention, any air strikes will nonetheless have to be coordinated with Russia to avoid any kind of international incident and unnecessary escalation.