Is the Syrian War Fueling a Cold War Version 2.0 Between Russia and the West?

Is an air strike necessary?

The US, UK and France’s attack on Syria on April 14 as a pretext to punish the use of chemical weapons was something that had been predicted long ago. Statements by US President Donald Trump and leaders of many Western countries pushed the event to the point where it was forced to happen.

The US, UK, and France launched more than 100 missiles into Syria. Photo: abc7

The only issue of concern is the extent and scale of this military action to both deter the Syrian government and its allies and prevent things from escalating. What has just happened has clarified the view of analysts that the military campaign of the three Western countries is essentially “having to fight because they said they would”, in other words, the attack on the morning of April 14 against Syria has been put in a position of no return.

The assessment comes as the US announced the end of the attack after more than an hour of airstrikes in what President Trump called a “precision strike”.

The subsequent announcement by French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian of an “immediate” relaunch of a political process to end the current conflict in Syria further reinforced this argument.

Obviously, the US, UK and France do not want a military action that is too big, which could create a dangerous turn for the situation in Syria, thereby also creating more excuses for the "main players" who are already present here, Russia and Iran, to join in.

Intertwined interests and the tug-of-war in the geostrategic region force all parties to be extremely cautious in their every action to ensure national interests and keep themselves within a suitable safety threshold.

The attack by the US, UK and France on Syria in response to the attack that the West suspected was the use of chemical weapons by President Bashar al-Assad's government against civilians is an act that goes against the rules and standards of the international community.

The excuse that the US uses to justify its actions is just a sophistry because until now, the suspected chemical weapons attack in the town of Douma, an opposition stronghold in Eastern Ghouta a week ago, has not been verified.

Syrian locations attacked by missiles by the US, UK, and France. Photo: Vox

Even the experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons sent to investigate the incident have not yet set foot in Douma. Russia has also just presented evidence of the possibility that some forces “fabricated” this attack in order to blame the Syrian government.

This possibility is not without basis, because this suspected chemical weapons attack was brought up by groups opposing the Damascus government in the context of the Syrian army almost completely controlling the Eastern Ghouta and Douma areas, only hunting down a small group of remaining opposition gunmen entrenched there.

The Thin Line

Obviously, the US and its allies have many incentives to attack Syria when the confrontation with Russia is reaching a climax. Russia's presence in Syria has made all US plans here unfulfilled up to this point.

Russian Air Force at Hmeymim base, Syria. Photo: Reuters

Moscow's support for the Damascus government in the fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State and in repelling rebel groups is unacceptable to the West at this time.

The prospect of rebel groups losing most of their territory and even becoming isolated is something the US and its allies do not want to see, because it marks the failure of Western policy in this Middle Eastern country.

It is the Russian military presence here, along with its support for the Syrian government in fighting rebels and terrorists, that is the problem. It makes the US unable to be strong even in military intervention. This was proven in the recent airstrike.

In a statement after the attack, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the atmosphere of the Cold War had returned with a vengeance.

The confrontation between Russia and the United States began in 2014 and has been worsening ever since, culminating in the US-led attack on April 14. The Donald Trump administration continues to blame the Syrian government and its Russian allies for the disaster, and the US has therefore reserved the right to intervene if it deems it necessary, despite the possibility of clashing with Russia on the Syrian battlefield.

Russian President Vladimir Putin called it a violation of all international norms. Moscow sees the purpose of the attack on Syria as being to destroy Russia's efforts to help the Middle Eastern country, and thereby force Russia to "subdue".

Are Russia and the West entering Cold War version 2.0? Photo: Reuters

And this confrontation has for the first time reached a dangerous point - the moment of the "missile crisis" is approaching. And a single miscalculation or technical failure could push things much further than what happened on Saturday (April 14). The way the US has chosen to handle the issue in Syria clearly creates a very high risk of direct military confrontation between Russian and US forces. This is worrying for the world.

As Russia is being tightened by sanctions and isolation from the West, led by the United States, this shows a full-scale confrontation. And it is easy to see that the version 2.0 of the Cold War between Washington and Moscow is far different from the original in that there is no symmetry, balance or respect between the parties. This creates the feeling that both sides can easily let things go too far, and cannot return to the original state.

The conflict in Syria, and more specifically the recent US-led airstrikes, is not the most direct version of a US-Russia confrontation. But no one can be sure that the line will not be crossed soon, as both sides exhaust their options against each other.