Vladimir Putin’s decision to pull Russian troops out of Syria hit the headlines around the world. But it should have been expected. Official statements said from the beginning that the operation would last only a limited time, that there would be no permanent extensive military presence, that the purpose was not to support Bashar al-Assad’s regime but to save the country’s statehood and that the future would have to be determined by the Syrian people through political talks. What they said then is actually happening.
So why now? The question of an exit strategy has been raised throughout the operation, and Mr Putin felt the time was right. Looking back, one can see why. The Syrian regime had had to be fortified because, Russia believed, the spread of radical Islam could be stopped only by strengthening statehood; the Syrian government is internationally recognised and Moscow had offered to help it. Russian aircraft bombed its opponents — Isis and other militant groups — but the mission took longer than planned because Syria’s army was less combat-ready than expected. Eventually, the situation was reversed, allowing Russia to reduce its presence and its responsibility for the future.
What are the results? The Assad regime has been saved from collapse and increased the territory it controls. The change in the balance of forces on the ground has inspired hope for genuine talks; it is well known that some parties seriously consider political deals only when military victory becomes implausible. The opposition can no longer hope to win militarily, and neither can the regime after Russian troops leave. Syria needs profound reforms to recover a viable statehood and few in Moscow believe the present regime will last long without changes. Russia’s pullout is a signal to the Syrian authorities that it will not do their work for them.