Putin is running out of options in Syria

(CNN)Russian President Vladimir Putin's hopes of a good relationship with Donald Trump had been fading for some time. But Trump's airstrike last week on a Syrian airbase, followed by tough language from his top diplomats regarding Russia's support of the Syrian regime, suggests that Putin's options in Syria -- where he very recently was thought to hold all the cards -- are rather more limited than many previously thought. Over the weekend, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that he hopes "Russia is thinking carefully about its continued alliance with Bashar al-Assad," while Trump's ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has said that the US is "calling out" Russia and Iran in the aftermath of last week's chemical attack in Idlib. Trump administration sends mixed signals on Syria ahead of G7 meeting Trump administration sends mixed signals on Syria ahead of G7 meeting In relation to Syria -- and perhaps more importantly, Ukraine -- any dreams Russia have had of brokering a grand bargain with the US are likely over. Moscow will now have to revisit its options on how, or whether, it cooperates with the US -- and these options are not as promising as is sometimes assumed. Much will obviously depend on how US policy develops in Syria. But it's hard to see exactly what Russia can do next without making a bad situation worse. A direct Russian military response to America's reestablishment of itself as a factor in Syria's internal conflict is hard to imagine. US cruise missile attacks would be hard to prevent. Russian attacks on US ships would be dangerous -- very dangerous. And publicly admitted deployment of significant numbers of Russian troops to Syria would not only be risky, but would also further lock the Kremlin into its commitment to Assad. Abandoning Assad would also be hard for Putin. Backing a potential successor, if one were available from within the same faction, might preserve the Russia-Iran working alliance, but would be unlikely to improve the chances of an official Syrian government establishing a good measure of control over the country as a whole. Haley: Trump prepared to do more in Syria Haley: Trump prepared to do more in Syria 04:07 And part of Putin's argument for intervention rested on the need to support what he saw as Syria's legitimate government, probably coupled with a sense of a wider imperative to act decisively to prevent "color revolutions". Other options for a Syrian settlement would entail a radical rethink of Russia's strategy. Working with western and different regional powers towards a post-Assad settlement would not just be unpalatable for Putin, but as the war rolls on, it also becomes increasingly complicated. The conflict -- or more accurately conflicts -- within and around Syria has intensified the hatreds inherent in civil war. It has been a force driving extremism -- not desire for a settlement. The Kremlin may once have thought that an imposed Alawite victory was within its sights, and may even still think that this is possible. But Putin can no longer believe, if he once did, that this can be achieved with American or possibly even European acceptance of it as being inevitable. He must also understand that the chances of US and European sanctions for Russia's seizure of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine being eased in the near future have been further reduced. Syria and Ukraine are not formally linked, but Russian policies towards both reflect the Kremlin's conviction that its use of force is its prerogative as one of the world's great powers. Nikki Haley says 'regime change' in Syria. Rex Tillerson doesn't. What gives? Lastly, while the Kremlin may feel itself to be condemned, at least for now, to stick to its current course or something very like it, Putin and his colleagues must also take into account the fact that the Russian domestic appetite for foreign adventures is dulling. Despite for some time looking like the only player in the game when it came to ending the Syrian conflict, Putin's long-term support of Assad has left him with very few options, none of which are simple.

US military strikes on Syria: what we know so far

The US has launched a missile strike against Syria for the first time since the civil war began, targeting an airbase from which the US said this week’s chemical weapons attack on civilians was launched by Bashar al-Assad’s regime. What we know so far The missile strikes targeted Shayrat airbase near Homs. The US has said this was the location from which Syrian forces launched a chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhun on Tuesday morning. The Pentagon said 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from the warships USS Ross and USS Porter in the eastern Mediterranean in the early hours of Friday morning, local time. A Syrian official told the Associated Press that at least seven people had been killed and nine wounded in the US missile attack. Reuters reported that the Syrian state news agency said the strikes had killed nine civilians, including four children, in areas near the airbase. The death toll has not been independently verified. Some reports said senior officers had evacuated the base before the missile strikes and after foreign countries were notified of an imminent attack by the US. President Bashar al-Assad’s office said the strike was “foolish and irresponsible” and “revealed its short-sightedness and political and military blindness to reality”. It said the government would redouble its efforts against rebel groups after the strike, adding: “The disgraceful act of targeting a sovereign state’s airport demonstrates once again that different administrations do not change deeper policies.” Syrian rebels welcomed the strike and called for additional action. “Hitting one airbase is not enough – there are 26 airbases that target civilians,” a key figure in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on Twitter. “The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar and his aides.” Russia, a Syrian ally that has been helping the Assad regime target rebel-held districts, condemned the US action. Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the president regarded the strikes as “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law and under a false pretext”. Peskov said Trump’s move would have consequences for relations between the two countries. “With this step Washington has struck a significant blow to Russian-American relations, which were already in a sorry state.” A Russian defence ministry statement, read on state television, said the US attack had been “ineffective” and claimed Syrian authorities were looking for 36 Tomahawk missiles that fell outside the base and missed the target. The statement also confirmed Russia would stop cooperation and communication with US forces in Syria. Syria bombing: US says Russia bears responsibility for Assad's gas attack – as it happened American military strike hits airbase in Syria in retaliation for what US president called ‘horrible chemical weapons attack’ in Idlib Read more Shortly thereafter, the Russian military said it would help Syria strengthen its air defences after the strike to help “protect the most sensitive Syrian infrastructure facilities”. In a post on Facebook, the Russian prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, wrote about “completely ruined relations” between Russia and the US, saying the US strike was “good news for terrorists”. The US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, said the strikes did not indicate a shift in US policy towards Syria, despite it being a significant change from the previous stance taken by the Trump administration. Tillerson said Russia bore responsibility for its handling of the 2013 deal that was supposed to remove Assad’s stockpile of chemical weapons. The Pentagon confirmed Russia had been told of the impending strike through military channels, despite earlier claims from Tillerson that there had been no contact. Hillary Clinton called for the US to “take out” Syrian government-controlled airfields just hours before Trump launched the strikes. The move was supported by key US allies, including the UK, Australia, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Italy and Japan said they understood the action taken by the US. The UK defence secretary, Michael Fallon, said the British government had not been asked to provide military support to the US attack but believed it was a “wholly appropriate” response to the chemical weapons attack. “We’re not committed to military action against Syria. Our parliament considered that before, back in 2013, and turned it down,” he said. Iran, Assad’s regional backer, said it “strongly condemned” the strikes, as it condemned “all unilateral military action”. It said the action had been taken under the “pretext” of the chemical strike. Bahram Ghasemi, a foreign ministry spokesman, said the attack “strengthens the near-to-death terrorists and complicates the situation in Syria and the whole region”. The United Nations coordinator for humanitarian affairs, Jens Laerke, said the UN had no sign that US military strikes against the Syrian airbase had had “any direct consequence” on overall aid operations in Syria. A UN human rights office spokeswoman, Ravina Shamdasani, said on Friday that use of chemical weapons, if confirmed, would amount to a war crime. Nato’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said Assad “bears full responsibility” for the US missile strikes. The European commission said that its president, Jean-Claude Juncker, “understands efforts to deter future attacks” and that the EU stood ready to play its role in finding a political solution to the crisis. The UN security council has met to discuss the US strikes. Britain’s UN ambassador, Matthew Rycroft, said Assad has been “put on notice”, describing the strike as a “proportionate response to unspeakable acts”. France’s UN ambassador, François Delattre, said Assad’s goal was “annihilation, quite simply, of all those who resist him, whatever the price might be”.