Putin’s “War on Terror”

More than a year after President Vladimir Putin sent troops to Crimea, the political landscape and geographical stability of the region remains volatile and dangerous. With Russian-Ukrainian relations tense, the U.S. must respond to the aggression by asserting itself on the global stage.At the seventieth U.N. General Assembly in New York Sept. 28, 2015, Obama and Putin confronted themselves in an effort to stage a thoughtful conversation about the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Syria dilemma, as well as the escalation of military presence in Crimea. The dialogue was used by both leaders as a way to accomplish a certain ideological goal, one that would propel their own interests forward. Putin’s recent military operations in Syria raise many questions regarding Russia’s motivations in the Middle East and sheds more light upon Putin’s goals. Furthermore, Putin’s affiliation with the Assad regime endangers U.S. interests and retards our long-term goal in the Middle East—stability. Other news sites, like CNBC, suggest that oil is a substantial factor motivating Russia.Russia’s feigned cooperation with the U.N. and President Barack Obama are merely strategic tools used to create propaganda and intoxicate the minds of Russian citizens. For the first time since the Soviet Union’s 1980s campaign in Afghanistan, Russia has launched an operation in Syria against the Islamic State. But what does Putin’s “war on terror” mean to the U.S., and how does our inaction destabilize our stance in the U.N.?And yet we can’t be fooled by Putin’s strategic and deceptive operation in Syria. After all, a New York Times article published on Sept. 21, 2015 points to Putin’s failure to “prevent the fighting that has killed more than 250,000 Syrians and displaced millions more” in 2001. By allowing Russia to stage the battle against ISIL, President Obama puts the faith of the region under Putin’s unpredictable policies and estranges the United States from control over the Middle East, a principle he had fought for and insisted on in the Iran deal. On Wednesday, Moscow gave the United States less than an hour to respond to the “no-fly zone” in Syria and challenged America’s authority as well as the fundamental rules of military diplomacy. Instead of asserting ourselves militarily or diplomatically and suppressing Russia’s passive dominance, our inaction condones Putin’s grip on the Russian people and the global opinion. If the U.S. continues to believe in the dreadfulness of ‘Putin’s adventure in Syria,’ then we only succumb to Putin’s mindset. The past years have confirmed Putin’s apathy for Russia’s economic stability. Politico Magazine echoes this idea: “In his terms, he is winning. And on our terms we are losing.” As of now, Russia has won the war over Western diplomacy by establishing a powerful operation in Syria. This week, Putin’s meeting with Obama represented an effort to achieve a compromise in Syria, but was exploited by the Russian media as a means to portray America’s approval of Russian aggression in Ukraine. In fact, Putin’s operation in Syria can be seen as a means to display Russian pride and remove attention from the complex Crimean conflict.In light of the Europe migrant crisis, the expansion of ISIL in the Middle East and the Crimean Conflict, the United States must find a way to retain its interests in Syria.