To many the declaration by President Putin that Russia may be willing to back the use of force in the UN against Syria, if it can be shown beyond doubt that Assad was responsible for the chemical atrocity, comes as big a surprise as the UK Parliament’s No vote. Yet, however high the bar he has set, this does, for the first time, offer the prospect of fruitful dialogue over Syria in the G 8 at St. Petersburg.
It is maybe worth listing some of the scenarios which might account for the troubling anomaly that, although all the intelligence services have evidence which points to the Assad government’s complicity in firing of the chemical munitions, it had almost nothing to gain and everything to lose by their use. Conversely the Rebels have everything to gain if their use brings a punishing strike on the regime’s military assets.
There are several possibilities. One is that the equivalent of special forces within the rebel mix, did manage to fire some artillery rockets from government territory into their own lines in order to create a crisis for the regime. This is theoretically plausible and has a clear motive as the rebels are slowly losing the battle, but most discount the logistical capability of rebel forces. Another is that Assad’s brother or some other senior officer in his military ignored orders and used the forbidden munitions. Yet another is a deliberate act by a rival within the government to discredit Assad in order to get rid of him. Intriguing is the possibility that some units overtly loyal to the regime are covertly with the rebels. This is a common feature of civil wars. This could mean the attack originated from government territory deliberately to bring down a western strike which would cripple it.
Putin has hit the nail on the head when he argues not against the use of force, but establishing guilt beyond the doubt as a condition of action. This must be to the satisfaction of not just the Prosecution, which is the US and some hesitant allies, but to the satisfaction of the Jury, which is all the rest of the world. At the moment the US has managed to convince only its own government. If it wants to act without being cast as a headstrong aggressor angry at being challenged by a weaker party unable to hit back, it will have to convince the rest of the world.
As for its argument that it will embolden Iran and North Korea in their development of nuclear weapons if the US does not act, the opposite is true. It creates an imperative to possess them. None of these conversations would be going on if in response to a surgical strike, Assad had the power to take out New York.