Russia conducted its first airstrikes in Syria on Sept. 30, with the purported intention to aid in ridding the state of ISIL. The Russian Defence Ministry released statements explaining that warplanes were sent to target eight separate ISIL strongholds, including control, communications, transportation, and armament positions.
Several U.S. officials, however, have questioned the true motives behind Russia’s air strike program, particularly following the Sept. 28 calling of the United Nations General Assembly.
“I want to be careful about confirming information, but it does appear that [the Russian airstrikes] were in areas that were probably not ISIL forces,” said U.S. defence secretary Ash Carter to reporters, according to an article from CNN. “The result of this kind of action will inevitably, simply be to inflame the civil war in Syria.”
An anonymous U.S. administrative official told CNN that one of the airstrikes, near the city of Homs, had reportedly “no strategic purpose” in the combat against ISIL, and further agreed with Secretary Carter that Russia was “not there to go after ISIL.”
On the other hand, SANA—a Syrian-run news source—asserted that Russia had targeted “ISIL dens” in several cities in the provinces of Homs, Hama, and Quneitra, as well around the town of Al-Salamiyah.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry noted at the United Nations Security Council meeting on fighting terrorism that the U.S.-led coalition would continue and “dramatically increase” their efforts in Syria. Kerry cautioned, however, that the continued strikes should not be considered support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or his regime.
Kerry also addressed doubts surrounding Russia’s airstrike efforts.
“We have […] made clear that we would have grave concerns should Russia strike areas where ISIL and Al-Qaeda affiliated targets are not operating,” said Kerry. “Strikes of that kind would question Russia’s real intentions—fighting ISIL or protecting the Assad regime.”
Despite questions and doubt surrounding Russia’s motives, the U.S. shows no intentions of stopping the Russian airstrikes.
Russia maintains its stance that the airstrikes are focused solely on ISIL bases, but Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov’s confirmation that Russia conducted their first airstrikes after a request from President al-Assad has brought forward further concerns.
Federation council speaker Valentina Matviyenko told Russian news agency ITAR-Tass that Assad’s regime has been “the only legitimate force” fighting against the ISIL. An ITAR-Tass article quoted Matviyenko addressing the U.S. strikes, saying that the strikes violated international law as “interference into the territory of a sovereign state can only be carried out on authorization of U.N. Security Council or on request of official legitimate authorities.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov supported Matviyenko’s claim, stating that “Russia will be the sole country […] carrying out that operation on the legitimate basis at the request of Syria’s legitimate authorities.”
Even prior to the launching of the strikes, concerns were brought forward regarding Russia’s true intentions, based on the preparations being made for “sophisticated air-to-air capabilities.”
NATO’s supreme allied commander, General Philip Breedlove, noted that in ”looking at the capabilities and the capacities that are being created,” he found reason to doubt “what might be their intent.”
“These very sophisticated air defense capabilities are not about ISIL,” concluded General Breedlove. “They’re about something else.”
What that “something else” is remains to be seen. Some purport that Russia doubts President Assad’s ability to keep power in Syria, and that military action will be used to secure a position to support a proxy in the case of a state collapse. Others believe that Russia is simply maintaining their position as a close ally of President Assad, and perhaps want to strengthen his position and regime.