Commentary
Dmitri Trenin
{
"authors": [
"Dmitri Trenin"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Levant",
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Syria",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
U.S.–Russia Tensions Calming in Syria, but Still Simmering Well Beyond
While the proxy war in Syria does hold the potential for a clash between U.S. and Russian forces, it is only one of several theaters in which a larger conflict between the two countries is playing out.
Published on Apr 23, 2018
Source: Axios
The run-up to the U.S. and allied missile strikes in Syria last week brought the U.S. and Russia closer to a direct military collision than they've been since the early 1980s. The strikes themselves turned out to be limited and carefully executed, but Syria remains a volatile arena for U.S.–Russia relations.
The big picture: While the proxy war in Syria does hold the potential for a clash between U.S. and Russian forces, it is only one of several theaters in which a larger conflict between the two countries is playing out.
Although the April strikes appeared to some an expansion of the U.S. role in Syria, they were still largely symbolic. Moreover, their manner of execution may have laid down a pattern of the United States' talking tough to Moscow but stopping short of provoking a war.
As for Trump's recent rhetoric, Russia has gotten used to such aggressive posturing — President Obama placed Russia in the company of ISIS and Ebola as the principal threats to peace in 2014, and Congress included it in its sanctions against Iran and North Korea last year — and no longer takes it at face value.
Moscow has now learned to distinguish between Trump’s words, which the Russians see as a tactic designed to throw opponents off balance, and his deeds. They will be watching the U.S. military’s moves much more closely than the president’s tweets.
The bottom line: In Syria, “deconfliction" between the U.S. and Russia — that is, prevention of head-on collisions — has continued to work. But de-escalation, which would entail a true easing of tensions, is nowhere in sight. Meanwhile, eastern Ukraine, Iran and — should diplomacy fail — North Korea will also remain tinderboxes in the U.S.–Russia Hybrid War.
About the Author
Dmitri Trenin
Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center
Trenin was director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2008 to early 2022.
- Mapping Russia’s New Approach to the Post-Soviet Space
- What a Week of Talks Between Russia and the West RevealedCommentary
Dmitri Trenin
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- A Mission for Lebanon’s ArmyCommentary
While armed forces commander Rudolph Haykal’s caution is understandable, he is in a position to act, and must.
Michael Young
- Operation Epic Fury and the International Law on the Use of ForcePaper
Assessing U.S. compliance with the international laws of war is essential at a time when these frameworks are already fraying.
Federica D’Alessandra
- Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria ConundrumCommentary
Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.
Vladimir Solovyov
- Iran Rewrites Its War StrategyCommentary
In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.
Michael Young
- Japan’s Security Policy Is Still Caught Between the Alliance and Domestic RealityArticle
Japan’s response to U.S. pressure over Hormuz highlights a broader dilemma: How to preserve the alliance while remaining bound by legal limits, public opinion, and an Asia-centered security agenda. Tokyo gained diplomatic space through an alliance-embracing strategy, but only under conditions that may not endure.
Ryo Sahashi
