Comparing the Syrian and Ukrainian Civil Wars: Foreign Intervention and Key Differences

Posted on Sep 8, 2024 in History

Comparing the Syrian and Ukrainian Civil Wars

Similarities

Origins and Early Stages

  1. Both conflicts began with uprisings against the government in response to perceived injustices.
  2. Initially, citizens engaged in peaceful protests, but the government’s violent reactions escalated the situation into armed conflicts.
  3. Both countries have a history of being under foreign rule. Syria was under French control until 1946 and then ruled by the Ba’ath party and the Assad family. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union until 1991.
  4. Both nations were formed by combining diverse regions, sometimes against their will. For example, Crimea, historically part of Russia, was transferred to Ukraine under Stalin. Syria comprises various ethnic and religious groups, including Shiites, Sunnis, Alawites, and Kurds.
  5. International actors intervened in both conflicts from the outset. The US, EU, and Russia played significant roles in Ukraine, with the EU imposing sanctions on Russia, the US providing military support, and Russia backing the government.
  6. Russia consistently supported the existing governments in both conflicts, aiming to maintain its influence. Conversely, the US generally supported the rebel groups or those opposing the government.

Differences

Groups Involved and Foreign Support

  1. The Ukrainian conflict primarily involves two main factions: pro-European western and central Ukraine and pro-Russian eastern and southern Ukraine (including Crimea). In contrast, the Syrian conflict, initially between rebels and the Assad regime, has evolved into a multi-sided war involving Assad’s forces, various rebel groups, Kurds, and ISIS.
  2. Foreign support in Ukraine is relatively clear-cut, with the EU and US backing one side and Russia supporting the other. However, the situation in Syria is more complex. While the US supports some rebel groups, its primary focus has been on defeating ISIS. Turkey mainly combats Kurdish forces, and Russia primarily targets anti-government rebels.
  3. Russia and the US share some common ground in Syria, particularly in their opposition to ISIS. This alignment became even stronger after the assassination of Russia’s ambassador to Turkey.

Evaluating Foreign Intervention

Ukraine

  1. US: The US has provided military support, driven by concerns about Russia’s growing influence and the potential threat to post-Cold War stability. This intervention can be viewed through a realist lens, as the US aims to maintain its global power and counter Russia’s influence.
  2. EU: The EU has primarily imposed sanctions on Russia for its actions in Ukraine. However, there are internal divisions within the EU regarding the appropriate response. Protesters in Ukraine favored closer ties with the EU and the West. The EU’s approach reflects a more liberal perspective, emphasizing dialogue and following the lead of key members like Germany, which seeks to avoid a major conflict with Russia due to economic ties.
  3. Russia: Russia has deployed troops and provided weapons to support the Ukrainian government, aiming to preserve its historical influence in the region. This intervention aligns with a realist perspective, emphasizing power, the use of force, and the pursuit of national interests.

Syria

The Syrian conflict involves a wider range of international actors:

Supporting Assad:
  1. Russia: Russia backs Assad to maintain its influence in the region, which is strategically important for oil transportation to the West. This can be seen as a realist approach, prioritizing national power and strategic interests.
  2. Shiite Countries: Several Shiite-led countries support the Syrian government, reflecting the interests of their leaders and a shared religious identity. This aligns with a liberal perspective, where the decisions of individual leaders play a significant role.
  3. Iran: Iran, a key ally of Syria, has provided significant military support, driven by its close relationship with the Assad regime and shared Shiite identity. This intervention can be interpreted through a liberal lens, emphasizing the role of leadership and shared interests.
  4. Hezbollah: This Lebanese Shiite group, backed by Iran, has actively fought alongside Assad’s forces. While not a state actor, Hezbollah’s involvement highlights the complex web of alliances in the Syrian conflict.
Supporting the Rebels (Free Syrian Army):
  1. Gulf States: Several Gulf states have provided weapons to rebel groups through Turkey, motivated by economic interests and a desire to see the Assad regime overthrown. This can be viewed through a liberal perspective, where individual state interests drive foreign policy decisions.
  2. Turkey: Turkey has supported the rebels from the beginning, aiming to promote the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and prevent the establishment of a Kurdish state. This aligns with a liberal perspective, emphasizing the self-interests of individual states.
  3. Jordan: Jordan has also provided support to rebel groups, although its role has been less prominent than that of other actors.
  4. US: The US opposes the Assad regime and its use of violence. This intervention can be seen as reflecting a liberal perspective, with a focus on human rights and democracy promotion. President Obama played a key role in shaping US policy towards Syria.
Other Actors:
  • Kurds: Kurdish forces have received limited support from the US.
  • ISIS: ISIS has not received official support from any state actor.
  • Israel: Israel has sought to weaken Syria by promoting its division into smaller, confessional states.

Conclusion

The Syrian and Ukrainian civil wars share some similarities in their origins and the involvement of foreign powers. However, they differ significantly in the complexity of the conflicts, the number of actors involved, and the motivations behind foreign intervention. Understanding these differences is crucial for analyzing the ongoing dynamics of these conflicts and their implications for regional and international security.