The Realist Case for Intervening in Ukraine Is Stronger Than It Was in Syria

The Realist Case for Intervening in Ukraine Is Stronger Than It Was in Syria
A Free Syrian Army fighter holds a rocket-propelled grenade launcher while taking cover after a tank blast in Aleppo, Syria, Sept. 26, 2012 (AP photo by Manu Brabo.)

For the community of analysts that have focused on Syria’s civil war over the past decade, the images of bombed out Ukrainian cities, civilian casualties and refugees flooding across the border over the past month are bitterly familiar. As a policy problem, too, the war in Ukraine invites obvious comparisons to the Syrian conflict. Both raise questions about the costs and benefits of U.S. intervention. Both, of course, involve Russia. And in both cases, “realism” has somehow become synonymous with non-interventionism in the U.S. policy discourse. 

In fact, those that make a career out of non-interventionism while casting themselves as enlightened guardians of realism are misusing the term. So too, however, are interventionists who have turned realism into a pejorative. Realism is fully compatible with aggressive U.S. military intervention, but as the cases of Ukraine and Syria demonstrate, the realist argument for intervention is clearer in some cases—and places—than others.   

The Syrian civil war began in 2011, pitting a coalition comprising the governments of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Iran and Russia against a broad spectrum of armed opposition groups. In 2015, Russia fully entered the war to save Assad from military defeat, bringing massive firepower to bear against civilian population zones, infrastructure and facilities, as well as against various rebel groups. Over the course of the conflict’s messy, meandering trajectory, endless arguments erupted in the U.S. policy community over whether Assad could hope to win the war, and at times whether in fact he had already lost it. But by 2016, it became clear that Russia had secured its basic objectives in Syria: ensuring the survival of an allied regime or, absent that, preventing the emergence of a hostile and/or pro-American government there.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.

More World Politics Review