The Syrian Trap: Is Russia Sending NATO To Its Grave?

At a New York rally in December against Russian support for Assad's regime
At a New York rally in December against Russian support for Assad's regime
Yves Bourdillon


PARIS â€" Could the trap of the Syrian crisis break up NATO? This question, which carries potentially grave implications for the security of the West, might sound overblown. After all, NATO's unfailing cohesion eventually brought down one of the most formidable war machines of all time, the Soviet Union.

Still, the spreading corrosive capacities of the Syrian crisis should not be underestimated. The war has produced hordes of terrorists capable of striking successfully in central Paris. And it fuels a flow of refugees that destabilizes European countries and threatens the very existence of the free-movement Schengen area. (Observers remain quite skeptical about a new ceasefire announced Monday, slated to begin this weekend, which does not include ISIS and other warring factions.)

It is true that the Syrian war isn't happening on NATO territory, and yet it threatens the security of its member states. Yet the alliance remains strangely ineffective, so much so that Michael Ignatieff ​ and Leon Wieseltier of the Brookings Institution recently denounced "the moral bankruptcy of American and Western policy in Syria." Washington has evidently given up on influencing the western part of the country, preempted since the Russian intervention in October.

It focuses on nothing beyond the destruction of ISIS, in eastern Syria or in Iraq. The West's reluctance to get involved in such a quagmire is understandable, given that any exterior protagonist is forced to ally with criminals: Indeed, all belligerents have long ceased to be "moderate."

For all that, and for his resolve "not to repeat Bush's mistakes" and to pivot towards Asia, Barack Obama seems to be ignoring two dangers. The first is that the Damascus-Tehran-Moscow axis might eliminate the non-jihadist rebels supported by Saudi Arabia and the West. The Kremlin, with 80% of its raids targeting only these rebels, ultimately wants to leave the West with no other choice than Damascus or ISIS â€" even if this means risking throwing the defeated Sunni Muslim rebels into the arms of ISIS.

What's more, Russia's scorched earth policy (including bombed hospitals) swells the flow of refugees going to Europe, which should further boost the popularity of an anti-Atlanticist far right. Obama merely lobs verbal condemnations and repeats calls to use diplomacy. "Historians will one day look back at our archives and wonder what we thought we'd accomplish with such statements," Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said recently.

Assad with Putin in Moscow last October â€" Photo: The Kremlin

The second danger is that despite Obama's reproaches, the Turkish regime is bombing the U.S.-backed Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), which are fighting ISIS in Syria. And it risks being forced to intervene on the ground to prevent the fall of the Syrian city of Azaz, near its border. Such a move could in turn provoke a conflict between Russia and Turkey, a NATO member.

The enemy of my enemy...

NATO's entire credibility rests on its "one for all, all for one" doctrine. Article 5 on collective defense states that an attack against one of its 28 members is considered an attack against all. It's enough to turn your blood to ice and to evoke, as Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev did, the old third-world-war refrain.

But this fear-mongering scenario is very unlikely to materialize. It's in Russia's interest as much as in the West's to avoid a conflict, even a limited one, with another nuclear superpower. And Moscow knows that Turkey, with NATO's second-biggest infantry (420,000 troops, 5,000 tanks), would be an opponent of a different caliber than Ukraine. The Erdogan regime is "aware of the danger," says Sinan Ulgen, analyst at the Istanbul Ekonomi institute. "His priority is to counter the Kurds in Syria, by preventing at all costs that the city of Azaz falls, without starting a conflict with Moscow."

But history is full of conflicts caused by blunders or miscalculations. And Vladimir Putin, a very aggressive poker player, might just have spotted an opportunity to smash NATO to pieces: Use any excuse, such as the November destruction of a Russian warplane by Turkey, to trigger a wide-ranging response on Turkish territory. This would create an unbearable dilemma for NATO: Follow Article 5 and enter a war with an exasperating Turkish ally or renounce and ruin the alliance's credibility.

For Bruno Tertrais of French think tank Foundation for Strategic Research, we're talking about extreme risk-taking that marks "a major break in the strategy Putin has been following up until now." But maybe the Russian president is sure of his victory, convinced that Western leaders don't have the guts. He would then take revenge on this reviled NATO, responsible for the collapse of the USSR, which he sees as the "greatest geostrategic catastrophe" of the 20th century.

Except that NATO can very well save its credibility without entering a war against Russia. Article 5 indeed doesn't force NATO armies to go and fight, just that the alliance must take "such action as it deems necessary" â€" for example, by providing ammunition and intelligence.

NATO's response could be very much calibrated. "U.S. pressures to stand with Turkey would be very strong, because NATO's superior interest would be at stake," Tertrais says.

Still, it would be an extreme test better avoided because the Europeans don't have an alternative to NATO. Their common defense policy has been in limbo for a half-century. The French and the British are the only big players, and their European allies almost never follow them in their fights. And we struggle to see how Europeans who are incapable of dividing up the flow of refugees could be ready to die for one another.

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!

In Argentina, A Visit To World's Highest Solar Energy Park

With loans and solar panels from China, the massive solar park has been opened a year and is already powering the surrounding areas. Now the Chinese supplier is pushing for an expansion.

960,000 solar panels have been installed at the Cauchari park

Silvia Naishtat

CAUCHARI — Driving across the border with Chile into the northwest Argentine department of Susques, you may spot what looks like a black mass in the distance. Arriving at a 4,000-meter altitude in the municipality of Cauchari, what comes into view instead is an assembly of 960,000 solar panels. It is the world's highest photovoltaic (PV) park, which is also the second biggest solar energy facility in Latin America, after Mexico's Aguascalientes plant.

Spread over 800 hectares in an arid landscape, the Cauchari park has been operating for a year, and has so far turned sunshine into 315 megawatts of electricity, enough to power the local provincial capital of Jujuy through the national grid.

It has also generated some $50 million for the province, which Governor Gerardo Morales has allocated to building 239 schools.

Abundant sunshine, low temperatures

The physicist Martín Albornoz says Cauchari, which means "link to the sun," is exposed to the best solar radiation anywhere. The area has 260 days of sunshine, with no smog and relatively low temperatures, which helps keep the panels in optimal conditions.

Its construction began with a loan of more than $331 million from China's Eximbank, which allowed the purchase of panels made in Shanghai. They arrived in Buenos Aires in 2,500 containers and were later trucked a considerable distance to the site in Cauchari . This was a titanic project that required 1,200 builders and 10-ton cranes, but will save some 780,000 tons of CO2 emissions a year.

It is now run by 60 technicians. Its panels, with a 25-year guarantee, follow the sun's path and are cleaned twice a year. The plant is expected to have a service life of 40 years. Its choice of location was based on power lines traced in the 1990s to export power to Chile, now fed by the park.

Chinese engineers working in an office at the Cauchari park


Chinese want to expand

The plant belongs to the public-sector firm Jemse (Jujuy Energía y Minería), created in 2011 by the province's then governor Eduardo Fellner. Jemse's president, Felipe Albornoz, says that once Chinese credits are repaid in 20 years, Cauchari will earn the province $600 million.

The Argentine Energy ministry must now decide on the park's proposed expansion. The Chinese would pay in $200 million, which will help install 400,000 additional panels and generate enough power for the entire province of Jujuy.

The park's CEO, Guillermo Hoerth, observes that state policies are key to turning Jujuy into a green province. "We must change the production model. The world is rapidly cutting fossil fuel emissions. This is a great opportunity," Hoerth says.

The province's energy chief, Mario Pizarro, says in turn that Susques and three other provincial districts are already self-sufficient with clean energy, and three other districts would soon follow.

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!