The Syrian civil war is the most prominent humanitarian crisis of the year. Yet this fact alone will never mobilize the West to resolve the crisis, and neither will the incentive of increasing refugee flows, the threat of radicalization — which often pairs with destabilization of certain regions — or the marring of Western global conscience. What will make United States and European Union leaders take the need for crisis resolution seriously? What will inspire them to commit the resources, including the most coveted  — soldiers — to this war? Could it be another threat looming on the Continent? 

The West has expressed suspicion of Russian intentions from the beginning, when Russia announced military buildup in Latakia and began flying equipment into Syria. Initially, however, most states, including the U.S., were willing to pass the buck. The appeal of avoiding another entanglement in the Middle East, while allowing Russia — whose president has remained in Western leadership’s bad graces since the Russian annexation of Crimea — to take a crack at it seemed too good to pass up. Nonetheless, it became clear early on that Russia was not exactly playing on the West’s side. According to a Sept. 30, 2015 New York Times article, Russia’s stated goal for intervention was to fight the Islamic State, arguing that to do so, Bashar al-Assad could not be ousted like Hussein in Iraq because the resulting chaos would result in a breeding ground for terrorism. Russia’s military campaign has allowed Assad to regain lost territory, reversing most of the headway the opposition had achieved with the support of the West. However, in the process, it also became clear that eradicating the Islamic State does not actually figure into Putin’s agenda. Nor does ending the crisis, it seems.

On June 30, the Obama administration proposed a new military partnership with Russia in Syria, according to a July 1 United Press International article. The U.S. and Russia agreed to engage in joint operations if Russia would encourage Assad to stop bombing U.S.-backed rebel groups. Though this seemed a little too ambitious, this was a signal from the U.S. that it was willing to explore collaboration with Russia. This culminated in peace talks in Geneva earlier this September during which Russia and the U.S. appeared to make headway. A ceasefire was put into place, giving the world community hope that joint operations against the Islamic State and plans for reparations would follow. However, after a mere week, the ceasefire has fallen apart, and hostilities between Russia and the U.S. are at a new high. 

On Sept. 17, the U.S. breached the agreed-upon ceasefire after carrying out air-strikes in northern Syria, alleging that it had mistaken the Syrian government troops for those of the Islamic State, according to a Sept. 17 CNBC article. The Pentagon issued an apology, but Russia denounced it as insincere; the Director of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Maria Zakharova, went so far as to say that “after today’s attack on the Syrian army, we come to the terrible conclusion that the White House is defending the Islamic State,” according to a Sept. 17 Los Angeles Times article. On Sept. 22, the U.S. issued a statement that it believed Russia was responsible for bombing a U.N. humanitarian aid convoy, which Russia has since denied, according to a Sept. 22 New York Times article. 

This follows the trend of the Russian Defense Ministry rejecting any accusations levied against Russia, contributing to U.S. distrust of Russian intentions. These include allegations against Russia that it bombed a hospital funded by Doctors Without Borders in northern Syria in February 2016, conducted raids in Idlib in May 2016 and carried out airstrikes over a rebel base in southeast Syria used by U.S. and U.K. special forces in June 2016. The blame game between Russia and the U.S. culminated with Assad’s army declaring the ceasefire over and Russia and Syria beginning an operation to take back Aleppo, according to a Sept. 23 USA Today article. 

 It is time for the West to consider that Russia is intentionally prolonging the crisis; Syria has become one of Putin’s bargaining chips. He needs leverage in other crises, such as Ukraine. Through low-level sabotage and intimidation, Putin seeks to convince the West that giving in to Russian demands would make the peace process go more smoothly. For example, if the U.S. agrees to lift sanctions and stop NATO expansion in Europe, Russia will put more pressure on Assad to end resistance. U.S. options are limited: It must either compromise, most likely at win-lose terms, to end the Syrian conflict, or it must impress upon Russia that the U.S. will pursue a solution that excludes the Kremlin. Either way, relations between the countries will continue to deteriorate. The Middle East is turning into a proxy war which will hopefully not result in a direct confrontation. The U.S. taking a harder line and demonstrating resolve in Syria is crucial. If not for the sake of humanitarian concern, the refugee crisis in Europe, terrorism or moral reputation, decisive action in Syria is needed to make clear that the West will rise above military extortion and propaganda manipulations.