By Jonathan Mautner
with Christopher Kozak
Russia implemented
a series of unilateral ‘humanitarian pauses’ in Aleppo City in a new attempt to
obscure its ultimate military objectives in the Syrian Civil War and reduce
mounting diplomatic pressure against its intervention. Russian Minister of Defense Sergey Shoygu announced
a series of three eleven-hour ‘humanitarian pauses’ from October 20 – 22 to
allow for the “safe exit” of civilians and opposition fighters from Eastern
Aleppo City. The announcement followed a temporary
halt to pro-regime airstrikes in Aleppo City that Russia instituted on
October 18. Nonetheless, Russia dramatically intensified its airstrikes against
opposition forces and critical civilian infrastructure in Aleppo City during
the four-day period preceding the temporary halt in its air campaign, conducting
strikes with bunker-busting
munitions aimed at degrading opposition defenses and coercing the local population
to abandon the city. Pro-regime forces also continued to conduct ground
operations and restrict humanitarian
access during the suspension of the air campaign as part of their continued
effort to depopulate opposition-held districts of Eastern Aleppo City. In
effect, Russia acted to ensure that its ‘humanitarian pauses’ did not serve to
alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo City.
Russia paused its
air operations in Aleppo City for military and geopolitical reasons rather than
humanitarian ones. Although Russia shifted its air campaign away from Aleppo
City to target core
opposition terrain in Idlib Province from October 18 – 21, the overall tempo of
the campaign decreased across Western Syria over the past seven days. Russia may
have used this period as an opportunity to conduct much-needed maintenance on
its forward-deployed aircraft given the pace of operations of its intervention
since September 2015. Russia may have intended to further ease the strain on
these airframes through the deployment
of its sole aircraft carrier to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea on October 17. Russia
likely also sought to relieve mounting international pressure in response to
its aggressive air operations in Aleppo City. The U.S. and EU both issued
increasingly public threats of targeted
sanctions and calls for investigations
into potential war crimes committed by pro-regime forces in Aleppo City as
Russian warplanes aggressively targeted the city from October 14 – 17. Russia
nonetheless will not suspend its air campaign on any long-term basis in response
to international censure, having ratified
an agreement for the indefinite deployment of its air forces to Syria on
October 7. Russia resumed
heavy airstrikes against outlying suburbs of Aleppo just one day after the
conclusion of the ‘humanitarian pauses’ on October 22, preventing opposition
forces from reinforcing or resupplying the besieged city.
Russia partnered
its ‘humanitarian pauses’ with a campaign of disinformation that aimed to draw parallels
between the actions of Russia in Aleppo City and the Anti-ISIS Coalition in Mosul
in Northern Iraq. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov argued
on October 25 that the U.S. and Russia are both conducting military operations
against major urban centers held by ‘terrorist groups’ and accused the U.S. of
hypocrisy for its condemnations of Russia in Syria. This rhetoric marks an
attempt to establish a moral equivalency between the actions of the U.S. and Russia
in the Middle East and bolster its false narrative that Russia has solely
targeted terrain occupied by jihadist forces. Russia will likely continue to
cultivate this narrative as coalition forces move to recapture Mosul in Iraq
and Ar-Raqqa City in Syria in order to justify even more aggressive pro-regime
operations to clear opposition forces from Aleppo City.
The following graphic depicts ISW’s assessment of Russian airstrike locations based on reports from local Syrian activist networks, statements by Russian and Western officials, and documentation of Russian airstrikes through social media. This map represents locations targeted by Russia’s air campaign, rather than the number of individual strikes or sorties.
High-Confidence Reporting. ISW places high confidence in reports corroborated by documentation from opposition factions and activist networks on the ground in Syria deemed to be credible that demonstrate a number of key indicators of Russian airstrikes.
Low-Confidence Reporting. ISW places low confidence in reports corroborated only by multiple secondary sources, including from local Syrian activist networks deemed credible or Syrian state-run media.
 |
| Add caption |
| ISW was unable to assess any Russian airstrikes in Syria with high confidence during this reporting period. |
