Syria Analysis: The Wider Politics of the "Russian S-300 Missiles to Damascus"

Amid stalemate on the military front and on proposals for an international "peace" conference, Tuesday was marked by confusion over the Russian response to the European Union's lifting of an arms embargo on the insurgency.

Framing a statement by the Deputy Foreign Minister, Russia Today headlined that Moscow was sending S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems --- agreed under a contract signed before the Syrian conflict --- to Damascus.

However, the Russian news agency Interfax, quoting the Minister, said only that "weapons systems" were being delivered.

Moreover, neither story could establish if the arms were already in the hands of the Syrian regime or if the Minister was merely saying they would be sent at some point in the future.

The episode is part of the ongoing political struggle over Russia's support for President Assad, including the rejection of any demand that he step down for a political transition.

Officials from the "West" --- notably the US and Britain, accompanied by statements from Israel --- have put out statements for weeks denouncing the supposed Russian plan to send S-300s.

Those stories took on wider meaning on Tuesday with the European Union's decision not to renew the arms embargo, effectively allowing countries like Britain and France to openly supply the opposition.

The US-led campaign over the S-300s, anticipating that move, is meant to box in the Russians. Either Moscow backs away from advanced weapons to Damascus --- even as the "West" ramps up its support of insurgents --- or Russia fulfils the narrative of its malevolent, destructive provision of the arms to Assad.

That in turn has been linked to the political pressure on Russia to withdraw its insistence of no pre-condition --- i.e., the departure of President Assad --- for an international conference in June.

Until yesterday, Moscow had knocked back the American and British eforts, including visits to President Putin by Secretary of State John Kerry and Prime Minister David Cameron, by standing firm over the conference --- putting its own condition that Iran, a key supporter of the Syrian regime, be allowed to attend --- and maintaining ambiguity over the arms supplies.

However, Tuesday's flutter raised a question: had the European decision shaken Moscow? Or are the Russians continuing to unsettle the "West" with deliberate confusion?

We choose the latter for two reasons.

Russia answered the Western pressure with the clear signal that it will continue to provide weapons to the "legitimate" authority in Syria. In so doing, it was sending another message: if you want to have an international "peace" conference, that "legitimate" regime will have to be allowed at the table with no pre-conditions on its participation.

Yet, at the same time, Moscow was not going to wear the villain's mantle designed for it by the "West", but was going to maintain plausible deniability. Th message:

Maybe we are supplying S-300s under an old contract, maybe we are not --- you keep trying to figure it out.

Meanwhile, your move, Washington. Your move, London. Are you really going to pour in more weapons to the insurgency, even as you criticise us for supplying our own to the "legitimate" leaders of Syria?