Chapter 2: The First Moves – Syria, Sanctions, and Signals (Early 2017)

, , , ,

The Bear and the Eagle

Volume 1: The Unexpected Victory (2016–2017)

February–March 2017
Washington D.C. – Moscow – Damascus

The early days of Donald Trump’s presidency offered little clarity on how U.S.–Russia relations would develop. On one hand, Trump had called for “getting along with Russia” during the campaign (Trump, 2016); on the other, he inherited a raft of sanctions imposed by his predecessor, Barack Obama, following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2016 election interference.

The international community, particularly Europe, watched Trump’s rhetoric with unease. In Brussels, senior EU officials feared that Trump might soften the U.S. stance on Ukraine, or worse, lift sanctions entirely. Meanwhile, Putin’s government tested the waters, seeking any signal that the new American president might deal differently.

Syria as the Chessboard

The civil war in Syria remained one of the most geopolitically complex conflicts of the decade. Russia had intervened directly in 2015 to support Bashar al-Assad, while the U.S. had backed a combination of moderate rebel groups and Kurdish forces.

In early April 2017, reports emerged of a chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, Idlib province, killing over 80 civilians, including children. The United Nations and multiple independent monitors concluded that the Assad regime, with Russian backing, was responsible (UNHRC, 2017; OPCW, 2017).

What came next surprised the world.

On 6 April 2017, President Trump authorised a missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat Air Base, launching 59 Tomahawk missiles from U.S. Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. It was a sharp reversal from the “America First” non-interventionist tone and a rebuke of Russia’s role in the region.

Trump described the strike as retaliation for “a barbaric attack” and said that “no child of God should ever suffer such horror” (White House, 2017).

Russia Responds

The Kremlin condemned the strike as an “act of aggression” against a sovereign state and suspended the U.S.–Russia deconfliction channel for air operations over Syria (TASS, 2017). Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that the strike brought Moscow–Washington relations to a new low.

Privately, however, Russian officials did not retaliate militarily. In fact, the U.S. had given Russia advanced warning to avoid casualties among Russian personnel—an indication that neither side wanted open conflict.

Still, the political fallout was significant. It marked the end of any illusions of a quick Trump–Putin alignment on Syria. Trump’s administration, in its first decisive military act, had chosen to project American strength—even at the cost of Russian goodwill.

Sanctions Pressure Builds

Throughout spring 2017, bipartisan momentum in Congress began to build toward increasing sanctions on Russia. In part, this was fuelled by revelations from FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey confirmed an ongoing investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives (U.S. Senate, 2017).

By July, the U.S. Congress passed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) by overwhelming majorities—98–2 in the Senate and 419–3 in the House (Congress.gov, 2017). Trump signed it into law under protest, calling it “seriously flawed” and stating that it encroached on presidential powers.

Putin, in response, ordered the expulsion of 755 American diplomats and staff from Russia—one of the largest reductions in U.S. personnel in post-Cold War history (BBC News, 2017).

Contradictory Signals

Throughout this period, the Trump administration sent mixed messages. While Trump praised Putin’s leadership in interviews, his National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of Defence James Mattis emphasised the need to counter Russian aggression.

At the G20 Summit in Hamburg (7–8 July 2017), Trump and Putin met for the first time in person. The meeting, which was scheduled for 30 minutes, lasted over two hours. According to both sides, discussions included Syria, Ukraine, and cyber security. A temporary ceasefire in southwest Syria was announced—a rare point of cooperation (Reuters, 2017b).

But observers noted that the body language and tone revealed a curious dynamic: Trump was deferential; Putin, confident.

The press was shut out from most of the meeting. Later, it was revealed that Trump had a second, undisclosed conversation with Putin that evening at a dinner—without any American staff or translators present, raising concerns in intelligence circles (Washington Post, 2017).

Europe Holds the Line

Meanwhile, European leaders hardened their stance. Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and other EU figures reiterated that sanctions on Russia would remain until the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements regarding Ukraine. Macron, newly elected as French President in May 2017, hosted Putin at Versailles and publicly confronted him over Russian state media’s role in disinformation during the French election (Le Monde, 2017).

Putin smiled, but did not deny it.

The First Strategic Pattern

The early arc of the Trump–Putin relationship set a tone of ambiguity. Both men postured, but neither achieved their desired outcome. Putin expected a weakening of NATO and sanctions; instead, sanctions intensified. Trump hoped for better optics and cooperation; instead, he inherited mistrust and legislative constraints.

Syria had become the chessboard, but Ukraine remained the frozen centrepiece. Beneath the surface, a new phase of global rivalry had begun.

References

Home