At last Russia has decided that it will not be in the sidelines any more. After much speculation among western powers about its role in the four-year long Syrian war, Russia has come out full force to defend its long time regional ally, President Assad. In a sense, this is a chess game that Russia has waited for long, to see how the pawns fall and when to strike with its knight. And this is no white knight, as they say in the investment world. This is a knight with a long sword that strikes only when the time is ripe in a battle.

Russian intervention is no surprise; the surprise is why it took so long. Russian interest in the Middle East goes back to the Cold War days when it openly supported the Ba'athist regimes of the area, Syria and Iraq. Earlier, it had supported the dictatorial regime of Nasser in Egypt until the regime's collapse and turnaround of Nasser's successor to the West. The Iraq War did not stir much protest from Russia. In fact, its silence was a boost for the coalition forces to march ahead and dismantle the Saddam regime. It watched silently as a Saddam-less Iraq imploded, and a once united country broke in fractious groups that fought with one another, and ceded territories to hostile forces.   

Unlike Iraq or Egypt and Libya, Russia had a strong foothold in Syria. The Syrian port city of Tartus hosts a Russian naval base dating back to the Soviet era. The relationship between Russia and the Syrian Ba'ath party is over five decades old. Most recently, Russia was one of three countries to vote against a formal UN Security Council condemnation of the Bashar al-Assad government for alleged attacks on civilians in the city of Homs in February 2012. It also opposed any sanction or intervention against the government.

The important question, despite the openly friendly ties between the Assad regime and Russia, is why did it take so long for the country to rally around the beleaguered regime? The steps that Russia has taken recently, like sending war planes to bomb rebel-held places, would perhaps have taken the Syrian War to a different course, had these been taken at the beginning of the conflict. Was Russia really testing the waters or was it waiting for events that would make its intervention less menacing? 

There are many reasons why Russia did not jump in the fray to save its ally at the beginning. First and foremost is that the Syrian conflict did not begin as a war. It started, as in the case of neighbouring Middle Eastern countries, as a mass movement against the dictatorial regime. Unfortunately, for the Syrians and fortunately for the Assad regime, the movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya got more traction in the West. The mass movements in those countries, particularly in Egypt and Tunisia, were also in more politically experienced and trained hands than Syria. The movement in Syria was stymied from the beginning because of its inability to unite under a single leadership, lack of committed external support, and staying power of the regime, which benefited from silent but strong support from a powerful country - Russia. The people's movement gradually turned into a Civil War, unlike Egypt and Tunisia, when the rebel groups fought with each other for political control, giving the Assad regime more time to regroup and continue his resistance with his loyal army.    

As the rebel groups feuded among themselves, an entity that was hitherto looking for an opportunity to further its political goal found the opportunity to consolidate. This was the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) that would claim chunks of territories, which it was able to seize from a fleeing Iraqi army and defeated Assad forces. Russia waited till the time was ripe; it intervened when ISIS became a tremendous force to deal with and a common enemy of the Syrian regime and neighbouring Iraq. 

When Russia declared its intention to send its war planes in Syria, it was purportedly to strike ISIS, the rogue entity the US had wanted to destroy earlier with coalition forces but was unable to accomplish for so long. But the bombs did not drop on ISIS strongholds but on other rebels fighting the Assad regime. Within a couple of days of Russia joining the war, it became clear who it was fighting for.

Are the US and its allies complicit with Russia in this new war game? At least not on paper. Officially Russia's efforts to salvage one of the cruelest dictators from a deep hole would be anathema to all who despise the acts of President Assad against his people. But unofficially, an alternative to him in Syria in the form of ISIS is equally unacceptable to the coalition. 

The Syrian war is not going to end soon, at least unless there is agreement between Russia and the western powers and their coalition on how to deal with Assad. An Assad departure may be desirable, but nobody wants to risk seeing a reprise of what happened in Libya after Gaddafi's ouster. A Syria with ISIS in place is not something the western coalition or Russia would like. The question is who goes first - Assad or ISIS?

The writer is a political analyst and commentator.