Anne Applebaum on global crisis brought by West's non-intervention in Syria

The bloody war in Syria grinds on, more than five years after it started. But for Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum, a missed opportunity three years ago could have made Syria — and the world — a much safer place.

According to some estimates, close to half-a-million lives have been lost in Syria. And almost five million Syrians have fled. But the repercussions of the war, beyond Syria's borders, are harder to measure.

In her latest column, Applebaum details the human, physical and political cost of the West's hesitation. The cost to Syria and its people, and the cost to the rest of us.

In August of 2013 after reports of a chemical attack by Syrian government forces in Ghouta, near Damascus U.S. President Barack Obama declared the Assad regime had crossed the line. He said the Syrian regime should expect retaliation from the West.

That led to Prime Minister David Cameron's push in the British House of Commons for a vote to intervene militarily in Syria. But that never happened.

Speaking from Warsaw, Poland, Ms. Applebaum tells As It Happens host Carol Off that "Cameron managed the vote badly. He didn't count the numbers and he lost the vote. That seems to have spooked Obama who decided the following day that he wouldn't go either. After that there was a sense on the side of Bashar al-Assad and his Iranian, and later Russian backers, that it's open game — we can do whatever we want in Syria."

CAROL OFF: Those in Britain who say "we dodged that bullet by not getting involved in Syria, lucky thing", point to the intervention in Libya as an example of a disastrous intervention that left a failed state. What do you say to them?

ANNE APPLEBAUM: First of all, Libya failed not because of the intervention but because there was no follow-up. There was no thought to what would happen afterwards. It's also highly possible Libya would've been a failed state anyway. So  I'm not sure that we can credit ourselves with having caused the failure of the state in Libya. But the point is that, we can argue about whether the intervention would've been good or bad. But I don't think there's any need to feel like we've achieved something so wonderful by not intervening. The crisis has worsened. It's much worse than anyone imagined it would be three years ago. And the effects on the region, on Europe, and eventually on the world, are very extreme and I think we underestimated them.

CO: What are you seeing in Poland that you believe is directly connected to the failure to intervene in Syria?

AA: Actually Poland has very few Muslims and has so far taken no refugees. But nevertheless a nationalist-populist government has used the spectre of refugees, and the threat of a Muslim invasion, to win elections ... by creating this idea that Europe will be overwhelmed and we must prepare to defend it.    

CO: There are rumours again today of some kind of an agreement over Syria — principally between the U.S. and Russia. And again people are saying that maybe this is the moment for a breakthrough that can bring some stability and peace to Syria. How much of this genie can be put back in the bottle?

AA: Look, I mean Russia doesn't really have an interest in peace in Syria. Russia's interest is in giving itself a role on the world stage. And possibly doing a deal with the West over Ukraine, allowing it to keep parts of Ukraine that it's occupied. So no, I don't hold out a huge amount of hope at this point ... particularly since this U.S. administration is coming to a close and it doesn't have much it can offer in terms of bargaining.

CO: Do you think that the political changes in Europe can be reversed. Or is it something that has been released in that part of the world that can't be changed?

AA: I mean things can be changed and elections can go the other way. But at this moment what we're seeing across Europe is the rise of a populist nationalist right in almost every single country.

CO: Would you see Donald Trump and his followers in the U.S. being consistent with that?

AA: Yes, I do think Trump is part of the same mood. Trump uses the same kind of language and the same kind of political tactics that some of the far-right parties in Europe use. Even down to the way he uses trolls and the Internet. And the way he creates a kind of white identity in the U.S. as opposed to other identities.

For more on this story, listen to our full interview with Anne Applebaum. You can also read her column here.