Consolidated Syria Conflict Thread

[Centurion40]

I'm not quite ready to relocate to the Worker's Paradise.

Perhaps you should tour their vodka dens, and peruse their bar flies before making such a definite statement!  ;)

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I'm not quite ready to relocate to the Worker's Paradise.

Perhaps you should tour their vodka dens, and peruse their bar flies before making such a definite statement!  ;)

Pics?

[Swatter]

Before WWI there was a very delicate alliance system that was inherently unstable. Not only that, many Europeans still viewed war through rose colored glasses and were all too eager to rush off to war. I don't like the WWI or WWII comparisons.

The Russian economy with low oil prices is less than robust. Perhaps in the future if oil prices sky rocket again, they might be able to rebuild their military. As of now, you are probably seeing most of their frontline, combat capable stuff deployed near Ukraine and in Syria. Its an empty power play, IMO. Obama could call the bluff at any time, especially in Syria.

I have no doubt NATO could defeat Russia easily with just a little ramp up time. Not invade Russia mind you, but simply to check aggression. I have huge respect for Russian military history and prowess, but these days their military is a rusted out shell of its former glory.

[Nefaro]

Before WWI there was a very delicate alliance system that was inherently unstable. Not only that, many Europeans still viewed war through rose colored glasses and were all too eager to rush off to war. I don't like the WWI or WWII comparisons.

The Russian economy with low oil prices is less than robust. Perhaps in the future if oil prices sky rocket again, they might be able to rebuild their military. As of now, you are probably seeing most of their frontline, combat capable stuff deployed near Ukraine and in Syria. Its an empty power play, IMO. Obama could call the bluff at any time, especially in Syria.

I have no doubt NATO could defeat Russia easily with just a little ramp up time. Not invade Russia mind you, but simply to check aggression. I have huge respect for Russian military history and prowess, but these days their military is a rusted out shell of its former glory.

The Russian military wouldn't have to sweep across the whole of Western Europe these days.  It just has to cause enough problems/casualties to make POTUS and NATO concede to their will, which would be easy these days considering the leadership.  The latter have been forced to show their hands, since Putin's regime has repeatedly been testing the limits of their bluffing in numerous ways. 

Besides, they obviously have long-term goals being worked towards.  Their forces and capabilities aren't remaining static.  Must plan for tomorrow's war, and not expect it to be todays' (and all that).

You mention, "Obama could call their bluff at any time in Syria" but he does the opposite.  Such behavior will be expected in future Russian moves, so the cat is out of the bag now.  The line will just keep being pushed with the current POTUS, because it can be.

We shouldn't underestimate what the Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis could eventually accomplish, especially now that they are getting an idea of what they can potentially get away with in international politics.  I expect further expansionist moves from them in the coming years & decades since their initial aggressive moves have warranted little reaction from the rest of the world.  So many similarities to past Nationalism stoking lead-ups, it's difficult to miss.

[pawelj]

Any time now?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11920013/Heres-how-World-War-Three-could-start-tomorrow.html

[Centurion40]

We shouldn't underestimate what the Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis could eventually accomplish, especially now that they are getting an idea of what they can potentially get away with in international politics.  I expect further expansionist moves from them in the coming years & decades since their initial aggressive moves have warranted little reaction from the rest of the world.  So many similarities to past Nationalism stoking lead-ups, it's difficult to miss.

Reading this and skimming the article that Pawel linked, specifically:

But bigger trends are at play globally. We are seeing the return of great power politics – and with it, the risk of powerful states going to war. Conflict with the likes of Russia or China was something that seemed buried with the end of the Cold War. Yet today's simmering tensions mean there is a risk of such an outcome becoming all too real.

all has me thinking 'what if we/NATO/US didn't oppose them in the Middle East?  Would there be no WWIII?  If "we" didn't oppose them, and focused our talents on producing an inexpense alternative oil; then what would happen?  I would think that, in short order, each of their national interests would conflict and they'd turn on each other.  Boohoo.

[Greybriar]

all has me thinking 'what if we/NATO/US didn't oppose them in the Middle East?  Would there be no WWIII?  If "we" didn't oppose them, and focused our talents on producing an inexpense alternative oil; then what would happen?  I would think that, in short order, each of their national interests would conflict and they'd turn on each other.  Boohoo.

Unopposed in the Middle East and elsewhere the aggressor nations would build their strengths over time until they could roll over the nations who could have defeated them when they were weaker.

[Airborne Rifles]

I know this isn't going to be a popular point of view but...there is a lot of logic behind what Russia is doing in the Middle East and it is not all counter to the interests of the west. You have to understand the Russians' perspective on this; since the end of the Cold War they have watched us invade Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and they have watched us support revolutions throughout the Middle East and on their border in Ukraine (except for the last example, all of these occurred without any significant resistance or interference from Russia). From their perspective, and they are not entirely wrong, these actions have resulted in unprecedented chaos throughout the region.

Putin's view (and his view is very typically Russian) is that toppling existing governments and security structures is a bad idea because it brings about chaos, and now they see us trying to do the same thing in Syria by supporting the Syrian opposition. The stalemated Syrian civil war has spawned the greatest humanitarian crisis since WWII as thirty million refugees are trying to escape the the greater middle east and Europe. At this point the Russians can reasonably make the argument that it's better to back someone who has a chance of winning (Assad) and end the conflict as quickly as possible than to continue to let it simmer feeding insignificant amounts of aid to groups that are unlikely to make a significant difference or who have questionable loyalties.

Regarding ISIS, there are really only three ways they can be defeated right now. 1. We need to go in with our own ground troops for a protracted ground campaign against them. 2. We need to go full bore backing someone acceptable to us who has the capabilities to defeat ISIS (the Kurds), or 3. We need to support or at least get out of the way of the other powerful player who has the capability to defeat ISIS (Assad).

-We don't have the will to do number 1.
-We can't do number 2 because the Turks (our NATO allies) will throw a fit, and keeping the alliance together is far more important than any of these other considerations.
-That leaves us with number 3, which the Russians are executing (we can't because, again, the Turks hate Assad, and he's a bastard who used chemical weapons on his own people).

Now, the bill to pay for letting the Russians into Syria (because short of war there is realistically nothing we can do to prevent them from doing what they are doing) is handing them a base in the eastern Med from which their area denial systems can dominate the eastern Med and the Suez canal (just like Kaliningrad allows them to deny access to the Baltic and Crimea denies access to the Black Sea, Danube delta, and the Dardanelles).

Standard disclaimer, I'm not saying the Russians are right, but I do think their actions are understandable. And quite frankly, the war in Syria needs to end, even if it ends with Assad in charge. If the Russians bring that about, it will actually relieve much of the migrant pressure on Europe, and that's a good thing for us.

[Swatter]

That's a good analysis, but that doesn't explain why Putin is being needlessly provocative.

[bayonetbrant]

That's a good analysis, but that doesn't explain why Putin is being needlessly provocative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/europe/in-putins-syria-intervention-fear-of-a-weak-government-hand.html

[Centurion40]

Putin's view (and his view is very typically Russian) is that toppling existing governments and security structures is a bad idea because it brings about chaos, and now they see us trying to do the same thing in Syria by supporting the Syrian opposition. The stalemated Syrian civil war has spawned the greatest humanitarian crisis since WWII as thirty million refugees are trying to escape the the greater middle east and Europe. At this point the Russians can reasonably make the argument that it's better to back someone who has a chance of winning (Assad) and end the conflict as quickly as possible than to continue to let it simmer feeding insignificant amounts of aid to groups that are unlikely to make a significant difference or who have questionable loyalties.

Regarding ISIS, there are really only three ways they can be defeated right now. 1. We need to go in with our own ground troops for a protracted ground campaign against them. 2. We need to go full bore backing someone acceptable to us who has the capabilities to defeat ISIS (the Kurds), or 3. We need to support or at least get out of the way of the other powerful player who has the capability to defeat ISIS (Assad).

-We don't have the will to do number 1.
-We can't do number 2 because the Turks (our NATO allies) will throw a fit, and keeping the alliance together is far more important than any of these other considerations.
-That leaves us with number 3, which the Russians are executing (we can't because, again, the Turks hate Assad, and he's a bastard who used chemical weapons on his own people).

Perfectly logical.

He could even say (and probably has) that whole bad situation is the US' fault for needlessly knocking-off Saddam.

Still my distrust of Putin's intentions remains strong.

[Centurion40]

Migsy posted this on FB:

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/10/dont-chase-putin-out-syria/122686/

Don't Chase Putin Out of Syria — Let Him Fail On His Own

Putin is no chess master. He overstretched and misstepped in Syria, and U.S. would be wiser to wait him out than chase him out.

[JasonPratt]

Incidentally, yes Har Meggido is a real place, where quite a lot of real fighting has happened in the past (including the not so distant past). It was an important trade route fortification area. If I recall correctly, the Roman Army (under Vespasian and Titus) campaigning against Israel and Jerusalem in the 2nd Temple War staged from that area for pushing down through Palestine.

My browser doesn't like GoogleMaps anymore, but the Tel fortification and the plain can be found pretty easy.

[Swatter]

That's a good analysis, but that doesn't explain why Putin is being needlessly provocative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/europe/in-putins-syria-intervention-fear-of-a-weak-government-hand.html

I don't really find that article any more convincing than other analysis in this thread and shadows much of it. Still, I am left to wonder why the needless provocations (NATO over-flights, first targets the Russians hit are the small number of US trained rebels, intercepting US drones and airstrikes)?  That seems like needless provocations unless the goal is to humiliate the US and Obama. While I don't think that's the ultimate goal, humiliating the US must be some tasty icing on the cake.

[eyebiter]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-08/why-putin-s-russian-jets-in-syria-are-buzzing-turkey

"Russia probably has a concrete and parochial goal: forestalling Turkish plans to create safe zones in Syria.  The best response to Putin's latest military adventure would be to establish areas in the north and south of Syria, in which refugees and militants belonging to the acceptable Sunni opposition to Assad -- those groups that could be part of any political settlement -- would be protected. This would involve establishing no-fly zones, limiting Russia's field of action in the air and on the ground...

Putin, however, is obsessively wary of NATO no-fly zones. In Libya, where Russia agreed to let a Western alliance establish one under a United Nations resolution in 2011, it was used not just to protect civilians but to provide air support to rebels, who then toppled former President Muammar Qaddafi, a Russian ally. The same might happen in Syria -- certainly that's what Erdogan would want."