Consolidated Syria Conflict Thread

[Staggerwing]

So how is Russian incursion into Turkish airspace supposed to make the Turks less interested in a no-fly zone over n. Syria?  ???

[LongBlade]

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

Been reading Asprey's book, War in the Shadows.

There's some good history there, but one point he makes clear is applicable here:

Weakness breeds chaos.

By snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq Obama invited the resurgence of Daesh.

Following up on Airborne's post, Putin is filling the vacuum before anything worse (like Iran, Daesh et al) does it for us. In a way he almost had to.

Now maybe Obama thinks that's a good idea. I don't know.

But this is hardly surprising.

Unfortunately it took the West decades to build up enough clout in the mid east to rid it of Soviet influence. Now, in the space of a couple of years it has all be undone.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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.

I have been cogitating on this. It may well be how they see things, that does not mean it is real. I agree the Russians tend to go for the Orwellian, do as you are told, state. It is not true that lack of dictators equals chaos.

To me their intervention seems like mostly opportunism. They want to end a power vaccum if they can extend their influence in the process. PUTTING the middle East into chaos furthers their ends. First, they like ruining competing providers of energy. Second, they have seen themselves as the true counter to Islam since pushing back the Ottomans in Catherine's time. Which brings up again the potential for finally completing the taking of the black Sea region. Yes, they wanted it in the late 1600s. Everyone wants to think that Turkey is safe as part of NATO. It is only safe as long as the US, UK, and France, are willing to loose weapons on Russia to defend it. Putin may want to test this. A Syrian jet downing a Turkish jet, to which Turkey downs a Russian jet, to which Russia looses SAMs, can become a big regional war in a day. One thing that will be guaranteed would be Syrian oil, potentially Iraqi, then even Iranian oil, becoming useless for many years. Iran vs Saudi, even worse.

I do not see the Russians attempting to bring stability. I see Putin playing a Goldfinger, a finger in Obama's eye. Mr peace prize governs over the outbreak of a big war.

The pivot point of the structural situation is the answer to the question who would launch attacks into Russia to retaliate for damage to Turkey? Only a handful of people can know the answer, if anyone would do anything, without Obama.

[pawelj]

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

Because he thinks he can.

[pawelj]

I do not see the Russians attempting to bring stability. I see Putin playing a Goldfinger, a finger in Obama's eye. Mr peace prize governs over the outbreak of a big war.

The pivot point of the structural situation is the answer to the question who would launch attacks into Russia to retaliate for damage to Turkey? Only a handful of people can know the answer, if anyone would do anything, without Obama.

Russia Syria's policy is a basic "bait and switch" tactic to divert attention from Ukraine for a while so he can return to it again later after the situation is "stabilized", and people are used to the it. US could easily counter play this, but that would require leadership. In this situation the US and the west will always play catch-up.
US and the West need to realize that Russia is never a solution, but more of a threat then ISIS.

[bayonetbrant]

I think many of Putin's moves are motivated as much by trying to offer "an alternative" to US leadership as they are anything else.  It doesn't matter that the alternative isn't any good, there are folks out there willing to consider it just because it isn't us.

[bayonetbrant]

So here's the Egyptian news covering "the Russians" in Syria.

Never mind the pilots are speaking perfect English.
Or that the footage is actually from a 5-year-old video game...

http://egyptianstreets.com/2015/10/12/egyptian-television-host-confuses-video-game-for-russian-airstrikes-in-syria/

[Gusington]

Jeez maybe it won't be so bad pulling out of that cesspool. I know we have to be engaged there to prevent something worse but please...it's such a disaster in every way over there. I just can't look anymore.

[mirth]

Interresant

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/world/middleeast/syria-russia-airstrikes.html

[MetalDog]

Putin is a rock star in the Middle East!  T-shirts, posters, paintings, billboards.  All of it and more!!  It seems that Russia's 'Man of Action' is seen as decisive and a strong opponent of America and its allies in the region.  And a lot of people like it.  Iraq, Iran and Syria all stand to gain with Russian backing. 

But, my favorite part of the article follows my thinking exactly: "Putin considers the Syrian crisis an excellent opportunity to erode America's standing in the region," said Ghassan Charbel, editor of the London-based Arabic daily newspaper Al Hayat.  In a front-page editorial Monday, he warned that while Syria presents Moscow with an opportunity to exact revenge from the West, it may transform quickly into an Afghanistan-like quagmire that threatens to erode Putin's image as a "czar."

Amongst the many reasons the people of the Middle East have to dislike and distrust America and the West is, constant meddling on our part.  See what it's gotten us?  Let Russia deal with the problem.  Let it become theirs.  They are much closer anyways and it will allow those who will eventually turn against them, too, a chance to bring it home to Russia.





http://news.yahoo.com/amid-russian-airstrikes-putin-craze-takes-hold-mideast-185513026.html

[Sir Slash]

I'm wondering why no Moslem nation has declared a Jihad against the infidel Russians for killing the Faithful. Everytime an American flies over a Moslem country they declare one against us. Where are the anti-Imperalism protesters? Why aren't Russian flags burning all over the Mid East? And why aren't their embassies being over run and looted? I'm beginning to think there's a double standard here. :o

[MetalDog]

We have our regional allies, they have theirs.  Seems to be along Sunni/Shi'ite lines.  And they've tried to wipe each other out for 1,300+ years.  This is just a snapshot in the time line.

[LongBlade]

The Strong Man draws the attention there.

Weakness gets left in the dust.

[pawelj]

I'm wondering why no Moslem nation has declared a Jihad against the infidel Russians for killing the Faithful. Everytime an American flies over a Moslem country they declare one against us. Where are the anti-Imperalism protesters? Why aren't Russian flags burning all over the Mid East? And why aren't their embassies being over run and looted? I'm beginning to think there's a double standard here. :o

Give it time.

[eyebiter]

I'm wondering why no Moslem nation has declared a Jihad against the infidel Russians for killing the Faithful. Everytime an American flies over a Moslem country they declare one against us. Where are the anti-Imperalism protesters? Why aren't Russian flags burning all over the Mid East? And why aren't their embassies being over run and looted? I'm beginning to think there's a double standard here. :o

Saudi Arabian clerics declare jihad against Assad and Putin's forces, urging all Sunni Muslims to join the rebels shortly before rockets are fired at the Russian embassy in Syria
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3270466/Saudi-Arabian-clerics-declare-jihad-against-Assad-Putin-s-forces-urging-Sunni-Muslims-join-rebels-shortly-rockets-fired-Russian-embassy-Syria.html