There has been a lot of stuff in the news this week about increasing Russian activity in Syria. At the request of Assad’s government, the Russians have been providing air support (strikes) and logistical support to the Syrians. The Iranians, the other component of that tri-partite agreement, are also deploying ground forces.
The propaganda has been piled on by both sides. Western interests claim, probably correctly, that the Russians are there to prop up the Assad regime. The Russians claim, probably correctly, that the mess was created by the West in the first place. There’s a fuckload to untangle.
Thing is, the Russians are doing what many have said should be done. They’re involving local forces, and are naturally unhindered by the prospect of doing business with Assad, something that has kept Western decision making in a state of near-paralysis.
Whatever. They’re there now, taking an active role. Will Russia resolve the crisis in Syria?
There has been a lot of stuff in the news this week about increasing Russian activity in Syria. At the request of Assad’s government, the Russians have been providing air support (strikes) and logistical support to the Syrians. The Iranians, the other component of that tri-partite agreement, are also deploying ground forces.
The propaganda has been piled on by both sides. Western interests claim, probably correctly, that the Russians are there to prop up the Assad regime. The Russians claim, probably correctly, that the mess was created by the West in the first place. There’s a fuckload to untangle.
Thing is, the Russians are doing what many have said should be done. They’re involving local forces, and are naturally unhindered by the prospect of doing business with Assad, something that has kept Western decision making in a state of near-paralysis.
Whatever. They’re there now, taking an active role. Will Russia resolve the crisis in Syria?
Yes, in Syria, and they will probably do the same in Iraq. However. It will come with a lot of collateral, and I can Assad staying in charge until he’s taken out by a long range US sniper a couple of years after the conflict has ended.
They will resolve nothing. They are merely propping up the Assad regime; even if they succeed in their aim of defeating all those they (and Assad) consider to be terrorists, this will not bring peace to Syria, still less to Iraq or the wider region.
First off, it is never our place to dictate who the leader of another country should be , even if we don’t like what they’ve done or the way that they gained power. Look at how many lives have been lost due to the insistence, and sometimes active involvement, in spreading our democratic message. We’re doing and saying nowt about what our friends the Saudis are up to, but Assad has got to go. We can’t have him. I’m sorry, but for me - you’re either committed to fighting injustice across the board or you’re not. We can’t honestly say that the West or Russia have pure motives in any of this.
So let’s talk motives. I’ve long thought that the long-term interests of the Western coalition was a Balkanisation of the Middle East, with pliable Arab states and a dominant Israel. That’s certainly the sort of setup the West has liked in the past. For years, I had no reason to doubt Gen Wesley Clark’s statement about there being a plan to take out seven countries in a row. The recent thawing in relations with Iran tells me we may be headed in a slightly different direction, but even so, a weak Middle East with corrupt and pliable leaders would suit the West fine.
Russia is coming at this one from a PR angle. Putin is obviously keen on the idea of solving a problem that the West has not only found insoluble, but has also been used to frighten the shit out of the citizens of Western governments. Yes, Russian forces will prop up the Assad regime. That is implied in their invitational mandate, and should not be news to anybody. If Russia succeeds in destroying ISIS, that’s a huge PR win. If they manage to convince Assad to stand down, as they did three years ago, the victory will be complete.
Russia has got the means and local co-operation to do the job, plus a shitload of motive. That’s why I think they’ll succeed.
the EU has had plenty of time to come up with an idea and has sat back whilst it all turns to shit. The Western European or American point of view is not the only point of view. The Russians, whatever their motives are doing something and if we don’t like it then tough shit… Should of got in there sooner or even better, not contributed to the mess in the first place.
lets see what the end result is, but if Russia and China feel more confident of solving world issues then good, it gives us more of an alternative to the dominance of the US and all of its allies, who, lets face it, haven’t done a great job in the middle east.
There’s an additional angle here for Russia, and thats due to the majority of its domestic terrorism being down to Islamic fundamentalists (Chechnya etc), so it gives them free reign to ‘exterminate’ the issue in their own country.
From a governmental point of view, these countries don’t work with democracy, so we need to stop trying to force it on them.
I think you may have read a fair bit into my brief post that wasn’t there!
I’d agree with you regarding Assad, the Saudi heirarchy, and pretty much any other Middle Eastern government, come to that. With a very few exceptions (and I’m finding it hard to think of any right now) they’re dictators with varying levels of brutality toward their own people. So I’m certainly not suggesting that ‘we’ (as in the Western powers) should be aiming to remove Assad or anybody else. Nor do I see any benificent motives on any side here.
My feeling is more that Russia’s intervention will not ultimately succeed, any more than Soviet intervention in Afghanistan did, or more recent Western interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever else have done. The Russians, Iranians and Syrians are at least as interested in wiping out opponents of Assad’s regime as they are in doing anything to IS (though they’ll clearly want to do as much damage to IS as they can as well). Iran and Lebanese Hizbollah want to see a Shia regime remain in power in what is a predominantly Sunni country, the Saudis and others want to see a Sunni regime there. None of them gives a flying fuck about the ordinary citizens of Syria, and nor do the US or UK governments.
My point is that there is a massive level of complexity and intractability here. The Russians risk getting as bogged down in this as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, and achieving as little.
Russia wants and needs influence and this is what is at the core of their objectives, not peace but prominence and to be seen as a broker of peace or the possibilty of it, Russia lost an Empire and Putin is desperate for a legacy (when he eventually goes) of a stronger sphere of influence then when he came to power, the throw of the dice over Ukrainne was not one of power but one of desperation, Russia’s satellites states will slowly get consumed by the lure of European money and deomcracy hence his absolute rejection of it, he doesn’t fear it but if Ukraine were in Nato? Thats why he acted when he did, there move to the East is seen by Russia as an act of betryal and aggression. Its not but thats the way they see it.
Cold War II, this time though it wil be played out in North Africa and the Middle East under the guise of a dogmatic religion, we will all get sucked in.
They will resolve nothing. They are merely propping up the Assad regime; even if they succeed in their aim of defeating all those they (and Assad) consider to be terrorists, this will not bring peace to Syria, still less to Iraq or the wider region.
Y’see, I disagree, and here’s why.
First off, it is never our place to dictate who the leader of another country should be , even if we don’t like what they’ve done or the way that they gained power. Look at how many lives have been lost due to the insistence, and sometimes active involvement, in spreading our democratic message. We’re doing and saying nowt about what our friends the Saudis are up to, but Assad has got to go. We can’t have him. I’m sorry, but for me - you’re either committed to fighting injustice across the board or you’re not. We can’t honestly say that the West or Russia have pure motives in any of this.
So let’s talk motives. I’ve long thought that the long-term interests of the Western coalition was a Balkanisation of the Middle East, with pliable Arab states and a dominant Israel. That’s certainly the sort of setup the West has liked in the past. For years, I had no reason to doubt Gen Wesley Clark’s statement about there being a plan to take out seven countries in a row. The recent thawing in relations with Iran tells me we may be headed in a slightly different direction, but even so, a weak Middle East with corrupt and pliable leaders would suit the West fine.
Russia is coming at this one from a PR angle. Putin is obviously keen on the idea of solving a problem that the West has not only found insoluble, but has also been used to frighten the shit out of the citizens of Western governments. Yes, Russian forces will prop up the Assad regime. That is implied in their invitational mandate, and should not be news to anybody. If Russia succeeds in destroying ISIS, that’s a huge PR win. If they manage to convince Assad to stand down, as they did three years ago, the victory will be complete.
Russia has got the means and local co-operation to do the job, plus a shitload of motive. That’s why I think they’ll succeed.
I think you may have read a fair bit into my brief post that wasn’t there!
I’d agree with you regarding Assad, the Saudi heirarchy, and pretty much any other Middle Eastern government, come to that. With a very few exceptions (and I’m finding it hard to think of any right now) they’re dictators with varying levels of brutality toward their own people. So I’m certainly not suggesting that ‘we’ (as in the Western powers) should be aiming to remove Assad or anybody else. Nor do I see any benificent motives on any side here.
My feeling is more that Russia’s intervention will not ultimately succeed, any more than Soviet intervention in Afghanistan did, or more recent Western interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever else have done. The Russians, Iranians and Syrians are at least as interested in wiping out opponents of Assad’s regime as they are in doing anything to IS (though they’ll clearly want to do as much damage to IS as they can as well). Iran and Lebanese Hizbollah want to see a Shia regime remain in power in what is a predominantly Sunni country, the Saudis and others want to see a Sunni regime there. None of them gives a flying fuck about the ordinary citizens of Syria, and nor do the US or UK governments.
My point is that there is a massive level of complexity and intractability here. The Russians risk getting as bogged down in this as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, and achieving as little.
The Russians tried to quell an Islamic uprising in Chechnya and its really has failed or failed in their objective, its hugely costly and the lives taken to get feet on the ground has been huge. The Russians are no better at quelling uprisings than anyone else, the Chinese on the other hand would have stopped it all, how much information ever really comes out of Tibet?
Every poster you see here is a complex computer algorithm. Some models feature an avatar made of solid photons for outside drinking events. Another papsweb difference.
With the Russian missiles being fired from the Caspian sea missing Syria but hitting Iran is this little conflict not going to get worse.
Iran and Russia are buds. In that context, no more fallout than you’d get in a “friendly fire” incident.
How bad are the Russian Directions ? I thought Iraq was inbetween Syria and Iran?
I’ve been aiming to catch up on this all over the weekend. According to this New York Times article, Russian intervention has been welcomed by Shiites in Iraq.
Pretty good article with decent linked resources, including maps showing who holds what. Some interesting snippets from the article.
“What the people in the street care about is how to get Daesh out of Iraq,” Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, a member of Iraq’s Parliament, said, using an Arabic name for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. “Now they feel Russia is more serious than the United States.”
Steeped in conspiracy theories, some say that the Islamic State’s persistence on the battlefield can only be a grand design of Washington.
“The Americans have the technology to spot water on Mars,” said Ahmed Naji, a professor at Kufa University. “So why can’t they defeat ISIS?”
For Iraqis who recall the American military juggernaut that toppled Mr. Hussein, the progress produced by the airstrikes and the effort by the United States to advise and train the Iraqi Army seem inexplicably slow.