Putin and Russia in Syria

Dans

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Jun 4, 2001
Messages
27,076
Location
Oberbayern
So, Putin is acting like the big man nobody can control again by siding with Assad and bombing the Syrian rebels, but also by infriging Turkish airspace on more than one occasion.

The west is infuriated, not least Turkey, of course, but you know they won't down a Russian MIG - too much fallout.

So what's Putin's game here? It can't simply be about defying the west surely? I wondered whether he's trying to cause another flood of migrants to make their way towards Europe ensuring that there will be a more pressing and immediate problem to focus on in the coming years than on Putin's Russia.
 
Last edited:
This is already being discussed in the ISIS thread.

As for Putin's game, an educated guess would be that this is diversion from flailing domestic economic performance. I doubt the number of refugees will spike anytime soon, most of those who could have already left
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
This is already being discussed in the ISIS thread.
Click to expand...

Not convinced the two are as related as some think, hence a new thread, about Putin and Russia intervening in Syria, not about ISIS doing whatever shit they're doing all over the middle east and north africa. Putin is not attacking ISIS by all accounts.
 
PedroMendez said:
It is hard to explain the timing without inside knowledge about the process in the Russian government. In the end Assad needs help to hold his ground/retake some of the areas and that is the reason why Russia is helping them.
Click to expand...

I am not expecting that anyone can "explain", but offer your thoughts on why he chose only now to help. Perhaps answer/discuss the idea I floated?
 
I think it is down to strategic reasons. Maybe intelligence services provided him with intel, that Russian involvement could be a crucial tipping point. Maybe he wants to counter any support for the Islamic front by turkey and the USA. I don´t think that domestic politics are the main reasons, but obviously it benefits his image as a strong-man who can restore Russia´s greatness. The whole thing about refugees makes little sense, because I doubt that his involvement makes a big difference.
 
Last edited:
Surely if he bombs more rebel positions, more still of Assad's opponents will end up fleeing?
 
Dans said:
I am not expecting that anyone can "explain", but offer your thoughts on why he chose only now to help. Perhaps answer/discuss the idea I floated?
Click to expand...
Assad needs help now more than ever
It provides a natural barrier to mission creep from the states lead coalition to target the regime in the future so needed doing before said mission creep could take place (not to say it certainly would have... But it looks a lot less likely now)
There are also timing issues to divert attention away from the Ukraine and of course nobody is even mentioning crimea now
 
Why should he jeopardize Russia's influence in the region, when the Yanks so blatantly go to bed with AQ affiliates. Hizballah has taken some battering in Syria, and with growing criticism in Lebanon of its involvement Assad was on the brink.

I'm also not sure how sympathetic the Russians can be to Western arm shipments to Sunni nutters not very far from Southern Russia.
 
holyland red said:
Why should he jeopardize Russia's influence in the region, when the Yanks so blatantly go to bed with AQ affiliates. Hizballah has taken some battering in Syria, and with growing criticism in Lebanon of its involvement Assad was on the brink.

I'm also not sure how sympathetic the Russians can be to Western arm shipments to Sunni nutters not very far from Southern Russia.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell HR is turning over to the dark side!
 
It's still early morning in the US. Let's wait till Raoul wakes up to sound of the American national anthem, sees this thread and explains to everyone what Putin is all about.
 
I'm extremely naive when it comes to this stuff but if Russia are suddenly bombing IS territory - surely that means they are fighting the same war as us?
 
Russia's decision to intervene is hardly surprising when you consider the events leading up to it.

In recent years, Russia's only allies in the region are Iran and Syria. The latter currently harbours a large Russian naval base and presumably their only military base in the region. Now the assumption is if Assad falls to his opponents, the new landlords aren't going to be as a complicit with the Russian tenants.

Right now, almost every Arab state, Islamist militia, Turkey and NATO power are collectively working together overthrow the regime. Russia realises that to counter this, they have to personally intervene at the behest of the regime.

There's also a theory that part of the reason the Arab States (more specifically Qatar who are the forefornt of supporting the opposition) and Turkey are adamant in overthrowing Assad, is so it clears the way for them to build a pipeline that would extend from Qatar all the way up to Turkey. Naturally, the Russians aren't going to be thrilled that this allows Europe to circumvent them.

As to why now? My guess is that they've always been monitoring the solution, but now the situation is critical because the Syrian Army is losing ground fighting ISIS on one front, and other Islamists on the other. By offering air support they can give the Syrian army some breathing space, and allowing them to mop up around the targets they've hit and possibly take back previously lost territory.
 
Uzz said:
They're not bombing IS though, they're bombing the rebels and the legitimate opposition (the good guys).
Click to expand...

What Uzz also means by 'good guys' are the same groups linked to Al Qaeda and were often fighting alongside ISIS. He's also being dishonest about the Russians not bombing ISIS.

Hernandez - BFA said:
I'm extremely naive when it comes to this stuff but if Russia are suddenly bombing IS territory - surely that means they are fighting the same war as us?
Click to expand...

Its not as simple as that.

The West's ultimately goal is to have Assad overthrown.
The Russians on the other hand want to keep him in power.

While both sides are content to bomb ISIS, only the Russians are bombing the other Islamic militants, which the West have decided to support to help overthrow Assad. Hence the tension between the two.

I'm grossly simplifying the issue though, so take a peep at the other thread if you have the patience (and sanity) for it.
 
antihenry said:
It's still early morning in the US. Let's wait till Raoul wakes up to sound of the American national anthem, sees this thread and explains to everyone what Putin is all about.
Click to expand...
Grow up
 
Uzz said:
Definitely not fighting with IS, in fact, they've been fighting against them for many, many months now.
Click to expand...

You've categorised the entire opposition as 'the good guys', whereas the fact is the opposition is composed of a dozen different elements, many of which have been linked to Al Qaeda, and many of which at some point have been fighting alongside ISIS. Some of the more 'moderate' elements may have been fighting them, but its hardly been official 'opposition' policy (if such a thing existed).
 
Kaos said:
You've categorised the entire opposition as 'the good guys', whereas the fact is the opposition is composed of a dozen different elements, many of which have been linked to Al Qaeda, and many of which at some point have been fighting alongside ISIS. Some of the more 'moderate' elements may have been fighting them, but its hardly been official 'opposition' policy (if such a thing existed).
Click to expand...
Yea, and this myriad of opposition is who Putin seems to be focusing his air strikes on. Hardly a well thought out strategy, especially when he said IS is the enemy. If you start attacking the rebels, do you think that will help eradicate IS or not? Because I only see them strengthening in numbers with this current 'plan'.
 
Dans said:
But why only now?
Click to expand...

Because the Jaysh al-Fatah rebel coalition recently completed the conquest of Idlib Province, from where, for the first time in the conflict, they can directly threaten Assad's ancestral homeland and, more importantly from a Russian perspective, the Syrian coastal cities of Latakia and Tartus.
 
Uzz said:
Yea, and this myriad of opposition is who Putin seems to be focusing his air strikes on. Hardly a well thought out strategy, especially when he said IS is the enemy. If you start attacking the rebels, do you think that will help eradicate IS or not? Because I only see them strengthening in numbers with this current 'plan'.
Click to expand...
Yeah Putin does not strike me as somebody who will come out and say his actual strategy
Not that he needs to its basically to support a regional ally and stick the proverbial finger up to the USA... And in that context his strategy seems to be pretty good
 
@Uzz - There are no good guys in the Middle East. Just people you like or don't and how that changes from time to time

queen_assad_277691k.jpg
 
Why are those coastal cities important for Russia?
 
Dans said:
So, Putin is acting like the big man nobody can control again by siding with Assad and bombing the Syrian rebels, but also by infriging Turkish airspace on more than one occasion.

The west is infuriated, not least Turkey, of course, but you know they won't down a Russian MIG - too much fallout.

So what's Putin's game here? It can't simply be about defying the west surely? I wondered whether he's trying to cause another flood of migrants to make their way towards Europe ensuring that there will be a more pressing and immediate problem to focus on in the coming years than on Putin's Russia.
Click to expand...

Has to do with economic instability back home. The Russian economy is shrinking by nearly 5% this year, and he is attempting to switch the attention of the Russian public from domestic economics, human rights etc to nationalism and neo-imperialism abroad.
 
Dans said:
Why are those coastal cities important for Russia?
Click to expand...

Russia has had use of the port at Tartus for decades, it's considered crucial to their presence in the Mediterranean.

Assad is being kept alive by Iran and Russia. Beyond the general use he offers them of being able to project power in the Levant, their continuing support for him is dependent on:

1. Him maintaining supply lines to Hezbollah in the Beka'a, southern Beirut and southern Lebanon - this requires him to hold Damascus and the main Damascus-Beirut highway as well as the areas along the Lebanese border where Hezbollah are currently fighting. A secondary interest for Iran is that he protects the Shi'i shrines in Damascus.

2. Him maintaining control of the coast, in order to protect Russia's naval facilities. This requires him to hold the Alawite-populated hinterland, and the city of Homs, which sits at the north-south/east-west junction and so is crucial for maintaining access to the coast from Damascus.

A further strategic interest is for him to maintain the main north-south Aleppo-Hama-Homs-Damascus axis. For historical reasons, you can't seriously claim to be the legitimate leader of Syria without holding these four cities. Right now Aleppo is divided, but he holds the other three.

ISIS doesn't threaten any of these interests at the moment, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they're not a priority for Russia at the moment.
 
2cents said:
Russia has had use of the port at Tartus for decades, it's considered crucial to their presence in the Mediterranean.

Assad is being kept alive by Iran and Russia. Beyond the general use he offers them of being able to project power in the Levant, their continuing support for him is dependent on:

1. Him maintaining supply lines to Hezbollah in the Beka'a, southern Beirut and southern Lebanon - this requires him to hold Damascus and the main Damascus-Beirut highway as well as the areas along the Lebanese border where Hezbollah are currently fighting. A secondary interest for Iran is that he protects the Shi'i shrines in Damascus.

2. Him maintaining control of the coast, in order to protect Russia's naval facilities. This requires him to hold the Alawite-populated hinterland, and the city of Homs, which sits at the north-south/east-west junction and so is crucial for maintaining access to the coast from Damascus.

A further strategic interest is for him to maintain the main north-south Aleppo-Hama-Homs-Damascus axis. For historical reasons, you can't seriously claim to be the legitimate leader of Syria without holding these four cities. Right now Aleppo is divided, but he holds the other three.

ISIS doesn't threaten any of these interests at the moment, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they're not a priority for Russia at the moment.
Click to expand...

What is becoming clear is that it has far more to do with preserving the Assad regime than combating ISIS. He would probably view a frozen conflict with Russian controlled/protected enclave in western Syria as a success. Although it won't help him economically back home.
 
I love how @Uzz still insists there are "good guys" and "moderate" rebels still fighting Assad :lol:
I am very curious to know where you come from btw. Are you Arab or just very Sunni?
 
Dans said:
So, Putin is acting like the big man nobody can control again by siding with Assad and bombing the Syrian rebels, but also by infriging Turkish airspace on more than one occasion.

The west is infuriated, not least Turkey, of course, but you know they won't down a Russian MIG - too much fallout.

So what's Putin's game here? It can't simply be about defying the west surely? I wondered whether he's trying to cause another flood of migrants to make their way towards Europe ensuring that there will be a more pressing and immediate problem to focus on in the coming years than on Putin's Russia.
Click to expand...

Kasparov, who has been spot on about Putin from the beginning, nails it again here.....

http://europe.newsweek.com/kasparov-putins-goal-syria-chaos-334236
"The Kremlin's official pretexts, that the strikes are against ISIS and part of the global war on terror are, like most Kremlin statements, blatantly false, as can be seen by a glance at a map of Russia's targets.

As in Ukraine, Putin will stay in Syria until it no longer suits him. He has no long-term strategic goals beyond creating chaos and weakening the alliances of the free world wherever possible. This allows him to play the big man on the international stage, an essential element of his domestic appeal. 24/7 propaganda and Soviet nostalgia have turned Putin's invasion into a domestic hit in Russia. In contrast, Russians have no interest in Syria or Assad, but who cares what they want? Unlike the leaders of Europe, the U.S., and other democratic countries, Putin doesn't have to worry about how popular his foreign adventures are at home. There are no checks and balances in the Russian government, no free media to criticize him, and no popularity polls that matter more than ranks of well-armed riot police..."

This security allows dictators like Putin to move opportunistically into any breach as the White House dithers.
Click to expand...
 
The western plan for Syria to use the 'good guys' against the 'bad guys' is clearly not working. Probably because some of the 'good guys' aren't really good, and the rest are nowhere near strong enough to rely on for any significant impact. While the 'good guys' were busy spending US taxpayers' money on bootleg DVDs of popular Syrian TV shows such as "Who Wants To Kill An Infidel" and "Whose Suicide Vest Is It Anyway?", the real bad guys decided to join in the fun and started taking over more and more territory. And since US led coalition air strikes kill more doctors and wedding guests than they do actual terrorists, things have steadily gotten worse and worse.

Now a horrible Russian dictator decides to help out his ally, a terrible Syrian dictator and since dumb uncivilized Russians don't know the difference between 'good' rebels and 'bad' rebels, that provoked an angry reaction from various interested parties. Apparently the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are quite unhappy that Russian bombs have been falling on the people and weaponry they invested lots of money in.
 
Ballache said:
I love how @Uzz still insists there are "good guys" and "moderate" rebels still fighting Assad :lol:
I am very curious to know where you come from btw. Are you Arab or just very Sunni?
Click to expand...
Whether you're white, brown, purple, black, Sunni, Shia, Jewish, Scientologist, Alawi...

I can never support a megalomaniac who has caused untold destruction and death to his own people. The evidence is before your very eyes. The rapes, the torture, the napalm, chemical gas, whatever crime you want to see, he's done it to hold on to power.

That's the skinny of it.

You can call me 'very Sunni' or a 'Sunni fanboy' or all the names under the sun, but this is the fact of the matter. If you are pro-Assad you are pro-destruction of the Syrian people.
 
Uzz said:
Whether you're white, brown, purple, black, Sunni, Shia, Jewish, Scientologist, Alawi...

I can never support a megalomaniac who has caused untold destruction and death to his own people. The evidence is before your very eyes. The rapes, the torture, the napalm, chemical gas, whatever crime you want to see, he's done it to hold on to power.

That's the skinny of it.

You can call me 'very Sunni' or a 'Sunni fanboy' or all the names under the sun, but this is the fact of the matter. If you are pro-Assad you are pro-destruction of the Syrian people.
Click to expand...

See, you can't make these statements and pretend like that's the truth! your good guys statement did my head in! I can understand people hating Assad, and I'm one of them but come on!! Are you honestly telling me that you firmly believe the opposition in Syria can run a country? Or are we all blinded by sectarianism? Your passion towards the opposition is what made me ask the question because let's cut the bullshit, our religious affiliations have a lot of effect on what side we choose to side with.
 
Ballache said:
I love how @Uzz still insists there are "good guys" and "moderate" rebels still fighting Assad :lol:
I am very curious to know where you come from btw. Are you Arab or just very Sunni?
Click to expand...

This notion that ISIS is bad, but Assad is less bad is quite problematic imo. Surely we can agree that Assad and ISIS are both bad, in which case, there's a clear cut moral case for supporting a moderate position that rejects both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.