Russia in Syria

[Duke Wellington]

What do you think Russia is doing in Syria? They say they are just focusing on ISIS areas in the country, but then they go out and tell America to move their plans and troops.

First off, if OBAMA listens to Putin he is going to show extreme cowardness. Never has a president listened to that guy.

Second, Why is it just Russia that is making the headline news and not France? France is bombing them too... Is it just because Russia told American warplanes to leave Syrian airspace?

Okay so this is what is really going on:

1. The fundamentalist Jews want to play out prophecy in the Middle East to bring about the end of the world so the messiah comes.

2. The fundamentalist Christians want to play out prophecy in the Middle East to bring about the end of the world so the messiah returns.

3. The fundamentalist Muslims want to play out prophecy in the Middle East to bring about the end of the world so the messiah returns.

All three versions of the faith believe a similar set of circumstances need to play out in the Middle East.

Due to the above we in the US and UK don't actually want Isis to be defeated. We created it, we armed it, we trained it, we are funding it and we want it to take on then defeat the Anti-Christ. Unfortunately things are a little complicated as Isis believes the US is the Anti-Christ where as we want it to be Russia. The final battle to take place in Northern Syria which leads to the Apocalypse in the Book of Revelations could go very wrong if Isis manage to manipulate NATO into WW3 against Russia.

For the love of God we do not want to enter the conflict. Stay well away from Isis and let Russia with its sidekick Iran put it down. The more drawn in we become the more chances of Isis managing to pin the Anti-Christ label on the West.

Edited October 8, 2015 by RabidMongoose

[+and-then]

Putin is killing two birds with one stone. They are in Syria to secure their interests first and that means maintaining the Assad regime - a faithful ally - in place but also to show the world that Russia can be a superpower, that they can deal with this ISIS problem where no one else seems to have any desire to.

I am not concerned with Russia's influence in Syria, since as Shiloh17 pointed out, they have been there since the 1970s.

If they can degrade these extremist groups, I think that's certainly positive.

I guess superpowers ain't what they used to be Seriously though, Putin certainly has ambitions in this direction but his success is predicated on Obama's weakness more than his military's strength. If China launched a land invasion of Russia in the east at the same time NATO decided to invade Crimea he would have NO choice except to use nukes. If nukes make him a superpower then I guess Pakistan and NK are superpowers as well. As to his bolstering an ally - I have no problem with that. He's as justified to do it as we are to stand with Israel. But he isn't just there to strengthen Assad. He's there to create a major base in the Med.

[Shiloh17]

Well, let's test your knowledge on this, shall we?

Sounds nefarious and expensive. Tell me, as someone who clearly is informed on the subject at hand, why the United States want the expense to construct a military base in Syria? A country that is bordered by the pro-American regime in Saudi Arabia, a pro-Western king in Jordan, a reasonably pro-Western government in Lebanon, a pro-Western government in Iraq (for the time being anyway), a pro-American government in Israel and a NATO member state? Seems like a waste of time, given that Syria at the moment is fairly isolated when it comes to allegiances, not to mention it's away from any potential flash points in the Middle East.

Secondly, the United States already has a sizable naval presence in Bahrain as well as in the Mediterranean. What added benefits would any military facility in Syria have?

What is your first language, by the way? *SNIP*

Firstly, who said anything about the expense to build a base when the Russians already have a Naval Facilty there? I'm positive if a pro-United States installed government was in place, we would gain control of that facility.

Secondly, The added benefit would be the Russians lose that facility, reducing their resupply capabilities in the mediterranean.

Thirdly, you made a few typos and grammatical errors yourself, and if you wish, I will point them out you.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Lilly
quote fixed

[Lilly]

Insulting remarks toward others do not serve to bolster ones position. Please post in a civil manner.

[Harry_Dresden]

Firstly, who said anything about the expense to build a base when the Russians already have a Naval Facilty there? I'm positive if a pro-United States installed government was in place, we would gain control of that facility.

Secondly, The added benefit would be the Russians lose that facility, reducing their resupply capabilities in the mediterranean.

Thirdly, you made a few typos and grammatical errors yourself, and if you wish, I will point them out you.

You hit the nail on the head, Shiloh17. The Russians and Iranians lose an outlet to the Mediterranean. A military resupply outlet. A naval base and airfields and more importantly a trade route from Russia - Iran - Iraq - Syria. Oil/gas pipelines and shipping that bypasses American friends and allies. The Suez canal, Persian Gulf and the Bosporous straight bottlenecks will not hamper Russian and Iranian ambitions.

I think MordorOrc see's a couple of tree's but has missed the forest.

[+and-then]

You hit the nail on the head, Shiloh17. The Russians and Iranians lose an outlet to the Mediterranean. A military resupply outlet. A naval base and airfields and more importantly a trade route from Russia - Iran - Iraq - Syria. Oil/gas pipelines and shipping that bypasses American friends and allies. The Suez canal, Persian Gulf and the Bosporous straight bottlenecks will not hamper Russian and Iranian ambitions.

I think MordorOrc see's a couple of tree's but has missed the forest.

If I am correct and Russia uses this situation ( a weak US president) to greatly expand and strengthen their presence in the Mediterranean region, do you feel it will make the world a safer, more peaceful place?

[Occult1]

It's basically a given that any result will always benefit Assad because those that are able to vote are only living in government held areas of Syria. How can an election be legitimate if not all Syrians of voting age can vote?

That is because the rebels were preventing the people under their control from voting. Some groups were even threatening to bomb polling stations.

The turnout was at 73.42% and considering Assad's overwhelming support elsewhere there's a very good chance he would have won the election regardless.

The rebels probably knew it too, which is why they sought to disrupt it by all means.

As for Independant Observers, perhaps you have missed this:

Edited October 10, 2015 by Draco20

[Frank Merton]

If I am correct and Russia uses this situation ( a weak US president) to greatly expand and strengthen their presence in the Mediterranean region, do you feel it will make the world a safer, more peaceful place?

I think the Russians here are fooling themselves, and that any Syrian regime they put in place will do its own thing, with maybe a nod here and there of gratitude to Russia, so long as it suits them. I don't see how the Russians could, after the insurrection is suppressed, expecting anything else. These are Arabs.

[MordorOrc]

Firstly, who said anything about the expense to build a base when the Russians already have a Naval Facilty there? I'm positive if a pro-United States installed government was in place, we would gain control of that facility.

And what purpose would that serve, given that American military ships already frequently visit other naval bases in the Mediterranean, especially in places like Greece and Turkey.

Secondly, The added benefit would be the Russians lose that facility, reducing their resupply capabilities in the mediterranean.

Which currently does little for Russian geopolitical ambitions. Russian interests in Syria are little beyond the maintenance of the Assad regime as a client state.

Are you not going to defend your claims that Bashar al-Assad was democratically elected?

[MordorOrc]

The Russians and Iranians lose an outlet to the Mediterranean.

For what?

A military resupply outlet. A naval base and airfields and more importantly a trade route from Russia - Iran - Iraq - Syria.

And the military base is the only reason why Russia is interested. There isn't really a trade route between them and oil/gas pipelines would be rather convoluted and unnecessary.

Oil/gas pipelines and shipping that bypasses American friends and allies.

Actually, no. Firstly, any oil and natural gas pipelines would benefit the Europeans immensely as they could get oil and natural gas from more Western-friendly nations like Azerbaijan and have it shipped through Turkey rather than having it through Ukraine, which is prone to instability and used by Russia for leverage against its less than amicable neighbors. Russia would not want this as it's really the only way that it can leverage pressure in Europe, especially among countries that it exports natural gas to. Even so, many of those countries are looking to move away from dependence on Russian natural gas and more towards other sources. Again, Turkey comes into play here.

One of the major proposed projects is the Trans-Caspian Pipeline. Said pipeline would pass from western Central Asian countries like Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, under the Caspian Sea, through Azerbaijan and Turkey before entering Europe through the Balkans. Oil from fields and wells in Iraqi Kurdistan would also pass through this pipeline. Syria does not have any influence in this, meaning that Syria's importance with regards to oil and natural gas is null.

The Suez canal, Persian Gulf and the Bosporous straight bottlenecks will not hamper Russian and Iranian ambitions.

Russia's oil industry isn't hampered by any of these straits and neither is Iran's. Iranian oil exports were embargoed by European countries prior to the nuclear deal but now they are not. This means that Iran can now export oil to European countries and these shipments aren't going to be hampered by passing through the Persian Gulf or the Suez Canal.

I think MordorOrc see's a couple of tree's but has missed the forest.

I don't think I've missed anything. For all intents and purposes, Syria doesn't serve any real strategic value to the Russians or the Iranians outside of their military ambitions. Economically, it's irrelevant and Iran would benefit from an oil pipeline in neighboring Turkey than an oil pipeline passing through perennially unstable Iraq.

[Frank Merton]

Iran wants to keep the Shiite minority in control of Syria, as it greatly helps their efforts against Israel, so they want to suppress the Sunni majority and keep the Assad regime in power. This I understand on ideological and religious grounds (understand in technical terms -- it is pig-headed and harmful).

What the Russians think they will gain puzzles me. As MordorOrc has shown in several posts, they don't really have anything to gain from this and a lot to lose. I have to assume there are considerations and agreements we don't know about. Of course it could be something personal in Putin's personality and background -- leaders are irrational as to the interests of their country often enough.

[+and-then]

Iran wants to keep the Shiite minority in control of Syria, as it greatly helps their efforts against Israel, so they want to suppress the Sunni majority and keep the Assad regime in power. This I understand on ideological and religious grounds (understand in technical terms -- it is pig-headed and harmful).

What the Russians think they will gain puzzles me. As MordorOrc has shown in several posts, they don't really have anything to gain from this and a lot to lose. I have to assume there are considerations and agreements we don't know about. Of course it could be something personal in Putin's personality and background -- leaders are irrational as to the interests of their country often enough.

This... I realize I seem a bit obsessive about my president's faults but I honestly believe that he is the primary reason Putin is behaving as he is. I read Putin as being as narcissistic and petulant as Obama and I think he's fully capable of taking great risks with little surety of benefit to Russia if he can only humiliate Obama. On that score he is wildly successful.

[Harry_Dresden]

If I am correct and Russia uses this situation ( a weak US president) to greatly expand and strengthen their presence in the Mediterranean region, do you feel it will make the world a safer, more peaceful place?

Hi, and then.

I don't think that Obama is a weak President in the least. He made a power play, or rather encouraged Turkey and Saudi Arabia to move on Assad in order to deny the Iranians and Russians an outlet to the Med. The fact that it didn't work out is testament to Russian manoeuvring. The Russians played better than Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The Russians played straight. They supported a moderate in Assad and the Obama's allies didn't. They supported Islamic State and only paid the FSA token support and the results speak for themselves. Obama should have invaded Syria 4 years ago or encouraged Turkey to. I know you're a big Israel supporter and this current situation is not good for Israel but in all honesty Assad will make a better ruler than what Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia were hoping for, at least for the people of Syria and not to mention the EU.

Basically, the West is eating from the harvest it planted. Refugees by the millions and billions lost in a lost war. A trade and political corridor from Russia to the Med via the Shia nations in the region is what Russia and Iran will get.

America should choose it's friends more wisely next time.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Harry_Dresden

[Frank Merton]

At this point in time I don't see the US President as weak. His motives may be more peace oriented than some prior Presidents, but it seems to me he is getting his way pretty well. The US government, with its built-in contradictions, tends to prevent a given President from having more than just two or three long-term achievements.

The refugees are hardly to be thought of as some sort of "harvest" of evil visited on the West for its misdeeds. This is peculiar thinking, I must say. They stem from people quite naturally trying to escape a civil war, the roots of which are local, not externally imposed.

[Harry_Dresden]

And the military base is the only reason why Russia is interested. There isn't really a trade route between them and oil/gas pipelines would be rather convoluted and unnecessary.

There isn't one yet BUT roads/rail and pipelines could be in the future. Are you suggesting that Russia and Iran have wasted their time fighting a war that the U.S. and its jihadist allies thought of as worth fighting for?

Actually, no. Firstly, any oil and natural gas pipelines would benefit the Europeans immensely as they could get oil and natural gas from more Western-friendly nations like Azerbaijan and have it shipped through Turkey rather than having it through Ukraine, which is prone to instability and used by Russia for leverage against its less than amicable neighbors. Russia would not want this as it's really the only way that it can leverage pressure in Europe, especially among countries that it exports natural gas to. Even so, many of those countries are looking to move away from dependence on Russian natural gas and more towards other sources. Again, Turkey comes into play here.

Ukraine and Turkey are both U.S. client states that pretty much do as the U.S. wants. If you think that Putin is a dufus to allow America to dictate Russian energy trade then your sadly mistaken. The rest of what you say in your post is confusing and I'm not sure what you are saying. Cheap gas through friendly nations that has no transit fees and political costs is always going to win out over Azerbaijan gas and not just for Europe but North Africa, MiddleEast, etc etc.

One of the major proposed projects is the Trans-Caspian Pipeline. Said pipeline would pass from western Central Asian countries like Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, under the Caspian Sea, through Azerbaijan and Turkey before entering Europe through the Balkans. Oil from fields and wells in Iraqi Kurdistan would also pass through this pipeline. Syria does not have any influence in this, meaning that Syria's importance with regards to oil and natural gas is null.

Rubbish. Russian and Iranian gas and oil will have to travel less across land expensive pipes and directly to market aboard tankers. Transportation will make it more cost effective and give more margin to command a better price than Western controlled infrastructure.

Russia's oil industry isn't hampered by any of these straits and neither is Iran's. Iranian oil exports were embargoed by European countries prior to the nuclear deal but now they are not. This means that Iran can now export oil to European countries and these shipments aren't going to be hampered by passing through the Persian Gulf or the Suez Canal.

Iranian energy exports now have to take the long route through the U.S. controlled Persian gulf across the Indian ocean and into the Med through the Suez canal to reach Europe and North Africa. ALL American allies and under Western control. Through Syria is a shortest distance and cheaper to market.

I don't think I've missed anything. For all intents and purposes, Syria doesn't serve any real strategic value to the Russians or the Iranians outside of their military ambitions. Economically, it's irrelevant and Iran would benefit from an oil pipeline in neighboring Turkey than an oil pipeline passing through perennially unstable Iraq.

I beg to differ. I have already explained my reasons above.

[Harry_Dresden]

At this point in time I don't see the US President as weak. His motives may be more peace oriented than some prior Presidents, but it seems to me he is getting his way pretty well. The US government, with its built-in contradictions, tends to prevent a given President from having more than just two or three long-term achievements.

The refugees are hardly to be thought of as some sort of "harvest" of evil visited on the West for its misdeeds. This is peculiar thinking, I must say. They stem from people quite naturally trying to escape a civil war, the roots of which are local, not externally imposed.

A war that has been raging for 4 years. These refugees until 6 months ago were living peacefully and safe still in Syria and Turkey. The fact that they are now west bound in the millions is thanks to Turkey that see's the writing on the wall and are super p***ed that they firstly didn't get their own way in Syria and secondly that they feel betrayed by the West for pulling their support for Islamic State. There is nothing, nothing natural about what's transpiring in Europe.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia has unleashed it's revenge.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Harry_Dresden

[Harry_Dresden]

Also Frank, this President, Obama, was NOT motivated by anything as noble as helping democracy find its way to Syria anymore than democracy finding its way to Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq etc etc. Anymore than Putin fighting the evil Islamic State.

[Shiloh17]

And what purpose would that serve, given that American military ships already frequently visit other naval bases in the Mediterranean, especially in places like Greece and Turkey.

Which currently does little for Russian geopolitical ambitions. Russian interests in Syria are little beyond the maintenance of the Assad regime as a client state.

Are you not going to defend your claims that Bashar al-Assad was democratically elected?

Interior Minister Bassam Abdel Majeed claimed "This great consensus shows the political maturity of Syria and the brilliance of our democracy,", while the ministry described voter turnout as "enormous".^[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2007

[Harry_Dresden]

And what purpose would that serve, given that American military ships already frequently visit other naval bases in the Mediterranean, especially in places like Greece and Turkey.

Syria also has air bases that would be closer to any potential conflicts than any in Greece or Turkey.

Which currently does little for Russian geopolitical ambitions. Russian interests in Syria are little beyond the maintenance of the Assad regime as a client state.

Yeah that's what it must be. Russia and Iran had nothing better to do than prop up an old mate. And the Americans, Turks and Saudi's came along for the ride.

Are you not going to defend your claims that Bashar al-Assad was democratically elected?

I have noticed that you haven't mentioned ONCE Islamic State or the other Islamic wahhabists supported and doing the wests dirty work, that have made cutting off heads and raping a new profession. Nah I'd take the "democratically elected" Assad any day of the week.

[Frank Merton]

Also Frank, this President, Obama, was NOT motivated by anything as noble as helping democracy find its way to Syria anymore than democracy finding its way to Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq etc etc. Anymore than Putin fighting the evil Islamic State.

My you have a lot of opinions that you state as fact. It would help if you prefaced your assertions with little clues, such as "I think," or "maybe." I suppose though such humility is not to be expected from such an international expert as yourself.

[Frank Merton]

Interior Minister Bassam Abdel Majeed claimed "This great consensus shows the political maturity of Syria and the brilliance of our democracy,", while the ministry described voter turnout as "enormous".^[2]

https://en.wikipedia..._election,_2007

So? Do you believe this?

[Harry_Dresden]

My you have a lot of opinions that you state as fact. It would help if you prefaced your assertions with little clues, such as "I think," or "maybe." I suppose though such humility is not to be expected from such an international expert as yourself.

This is a discussion forum. I'm discussing. If i come across as all knowing then its not my intention. Sorry for hurting your feelings.

[Frank Merton]

This is a discussion forum. I'm discussing. If i come across as all knowing then its not my intention. Sorry for hurting your feelings.

Bald assertions that appear that you are stating facts when all you are doing is stating opinions, and not even usually giving reasons for the opinions, come across as coming from organized misinformation factories. Several of the people posting here do that, sometimes stating as fact things I know are untrue, usually though I don't know enough about it to say, although what they assert is doubtful. When I ask for proof I get some web citation source that is just as questionable. What is one to do reading such stuff except just disregard it.

You have to remember that I live in a country where until just recently this was how the government operated (and in some areas, such as party corruption, still does) -- one develops a certain immunity to propaganda in such an environment.

[Occult1]

Several of the people posting here do that, sometimes stating as fact things I know are untrue, usually though I don't know enough about it to say, although what they assert is doubtful. When I ask for proof I get some web citation source that is just as questionable. What is one to do reading such stuff except just disregard it.

What do you expect as proof on a forum? One can only provide external references as a starting point but you have to do the rest of the digging yourself.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Draco20

[Harry_Dresden]

Bald assertions that appear that you are stating facts when all you are doing is stating opinions, and not even usually giving reasons for the opinions, come across as coming from organized misinformation factories. Several of the people posting here do that, sometimes stating as fact things I know are untrue, usually though I don't know enough about it to say, although what they assert is doubtful. When I ask for proof I get some web citation source that is just as questionable. What is one to do reading such stuff except just disregard it.

You have to remember that I live in a country where until just recently this was how the government operated (and in some areas, such as party corruption, still does) -- one develops a certain immunity to propaganda in such an environment.

Frank. You're normally a level headed dude and not prone to emotional outbursts so i don't hold any grudges for your previously rude post. Having said that, you question my opinions and the way i express them as wrong and then refuse to provide a counter argument. How is this possible? Please show me where i provided a false or misleading source or opinion? Or at the very least you provide one to refute my "facts and opinions." If this forum was based on fact and sources only then I'm afraid we wouldn't need to post at all.

In future you would be better off using sources and facts if you wanna call others out for falsely misinterpreting their opinions. More importantly you should remember that not everyone will agree with what you say or think regardless if you're right or wrong or if they are. I don't have an agenda nor am i paid to tow the party's propaganda line. I speak for myself and you should accept my right to do it within the rules of the forum.