In Syria

[Rick]

On 1/18/2021 at 9:50 AM, Roman Alymov said:

I’m afraid the explanations kindly provided by KV7 and Glenn239 above are not exactly incorrect, but too much focused on current events. As for me, the right answer to “why is Russia in the Middle East” question is “Because Russia is Middle East”. Historically, Russia was created when Greek Orthodox East Roman (Constantinopol) influence met with Nordic Pagan “Vikings” in the middle of the vast territory populated by Slavic and Finno-Ugric Pagan tribes. And since East Roman Empire was very much Middle East, there is no surprise Russia is historically linked to the region. More over, it is often forgotten how close geographically Russia is to Middle East. Actually one could board riverboat or even raft in Central Russia and sail all the way to Persia or Constantinople. Russia was always linked to Middle East, see history of Russia-Turkey and Russia-Persia wars

 

Re “other former Soviet "countries"  - Armenia and Georgia in its current form were created by Russia/USSR from territories taken by Russian Empire from Turkey (despite both Armenia and Georgia were there long before Ottoman nomads came to the region). Azerbaijan is mostly Turkish-speaking Persians (more Azeris live in Iran then in Azerbaijan itself). Other, more distant. Turk-speaking countries are cooperating with Turkey as Erdogan trying to create own sort of Empire. Other post-Soviet countries are mostly trying to please the West by taking part in different ME campaigns – see Ukrainians in Iraq  or Estonians in Afganistan for example.

P.S. See also Armenia Humanitarian Mission New Contingent Heads for Syria (armedia.am)

Much appreciative of the post and especially the interactive map. A difference in geography may be in order however. Most Americans see the Middle East as Islam being the principle government, always trying to destroy Israel,  and having oil, ie, Iran, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, etc. I would say most Americans see Turkey more as a European country vs a Middle East one, possibly because of N.A.T.O.?

[glenn239]

11 hours ago, JWB said:

You are being  far too speculative. 

Back in 2018 there was a mini-crisis caused in Syria by an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian regime.   In Trump's circle, there were two schools of thought.  One was to hit the Russians and Syrians hard, (the Bolton school), the other was to avoid the Russians and hit strictly Syrian targets, (the McMaster-Mattis school).  Trump obviously considered the Bolton doctrine to be too risky, and instead went with M&M's recommendations.

The Bolton thinking, presumably, was that Russia had no vital interests at stake in Syria so would not escalate in response to being attacked because that would be irrational.   The M&M thinking, presumably, was that throughout history such "colonial" disputes could rapidly become issues of prestige and national will in which a small issue could rapidly become a major crisis or even a world war.  An example would be Hannibal's colonial dispute with Saguntum in 219 BC - Rome had no actual interests involved, just prestige.

Not 'speculation'.  This debate was hashed out in 2018 exactly along these lines, and Trump obviously decided that escalating directly against Russia in Syria was batshit crazy because, contrary to Bolton's thinking, the situation could very rapidly have escalated; matters of national prestige and credibility would automatically be at stake, (Putin would certainly fall in the wake of a climb down, just like Krushchev did after the Cuban missile crisis.)

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by glenn239

[JWB]

23 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Supporting Syria with a military mission only to withdraw with their tails between their legs should the US demand it under threat of escalation would be the opposite of enhancing prestige.

That will never happen and Putin knows it.

[Josh]

Russia would have to threaten US or Israeli forces for there to be any risk to their effort in Syria. They were pretty angry when their ISR plane was shot down by Syrian AD during an IDF raid, but they recognized there was nothing they could do about it. They gave Assad a token S300 battery that's been stuck in the same spot ever since.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Russia would have to threaten US or Israeli forces for there to be any risk to their effort in Syria. They were pretty angry when their ISR plane was shot down by Syrian AD during an IDF raid, but they recognized there was nothing they could do about it. They gave Assad a token S300 battery that's been stuck in the same spot ever since.

No, the biggest crisis was when the Assad regime was accused in 2018 of a chemical weapons attack and the world held its breath for a week to see whether the Trump administration would or would not attack Russian forces directly.   I remember Ollie North gleefully blowing up Russian targets all over Syria on Hannity the one night.  The Russians had not "threatened" US or Israeli forces.  They were being considered for attack because they were allied to the Syrians, and the Syrians were accused of a gas attack on civilians.  Don't you remember?  British submarines playing tag with Russian Kilos off the coast of Syria?  

The actual Russian reaction was to boost their alertness and defenses while awaiting whatever was coming, but they did not back down an inch.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

The Russians weren't in the crosshairs for their alliance - but because they were enablers. Russia enabled Syria's numerous gas attacks. It's much less the actual harm to civilians as much as it is about the use of WMDs of any kind, especially when Syria was caught lying about its arsenal.

[Josh]

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

No, the biggest crisis was when the Assad regime was accused in 2018 of a chemical weapons attack and the world held its breath for a week to see whether the Trump administration would or would not attack Russian forces directly.   I remember Ollie North gleefully blowing up Russian targets all over Syria on Hannity the one night.  The Russians had not "threatened" US or Israeli forces.  They were being considered for attack because they were allied to the Syrians, and the Syrians were accused of a gas attack on civilians.  Don't you remember?  British submarines playing tag with Russian Kilos off the coast of Syria?  

The actual Russian reaction was to boost their alertness and defenses while awaiting whatever was coming, but they did not back down an inch.

 

I was unaware that Ollie was in the chain of command, though I do admit that Trump tended to copy his policy and talking points from Faux News.

[glenn239]

13 hours ago, Josh said:

I was unaware that Ollie was in the chain of command, though I do admit that Trump tended to copy his policy and talking points from Faux News.

Ollie was not, but he was doing FOX news on how to attack the Russians in Syria.  Take down the S-400 and then do expansive attacks on base infastructure.  He didn't think the Russian surface ships would last the day.   It was all theatre intended to scare the Russians.  

The point is that for a week the Trump administration dangled the possibility that Russia would be attacked for a Syrian army use of chemical weapons.  The reason they did that is because back in 1986 when the Americans were lining up against Libya for a go, they gave the Soviets plenty of time to declare they were chicken shit and enact operation Surrender Monkey.  Reagan dangled and signalled for much of 1986, gave the SU plenty of time to blink, and boy did they blink.

In Syria, that didn't happen.  Trump dangled the possibility of a direct attack on Russian forces in Syria for over a week, in hopes that the Russians would use whatever diplomatic cover in the claims of the chemical attack to abandon Assad.  That didn't happen.  What happened looked for all the world like the Russians went on high alert and initiated their nuclear warfare protocols.  

So, the lesson is, that anyone that thinks that national prestige at the highest level cannot be engaged just because it's "colonial" is not only wrong, but should be stripped of any sort of executive authority to make a catastrophe occur.  (As it happens, eventually Bolton was dismissed for being a total nuthatch).   The reason why these situations are so dangerous is really quite simple - if a country is too afraid of a tactical nuclear exchange in which less than a million people will die, then that country is obviously too afraid of its own nuclear arsenal to ever use it in practically any situation.

Edited January 21, 2021 by glenn239

[Dark_Falcon]

Worthwhile, though harrowing, reading:

Kneel and Starve: Under the Watchful Eye of the Secret Police, Syrians Go Hungry

Quote

A bread crisis has led even Syrians who supported the government (or at least did not oppose it) to lose faith in the state as a source of stability. In response, Damascus has turned to violence and repression as a means of containing the fallout. 

Throughout the 10 years of crisis in Syria, the Assad regime enjoyed the support, or at least the acquiescence, of segments of society that prioritized stability and a steady supply of services above all else. But the country now is in the midst of an economic collapse, largely stemming from years of war and the economic meltdown next door in Lebanon, that is crippling the Syrian state’s ability to provide even the most basic of services to the citizenry. As prices of food skyrocket, the state is no longer able to provide even subsidized bread on which Syrians have come to increasingly rely throughout the war. Unable to fill their stomachs, Syrians are increasingly going hungry. More than ever before since Bashar al-Assad inherited power in 2000, his regime is relying on repression and terror to keep the immiserated population silenced, while regime cronies and those linked to the secret police profit from the crippling shortages. 

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

The (insert Arab/muslim state) are starving? Shocking!

[Adam Peter]

On 2/10/2021 at 2:51 AM, Dark_Falcon said:

Throughout the 10 years of crisis in Syria, the Assad regime enjoyed the support,

Heretics!

[Dark_Falcon]

Us presidential administrations change, the bombing of Iran's proxies abides:

 

US bombs facilities in Syria used by Iran-backed militia

[Adam Peter]

DAESHAF flies again

[Mighty_Zuk]

3 hours ago, Adam Peter said:

DAESHAF flies again

Ahh yes, strikes against Iranian militias, objectively worse than ISIS, are in service of, and at the order of ISIS. 

Great logic there mate.

You drinking those conspiracy theories with a straw, or did you upgrade to the big boy straw?

[Mikel2]

On 2/25/2021 at 9:09 PM, Dark_Falcon said:

Us presidential administrations change, the bombing of Iran's proxies abides:

 

US bombs facilities in Syria used by Iran-backed militia

Mostly peaceful bombing

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well they are peaceful now....

[Adam Peter]

18 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Ahh yes, strikes against Iranian militias, objectively worse than ISIS, are in service of, and at the order of ISIS.

LOL, do you remember the good old times when the USAF/Special Forces and said militias fought shoulder-to-shoulder against ISIS (and against Israel)?

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Adam Peter said:

LOL, do you remember the good old times when the USAF/Special Forces and said militias fought shoulder-to-shoulder against ISIS (and against Israel)?

 

If you're trying to say you're not a moron, that's not the way to do it.

[bojan]

Ah, getting personal, old sign of having a valid argument...

[Mighty_Zuk]

Don't feed the trolls, Bojan. Ignore them.

[bojan]

It was intended to you, since you were the one that has started with insults. But I see you can still miss a forest because the tree.

OTOH disagree with USAF being DAESH AF, that was Turkish one. US liked Al-Sham aka "We are totally no Al-Qaeda" more.

Edited February 28, 2021 by bojan

[Yama]

7 hours ago, Adam Peter said:

LOL, do you remember the good old times when the USAF/Special Forces and said militias fought shoulder-to-shoulder against ISIS (and against Israel)?

 

Oh come on, that was like last week. It's time to move on!

[glenn239]

Anyone have further details on this Russian ballistic missile strike in Syria recently?

Russia has used ballistic missile to hit near Turkey (bulgarianmilitary.com)

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]