The Russian/Syrian connection thread

[mendeleyev]

Regarding the report of "volunteer" Russian soldiers in Syria: Many of the same were players in Armenia, Moldova, Crimea, and then suddenly became "Ukrainian rebels" in the East of Ukraine. Now, those are some of the same players in Syria. They are Russian professionals.

Then there will be genuine volunteers, those contract soldiers who have agreed, for extra wages, to take on a combat role in Syria. This will play well in the media at home as a vast majority of Russians are Orthodox Christians who believe that these soldiers are bravely fighting on behalf of Syrian Orthodox Christians who were protected by Assad, but have been persecuted by the opposition.

It will also play well to moderate Muslims in Russia who might fear an ISIS styled revolt, which frankly would not be that difficult in some regions.

[mendeleyev]

If one needed any further proof that Russian media is only too happy to support the Kremlin, the government owned national network Rossiya 24, a news channel, is now doing regular Syrian weather reports.



The network has a special meteorologist who monitors and broadcasts bombing weather forecasts. Her reports, complete with satellite maps and photos, are sort of a (paraphrased) "we bombed the crap out of this area today as the rain poured down. But, tomorrow it will be sunny."

Kremlin apologists explain that good weather forecasting helps the military be more accurate when bombing a location, and thus saving taxpayers money.



However, not all viewers find the forecasts in good taste, and Russian social media has been abuzz with comments, negative and positive.

(Photos are screenshots)

[mendeleyev]

After continual expressions that most Russians believe that there are no regular troops in Ukraine, some Russians in social media are now saying that they are "war weary" from the fighting in various regional conflicts, including the latest in Ukraine. Hmm....I thought that you were not in Ukraine?

If Russian citizens are indeed war weary, those in the Kremlin might wish to pay closer attention.

[Muzh]

The Moscow Times had a nice OP/ED on how Syria will not solve Putin's Ukraine mess.

Putin will also eventually have to clear up with the separatist entities the situation along Russia's own border, which has turned into a flourishing center for contraband. For now, managing Russian domestic opinion may seem easy. But the day is approaching when Putin will have to explain to his own people why the glorious revolution in the east turned into what most would call just another bardak. A mess.


The Kremlin has begun to take action in the last few months, stepping up pressure on its allies in the east. There have been changes in the separatist leadership. Obstreperous military commanders have been squeezed out. More recently the second-ranking leader of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) — Andrei Purgin, firmly opposed to compromise with Kiev — was abruptly arrested and detained by Donetsk's Ministry of State Security (MGB).


Separatist leaders say reorganization of the Donetsk military forces has replaced local warlords, Cossacks and others, with regular officers. The large units that reported directly to top leaders — DPR head Alexander Zakharchenko, or Security Council secretary Alexander Khodakovsky — have, in theory at least, been subordinated to a regular military structure. Its real leadership is unknown, but probably Russian.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/syria-wont-erase-putins-ukraine-problem/536926.html?utm_source=email_tmt-editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=55-issue-2015-10-05&utm_content=title_3

[Boethius]

The Moscow Times had a nice OP/ED on how Syria will not solve Putin's Ukraine mess.



http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/syria-wont-erase-putins-ukraine-problem/536926.html?utm_source=email_tmt-editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=55-issue-2015-10-05&utm_content=title_3

It's my understanding Germany and France have pretty much imposed a solution re Donbas on Ukraine.  It is to hold local elections under Ukrainian law (yet again).  Poroshenko's not happy about it, but he will comply.  Whether the Rada will is another matter.

[Muzh]

It's my understanding Germany and France have pretty much imposed a solution re Donbas on Ukraine.  It is to hold local elections under Ukrainian law (yet again).  Poroshenko's not happy about it, but he will comply.  Whether the Rada will is another matter.

According to Simon, that may be a done deal.


http://news.vice.com/video/the-war-may-be-over-russian-roulette-dispatch-110

[jone]

Russia just sent a three star general into the US embassay in Iraq, demanding that the US not fly in Syria.  The US responded with a rejection of the ultimatum.

[mendeleyev]

Bo and Muzh, this follows a "reassignment" of the so-called "rebel" leaders, most of whom were recalled back to Russia by the Kremlin. Some are now in Syria.

The remaining rebel leaders, if they wish to stay alive, will follow Moscow's orders.

Germany and France just want to be able to drop the sanctions and return to life as it was before the Russian aggression. This really does not bode well for the Baltic states should the Kremlin decide to make a move on them. I remain doubtful that NATO would go to bat for them.

[mendeleyev]

Jone, I think that event happened last week, just an hour before Russia started bombing.

[Larry1]

Germany and France just want to be able to drop the sanctions and return to life as it was before the Russian aggression. This really does not bode well for the Baltic states should the Kremlin decide to make a move on them. I remain doubtful that NATO would go to bat for them.

I have never thought NATO would meaningfully support the Baltic republics against a Russian invasion. If this occurred and NATO members realized they might not be able to count on NATO to defend them, it might cause the unraveling of NATO. For Russia that would be a bigger prize than control of the Baltic republics.

[mendeleyev]

Exactly, and in that case Putin could have both the dissolution of NATO, and the Baltic Republics.

[jone]

Larry,

I may be wrong, but isn't a number of countries beginning to permanently place heavy weapons in the Baltics?

[tfcrew]

The Russian Defense Ministry asked military attaches of the anti-ISIL coalition member-countries to share their intelligence on Islamic State militant positions in Syria.MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The Russian Defense Ministry said Tuesday it had asked military attaches of the anti-ISIL coalition member-countries to share their intelligence on Islamic State militant positions in Syria with Moscow.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151006/1028120016.html

Does the USA really have any intelligence to share?

[Muzh]

The US is reluctant to share IS info with Moscow because they feel this would give Moscow locations of the CIA-backed rebels.

[fathertime]

The US is reluctant to share IS info with Moscow because they feel this would give Moscow locations of the CIA-backed rebels.

That is probably true....
Apparently exacerbating messes in the middle east serves our purposes for the moment.
Very 'noble'.

Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

Germany and France just want to be able to drop the sanctions and return to life as it was before the Russian aggression. This really does not bode well for the Baltic states should the Kremlin decide to make a move on them. I remain doubtful that NATO would go to bat for them.

I'd say there is a big difference between the Baltics and Ukraine...I don't believe Russia has intentions of making a first move up there, but if Russia were to make a 1st move in the Baltics, I think NATO would respond.


It could be that Germany and France also realize that Russia isn't going to let go as easily as some thought they would, especially since they have allies that will prevent them from ever being isolated.


Fathertime! 

[alex330]

I may be wrong, but isn't a number of countries beginning to permanently place heavy weapons in the Baltics?

I believe the US already doubled up on hardware for prepare for quicker deployment should anything occur in the Baltics.

http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/carter-us-to-position-armor-in-baltics-poland-southern-europe-1.354008

The host countries have also increased funding for certain artillery and tank additions.

[BillyB]

I have never thought NATO would meaningfully support the Baltic republics against a Russian invasion. If this occurred and NATO members realized they might not be able to count on NATO to defend them, it might cause the unraveling of NATO. For Russia that would be a bigger prize than control of the Baltic republics.

Turkey is a NATO member and Russia is testing NATO there too. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia "accidently" drops a bomb on Turkish land. Turkey is more valuable than the Baltics but I doubt NATO members will be rushing to beef up Turkey's defense.

[Gator]

THE DOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR RUSSIA TO EXPAND ITS PRESENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.  IRAQ WILL "WELCOME" RUSSIAN SUPPORT TO FIGHT ISIL

Next would be Iraq, where the US has withdrawn before Iraq was capable to stand on its own.  "In an interview with France 24, Abadi [Iraqi Prime Minister] said, 'We were expecting the international coalition, Americans, to bring massive air power to protect our forces.  We have not received that,' he said, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York."

September 30 in interview with PBS
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/prime-minister-abadi-iraq-welcomes-russia-islamic-state-fight/

Abadi:  "We have blocked the advance of Da’esh to the south. If they are allowed to go to the south, they would control all the Gulf areas, all the oil supply of the world. They will threaten the whole world. They will establish what they consider their rightful state, which is, of course, terror state, in the whole region....

We not only stopped it, but we are reversing it. We are the only country now reversing the acts of this terrorist organization. If we don’t receive this international support, I’m not sure we can stand on our own....God knows what is going to happen in this region and what’s going to happen in the rest of the world."



October 1 Article in Washington Post   http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iraqi-prime-minister-says-he-would-welcome-russian-airstrikes/2015/10/01/4177cf3c-684b-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html


In an interview with France 24 television, Abadi accused the U.S.-led coalition of a lack of support and questioned the will of Western leaders to defeat the Islamic State......The U.S.-led coalition has been bombing Islamic State targets in Iraq for more than a year, but Iraqi officials have repeatedly complained that the efforts are insufficient to decisively turn back the militants. The United States has spent more than $25 billion to train and equip Iraq’s military, but Abadi’s comments Thursday were the latest indication that the country is increasingly seeking support from other partners — particularly traditional U.S. rivals Russia and Iran.

'If we get the offer, we’ll consider it,' Abadi said in an interview in New York broadcast Thursday. 'In actual fact, I would welcome it.' "

In summary, Iraq is not capable nor willing to do what is necessary on the ground to defeat ISIS. Obama withdrew American forces before the job was completed of  training Iraq to defend itself.  This is consistent with Obama's appeasement policy from Day One of apologizing to the Muslim world for what America has done and to withdraw.  So who could Iraq rely upon to help them fight ISIL?  That would be Iran and Russia.  Even if  this is the  case of the "fox in the henhouse," Russia and Iran in Iraq is better than Iraq becoming an  ISIL caliphate state.       America has oil.  We do not need Middle Eastern oil.  In a decade, Europe would sure be in a position of having to lick Russia's boots. 

[Boethius]

Obama withdrew American forces before the job was completed of  training Iraq to defend itself.  This is consistent with Obama's appeasement policy from Day One of apologizing to the Muslim world for what America has done and to withdraw. 

It was Bush, not Obama, who negotiated the timing of the full withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi soil.  The deadline was December, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

The Obama administration did have discussions with Iraq about extending the deadline.  The inability to provide immunity to American troops, particularly commanders, is the reason the deadline was not extended -

Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders have adamantly refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans have refused to stay without it. Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay. Some argued the further training and U.S. help was vital, particularly to protect Iraq's airspace and gather security intelligence. But others have deeply opposed any American troop presence, including Shiite militiamen who have threatened attacks on any American forces who remain.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has told U.S. military officials that he does not have the votes in parliament to provide immunity to the American trainers, the U.S. military official said.

A western diplomatic official in Iraq said al-Maliki told international diplomats he will not bring the immunity issue to parliament because lawmakers will not approve it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/iraq-withdrawal-us-troops_n_1012661.html

[Gator]

It was Bush, not Obama, who negotiated the timing of the full withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi soil.  The deadline was December, 2011.

True, the withdrawal agreement was signed by Bush one month before Obama was inaugurated.    Yet, consider the  context.  The Iraqis  under PM Nouri al-Maliki considered the Americans as occupiers and pushed hard for American withdrawal as a sovereignty issue.   Shoes were thrown at Bush at the signing conference even though Bush was responsible for freeing Iraq of Saddam.

Maliki, the "underwear salesman," proved to be the wrong man to lead Iraq.  Maliki did not unite Iraq in a democracy as Bush envisioned and instead ruled in a sectarian manner.  When ISIS invaded, the Sunni let them pass and Malaki was forced to resign in August 2014.

The Obama administration did have discussions with Iraq about extending the deadline.  The inability to provide immunity to American troops, particularly commanders, is the reason the deadline was not extended.

The lack of imminuity is a challenging issue yet I consider it merely  the excuse given by the administration.  The Pentagon still wanted to stay and retain a force of 10,000 troops.  Obama talked about leaving 3-5,000 troops.  I assert Obama's underlying goal was to withdraw completely, so when he deemed that Iraq faced no threat other than from "JV teams"  he caved in during the negotiations.  Obama was  certainly in a position of power to negotiate something other than withdrawal. 

Bush's intelligence was faulty when he was told Iraq would embrace democracy upon the fall of Saddam.  Obama's intelligence was
equally faulty when he was told Iraq  could defend itself from the few threats in the region. 

Am I advocating that US should put boots on the ground in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East?  No!  Now that we made the mistake of withdrawing from Iraq, I see two reasons for not re-introducing ground forces: 

1.   Iraqi are not fighters.  They want somebody else to do the fighting for them.  I play golf with two wounded vets from Iraq (both are excellent golfers).  One was involved in training Iraq troops, and he deems it hopeless.  Thus, we would always be fighting their fight.  Iraq will be in turmoil for a long time due to  the outside forces of ISIS and Iran.

2.   The Middle East oil  has lost its importance to the US for the immediate future. 

Notwithstanding the above reasons to let Iraq fend for itself, I have two concerns:

1.  In the near term, I am concerned about the Kurds.  They deserve a homeland and to have the means to defend themselves.  Who will provide it? 

2.  Even though the US will be self-sufficient in oil, much of the globe is not.   Over  the long term, I would worry about oil supply cuts and world stability, the latter  important to the American economy.

I am undecided about the implications of Russia's growing presence in the Middle East.  If Russia defeats ISII, that would be good and would be done at the cost of Russian lives and Russian money, not American.   Sanctions against Russia would likely be lifted.   

[mendeleyev]

I'd say there is a big difference between the Baltics and Ukraine...I don't believe Russia has intentions of making a first move up there, but if Russia were to make a 1st move in the Baltics, I think NATO would respond.

FT, I hope that you are correct, however the Russians typically telegraph such moves well beforehand. It accomplishes a softening of opinion at home, and serves as a gauge of how others might respond.

As for softening at home, that has been going on with various reports of Russian minorities being mistreated in (add name of country here) and how those ethnic Russians might need to be rescued. If the Kremlin made a move, and much has been written and broadcast in Russian media to justify such a move, the Russian reaction would very likely fall into line just as designed. It was the exact playbook of how the Russian population was prepared prior to "little green men" moving into Crimea.

The kidnapping of an Estonian intelligence official on Estonian territory was not just to set up an exchange of prisoners, but was done to gauge the reaction of Estonia and NATO over the insertion of Russian special forces into Estonia. The Russian command pays close attention to how fast or slow it takes the other country to react, how NATO reacts, etc. Those are simply "probes" in military terms.

[2tallbill]

I'd say there is a big difference between the Baltics and Ukraine...I don't believe Russia has intentions of making a first move up there, but if Russia were to make a 1st move in the Baltics, I think NATO would respond.

I don't share your optimism that Obama would respond if Russia attacked one of the
Baltic countries. He would more likely send a strongly worded letter or some kind of
economic sanctions. If Obama doesn't send forces, then the who is going to stop Russia?
France? Belgium? Italy?

[Anotherkiwi]

Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders have adamantly refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans have refused to stay without it. Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay. Some argued the further training and U.S. help was vital, particularly to protect Iraq's airspace and gather security intelligence. But others have deeply opposed any American troop presence, including Shiite militiamen who have threatened attacks on any American forces who remain.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has told U.S. military officials that he does not have the votes in parliament to provide immunity to the American trainers, the U.S. military official said.

A western diplomatic official in Iraq said al-Maliki told international diplomats he will not bring the immunity issue to parliament because lawmakers will not approve it.

The Obama administration did have discussions with Iraq about extending the deadline.  The inability to provide immunity to American troops, particularly commanders, is the reason the deadline was not extended -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/iraq-withdrawal-us-troops_n_1012661.html

The lack of immunity is a challenging issue yet I consider it merely  the excuse given by the administration.  The Pentagon still wanted to stay and retain a force of 10,000 troops.  Obama talked about leaving 3-5,000 troops.

Can someone please explain why on earth American troops should think that they are entitled to immunity from prosecution for crimes they've committed?  Tourists don't get such protection - only diplomats do, and many countries will waive immunity if the crime is serious ($20,000 worth of unpaid parking tickets doesn't count).  If GI Smith is seen stealing cigarettes from a shop, or bashing some local Iraqi teenager, why should he not be prosecuted?

[SANDRO43]

Can someone please explain why on earth American troops should think that they are entitled to immunity from prosecution for crimes they've committed?

This is the deal they seem to usually negotiate before committing US troops abroad .

Incidentally, this holds true for US troops in NATO countries, too . In February, 1998 an idiot EA-6B Prowler USMC cowboy pilot flew his plane too low (260-330 feet) and fast (540 knots) in our Cavalese mountain valley, cutting the cable of a descending cabin - clearly shown on aerial maps of the region - holding 20 people, who plunged over 80 metres to their death on the valley floor.

Remains of wrecked cable car

He could not be prosecuted locally. Later, he and his navigator were militarily tried in the US and were found NOT guilty of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide. Later yet, they were found guilty of obstruction of justice and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (for having destroyed a videotape recording their flight) and were dismissed from the Marine Corps.

In February 1999, the victims' families received USD $65,000 per victim as immediate help by the Italian government, which was later reimbursed by the US government.