The Russian/Syrian connection thread

[Gator]

We, meaning the USA?  And some people wonder why other countries are anti-American?

I sincerely hope that this excuse for an interviewer gets reassigned as "our" correspondent in Damascus.  Then he can figure out first-hand how to make his statement come true. 

The interviewer actually said such.  His name is Tucker Carlson and he works for Fox News.  Carlson's comment was stupid, and Christie worked around it deftly: 

"I think we have to work with the rebels in Syria to be able to find out who’s best to be able to bring stability to that country. And so, I think that’s got to be something that’s got to come with our help organically from within. If we try to impose it, Tucker, from the outside, I don’t know that that’ll work........ but let’s not keep our eye off the ball, either. Our number one priority has to be to defeat ISIS."

[Boethius]

But Tucker Carlson's perspective is not an unknown, or even unpopular one, on the American right.

[fathertime]

The interviewer actually said such.  His name is Tucker Carlson and he works for Fox News.  Carlson's comment was stupid, and Christie worked around it deftly: 

"

Christie is a politician so he tried to say the same thing Carlson said, except more diplomatically, and through double-talk.  The end result of an unopposed Christie policy would be the US has a huge voice in who does or doesn't run Syria.   Of course Russia will be in the way, so it would never go as easily as Christie may suggest. 


Fathertime! 

[Gator]

But Tucker Carlson's perspective is not an unknown, or even unpopular one, on the American right.

If this were a popular perspective, every Republican candidate would be describing a plan for deciding who runs Syria.  Again, this is a stupid idea. 

I have plenty of conservative friends  as well liberal friends. Few of my friends from the right are itching for a military fight in Syria, especially with Russia. 

They do express their disgust towards Obama, feeling  he has allowed Putin to outmaneuver him.  They want this to be reversed in some way other than by military war with Russia.   And they want a larger military presence in Iraq or Kurdistan or somewhere in the region. 

Me?  I say let Europe take the lead.  Europe has  more at risk in this theater. 

[fathertime]

If this were a popular perspective, every Republican candidate would be describing a plan for deciding who runs Syria.  Again, this is a stupid idea. 

 

In listening to the Republican candidates they ARE talking about our BIG role in Syria...and the reality is, we will be determining who runs the country....at minimum we are going to have a HUGE influence on that leader..  WHY? Who made us boss in that country, where we have barely had contact for decades?  Can't blame Syria, Russia, and Iran for trying to make sure this doesn't happen, they are allies of Syria...and if Clinton wins, she may attempt the same type policy.   


 One would have to assume there is something much larger at play here, or why go through all the trouble. 


Fathertime! 

[Muzh]

I have plenty of conservative friends  as well liberal friends. Few of my friends from the right are itching for a military fight in Syria, especially with Russia. 

I'm glad that is localized. However, not the same nation-wide with them Republicans.

They do express their disgust towards Obama

My, do wonders ever cease? 

They want this to be reversed in some way other than by military war with Russia.  And they want a larger military presence in Iraq or Kurdistan or somewhere in the region. 

My, and why would they want that? Maybe they want to move a bit north? Or just plain move. Anywhere. You know, like kick ass.

Me?  I say let Europe take the lead.  Europe has  more at risk in this theater.

Now, there's a sage man.

[2tallbill]

'Death to America' stands despite nuclear deal: Iran MPs

http://news.yahoo.com/death-america-stands-despite-nuclear-deal-iran-mps-140457243.html;_ylt=AwrXnCdJbjdWNQQAozfQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

[2tallbill]

Russian air strikes hit Syria's historic Palmyra region
Moscow (AFP)



read all about it here
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-air-force-hit-palmyra-region-syria-160126911.html

[2tallbill]

I'm posting a few opinion columns which by design are opinionated, to give a
couple of different perspectives. Please note that when I post an opinion article
it doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with it. I'm posting it to add perspective
and to encourage discussion.


Russia’s European game in Syria
Opinion Column Jerusalem Post



This much is clear in Syria: There is no good solution.

There has not been a good solution since that black Wednesday in August 2013, when
Syrian President Bashar Assad’s war machine, by using chemical weapons, crossed the
“red line” that US President Barack Obama had warned would trigger an American military
response. The moderate opposition still stood, and Islamic State had not yet emerged
from the shadows. Yet, in a shocking last-minute aboutface, Obama declined to intervene.

That lapse cannot be undone.

But in the hell of bad solutions on offer for Syria, some are worse than others. And the one
devised by Russian President Vladimir Putin is probably the most infernal of all.

To find out what the opinion columnist thought about Putin's infernal solution
read here

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Russias-European-game-in-Syria-431832

[2tallbill]

Opinion Column: Note not necessarily my opinion but I wanted to post a
few different views to add perspective and to encourage discussion. 

What is Russia’s strategy in Syria?
By Gwynne Dyer, Special to the BDN

Photo of Russian su-24 fighter bomber from now the end begins site



It’s easy to define the American strategy in Syria, although it is more of a wish list than
an actual strategy. It is “containment” of the nightmarish Islamic State that now controls
eastern Syria and western Iraq, together with the overthrow of the brutal regime of
Bashar al-Assad and its replacement by “moderate” rebel forces. But what is the
Russian strategy?

It has been a month since Russian planes began bombing both Islamic State forces and
the “moderate” rebels. For every Russian bomb that has fallen on Islamic State troops,
10 have fallen on the “moderates,” because it’s the latter groups that have made most
of the big advances against the Assad regime since last spring. The regime’s troops have
now taken some territory back, but they lack the strength to reconquer all of Syria.
So what next?

If you want to see what's next then go here to read all the details
http://bangordailynews.com/2015/11/02/opinion/contributors/what-is-russias-strategy-in-syria/

[2tallbill]

Amid Russian Media Reports Following Plane Crash,
Will Putin Gain Or Lose Support For Airstrikes In Syria?
By Jess McHugh CBC News



Read all about it here
http://www.ibtimes.com/amid-russian-media-reports-following-plane-crash-will-putin-gain-or-lose-support-2165272

[2tallbill]

Opinion

What a Russian 'win' in Syria would look like
Josh Cohen Reuters

Amid talk of an Afghanistan-style quagmire, Putin holds more cards than his critics realise

Photo from Tass


As Russia's bombing campaign in Syria drags on, a number of commentators have suggested
that President Vladimir Putin's bold move could drag Russia into an Afghan-style quagmire.
This negative outcome is far from guaranteed, however, and Putin holds more cards than his
critics realise. Russia may well achieve its core military objectives in Syria - while the United
States cannot.

Here's how Putin might achieve his ideal outcome in Syria.

read the article here to see how Putin might achieve his goals
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/What-a-Russian-win-in-Syria-would-look-like-30272098.html

[mendeleyev]

I tend to agree with Josh Cohen's theory. Putin will win, just as he did after bombing the crap out of Chechnya with hundreds of thousands killed, and Europe will fold faster than a French soldier can rip the standard issue white surrender flag out of his rucksack. As part of the peace deal, not only will sanctions be set aside, but Ukraine will be brokered with Russia gaining a majority of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine's new borders will start at Kyiv and run West. Odessa will be lost. Putin has figured out a way to win in Ukraine by fighting in Syria instead.

Sad.

[Gator]

I tend to agree with Josh Cohen's theory. Putin will win, just as he did after bombing the crap out of Chechnya with hundreds of thousands killed, and Europe will fold faster than a French soldier can rip the standard issue white surrender flag out of his rucksack. As part of the peace deal, not only will sanctions be set aside, but Ukraine will be brokered with Russia gaining a majority of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine's new borders will start at Kyiv and run West. Odessa will be lost. Putin has figured out a way to win in Ukraine by fighting in Syria instead.

Sad.

That would be sad.  I saw an interview with Rasmussen, former Secretary General of NATO.   Reading between the lines I saw nothing to suggest NATO will ever support Ukraine in a significant way.  So maybe you are right. 

The question in Syria is, are Assad's troops strong enough to mount offensives on the ground to drive out the opposition groups?  Will  Putin be contented with merely creating a stalemate?   

[JayH]

That would be sad.  I saw an interview with Rasmussen, former Secretary General of NATO.   Reading between the lines I saw nothing to suggest NATO will ever support Ukraine in a significant way.  So maybe you are right. 

The question in Syria is, are Assad's troops strong enough to mount offensives on the ground to drive out the opposition groups?  Will  Putin be contented with merely creating a stalemate?   

I tend to agree with Josh Cohen's theory. Putin will win, just as he did after bombing the crap out of Chechnya with hundreds of thousands killed, and Europe will fold faster than a French soldier can rip the standard issue white surrender flag out of his rucksack. As part of the peace deal, not only will sanctions be set aside, but Ukraine will be brokered with Russia gaining a majority of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine's new borders will start at Kyiv and run West. Odessa will be lost. Putin has figured out a way to win in Ukraine by fighting in Syria instead.

Sad.

I highlighted to 2 points in posts above--I do not agree with Mende's conclusion above--or the assertion that Ukraine needs Nato's help ( or much greater help)to survive.

Much has changed in Ukraine in the last year as the military has got better organised and equipped.In fact--there is no comparison to those early days of political disorganisation after Maidan.

The help they have got-- and are getting now-is continueing to transform the military generally-perhaps enough to control their own destiny--particularly so if Russia is not able to use aircraft to advance.That use of aircraft is likely to get a real response from the west-if it happens-so that would change to conflict again.

Further-Ukraine may have some real surprising shocks in store for an aggressor that may act as a permanent deterrent for anyone with a vestige of common sense. Russia is on borrowed time-- and Putin is casting his net to create diversion from the economic woes -and helping thugs like Assad is earning income--but--it can't go on forever.


The Russian president’s intervention in Syria is driven by fear of Islamic extremism among his country’s own Muslim minority. But rather than squelching the threat, it’s poised to make it worse.


Putin’s Muslim Nightmare


President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s most notorious gambler, has rolled the dice in Syria’s civil war. At first glance, he seems to have come up with a seven: By boldly deploying the newest weapons in his arsenal in order to save Bashar al-Assad’s tottering regime, he has swiftly transformed the Kremlin into the center of Middle East diplomacy. His message is simple: Russia is back as a major power and a solution to this deadly, depressing war runs through Moscow.

After a month of bombing anti-Assad Sunni rebels, Putin summoned Assad to a surprise meeting in the Kremlin, setting off fresh speculation that a made-in-Moscow formula for ending the war was now in play. The United States was understandably intrigued: After only one meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Secretary of State John Kerry agreed to invite Russia’s ally, Iran, to a new round of Syria peace talks, which occurred on Oct. 30 in Vienna.

Can Putin succeed where others have failed? It’s possible, but unlikely. The Russian president has opened a hornet’s nest in Syria, and everyone, including Putin, is being stung again and again.

A closer look at Putin’s gamble shows that his seven may, in fact, end up as snake eyesA closer look at Putin’s gamble shows that his seven may, in fact, end up as snake eyes — a losing gamble that fails for reasons uniquely Russian, relating to the often ignored but crucial fact that more than 20 million of Russia’s 144 million people are Sunni Muslims, who naturally sympathize with the Sunni Muslims currently being bombed and killed by Russians in Syria. Any Russian miscalculation in Syria could therefore severely undermine Putin’s political power base at home.

And it doesn’t stop there. Not only has Putin ordered the bombing of Sunni rebels in Syria, he has also created a new Russia-led coalition of Shiite powers — Iran, Iraq, and Syria — capable of sharing intelligence and striking as one against its Sunni enemies. In this way, whether intended or not, he has opened a de facto war against Sunni Arabs, who are led by Saudi Arabia, and aligned with the United States.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly stressed that he seeks no proxy war with Russia — yet that is precisely what appears to be emerging. This region of chronic turbulence — already burning with war, hatred, and religious schisms — has now become even more unstable, fueled by the formation of two antagonistic coalitions: Russia’s Shiite alliance, and a U.S.-supported Sunni coalition.

For Putin, this poses an existential challenge from which there is no escape — a dilemma rooted in Russian demography and history. Most of Russia’s Sunni Muslims live in the Northern Caucasus, historically the scene of anti-Russian Islamist upheavals. Chechnya was the scene not long ago of two bloody wars pitting Muslims against Slavs. Neighboring Dagestan is another powder keg, part of the jihadists’ self-proclaimed caliphate of the Caucasus. Clerics there deliver sermons considered sympathetic to the goals of the Islamic State — and as many as 2,400 young Muslims across Russia have answered the call, a development that sends chills up and down Putin’s spine.

The Russian president recently told CBS’s Charlie Rose that the “most important” reason Russia entered the war in Syria was the “threat of their return to us.” His chronic nightmare has been that, once trained in the tactics of modern terrorism, these young Muslims would slip back into Russia and blow up planes, trains, theaters and schools, as they have done before. “We are,” Putin explained, “better off helping Assad fight them on Syrian territory.”

Fears about Islamist terrorism permeate Russian history.Fears about Islamist terrorism permeate Russian history. In the 19th century, Leo Tolstoy and other Russian writers penned popular stories about Russian officers fighting wild Islamist warriors in the Northern Caucasus. This was a common theme in many books — the Slavic officer battling the Islamist renegade, one fighting to protect Christian civilization, the other determined to uproot it.

Interestingly, the theme is even being echoed today on Russian television. Dmitry Kiselyov, Putin’s favorite firebrand anchorman, explained with nationalistic bravado why Russia was fighting in Syria on his weekly program: “Russia is saving Europe from barbarism for the fourth time,” he said.

Saving Europe for the fourth time? “Let’s count,” he replied. “The Mongols, Napoleon, Hitler, and now the Islamic State.”

Kremlin leaders have struggled with their fraught relations with Russia’s Muslims several times over the past century. During World War II, the Muslims of Crimea were unceremoniously exiled to Siberia, because they could not be trusted to fight the Nazis. After the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin pleaded with Ukraine to remain in the union. “We cannot have a situation,” Yeltsin argued, “where Russia and Byelorussia would have two votes as Slavic states against five for the Islamic states.”

Russians also recall the Basmachi of Central Asia, an almost forgotten tribe of Islamic State-like warriors who formed their own caliphate in the 1920s, rising against Russian domination. They were mercilessly slaughtered by Russian troops a decade later. But their Islamist message has again begun to stir millions of unemployed, restive young Muslims in the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, representing a direct threat to Russia.

Putin seems especially worried by this prospect. A month ago, he observed military maneuvers by 100,000 Russian troops in Central Asia. As many as 7,000 Muslims from the Northern Caucasus and Central Asia may now be fighting with the Islamic State, he warned, bringing terrorism into their neighborhood by way of Afghanistan. They could also come by way of Syria and Iraq.

Like his predecessors, Putin too is haunted by Islamist terrorism. He sees it as an emerging threat to Russia’s stability as a nation — in his view, it must be fought and destroyed, whether in Syria or in Russia. History suggests he will come up short in both places, and suffer the political and diplomatic consequences.

No one can any longer conceal the fact that Russia, leading a quasi-holy alliance with Shiites in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, is now at war with Sunnis in Syria. Over and over, these attacks are shown on Russian television. The pro-Kremlin reporters who covered Ukraine are now covering Syria — same reporters, same message of Russian triumphalism — raising degrees of pride among ethnic Russians but mountains of anxiety and pain among its Sunni Muslims.

Russia’s Sunni Muslims are baffled and frightened by what they see and hear. Even if Russia had not entered the Syrian war, another Chechen-type eruption was a looming threat – and now, the possibility of a revolt by angry Muslims is even more real. Indeed, it may only be a matter of time.

That is why Putin’s gamble in Syria is so risky. He may be further alienating Russia’s own Sunni Muslim population, and inciting the very violence he had hoped to avoid.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/02/putins-muslim-nightmare-syria-assad-iran/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2AEditors%20Picks

[JayH]

Wow--the internet is a wonderful thing!!

BREAKING!! Russian Nuclear Units On The Move, Non-Essential Civilians Told To Leave, Putin’s Ready To Nuke ISIS!!


In response to the purported downing of a Russian civilian airliner in the Sinai in Egypt, the Kremlin is now poised for a nuclear strike on sites controlled by the Islamic State. Citing its right to protect its people and interests in Russia and abroad, Intelligence officials have anonymously reported that Russia is moving its tactical nuclear units closer to its international boundaries and its frontier with other hotspots within Russia, such as the northern Caucasus region. The Russian military have been called up to help evacuate Russian nationals within these hotspots and have ordered non-essential civilians to leave Syria, Iraq, the Gulf states and other nations in the Arab world.

 Although Russia’s poising to use its nuclear weapons on ISIS, Russia held a secret meeting with NATO, reassuring them that Russia has no intentions on using nuclear weapons on either Georgia or the Ukraine, citing that attacking either of them would invoke a nuclear strike from NATO. Also Russia had consulted with the Syrian government as well as the governments of its allies in the region, who in turned told the Kurds and other allied militias of a possible nuclear strike, warning them to move allied civilians from areas that might be struck by Russia’s nuclear weapons.


A meeting of allied nations and Russia was held in Teheran within hours of the downing of the civilian passenger airliner in the northern Sinai- in which media reports have said that there was no in-climate reported at the time of the crash and witnesses on the ground claim a line of smoke went from the ground in the direction of the airliner before the ground to air missile hit the airliner. SITE has reported that a video purportedly made by either ISIS supporters or ISIS themselves that shows the downing of the airliner. The White House has declined to make a statement about this incident and the Kremlin’s use of nuclear weapons. However, the Kremlin says the use of nuclear weapons is justified to protect its citizens and its interests, namely helping to sustain the government of Bashar Al-Assad and keeping the its allies in power in Iraq and Iran, which are considered allies to Russia. Their common interest in destroying ISIS motivates them to work together.

 However, the US has stated its fears that deploying nuclear weapons near the region would spur an nuclear arms race in other nations in the region, namely Saudi Arabia and the nations within the Gulf Cooperation Council, a group of Sunni Muslim nations located in the Persian Gulf region, which have aided in the creation of ISIS and continue to support it like the way they supported Iraqi insurgents during the Iraq War (2003-2011). Both the US and the UN are concerned that the conflict in the region could lead into a wider conflict, possibly a world war.
(multiple intel reports concerning the downing of the Russian civilian airliner in northern Sinai, ISIS’ purported claim of responsibility and Russia’s official response).
http://consciouslyenlightened.com/breaking-russian-nuclear-units-on-the-move-non-essential-civilians-told-to-leave-putins-ready-to-nuke-isis/

[mendeleyev]

Jay, that last article is full of it. Mr. Putin is not going to nuke anyone unless first backed into a untenable corner. The Russian doctrine does included limited/localized nuclear defense, but only as a response.

Should Russia do what that article insanely suggested, Putin and Russia would be hounded back to the stone ages by the rest of civilization. He understands that.

[ML]

Should Russia do what that article insanely suggested, Putin and Russia would be hounded back to the stone ages by the rest of civilization. He understands that.

Jim, Russian leadership backed by Russian people have not been influenced at all by the current hounding that is coming from much of civilization.  You are there and are witness to this everyday.

[fathertime]

I tend to agree with Josh Cohen's theory. Putin will win, just as he did after bombing the crap out of Chechnya with hundreds of thousands killed, and Europe will fold faster than a French soldier can rip the standard issue white surrender flag out of his rucksack. As part of the peace deal, not only will sanctions be set aside, but Ukraine will be brokered with Russia gaining a majority of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine's new borders will start at Kyiv and run West. Odessa will be lost. Putin has figured out a way to win in Ukraine by fighting in Syria instead.

Sad.

Very interesting...we shall see.


Fathertime!

[jone]

Mendy,

You must have been having a bad day when you wrote your prediction above.  I don't see that there will be a surrender of territory in Ukraine.  I believe that the Ukrainians have been slowly getting their act together and will have a substantially improved military situation over the next couple of years.  To relinquish further territory would require a military incursion by Russia. 

There might be a release of sanctions if the Minsk agreement is fully implemented.  But I do not see relations going back to normal in the immediate future.  Russia is now known as a totalitarianism regime.   The wholesale flight of capital from Russia has already been re-distributed to other countries.  It will not come waltzing back into Russia. 

Russia is becoming an isolationist country.  I had a discussion with the consular officer in St. Petersburg when I was there in September.  She said that the official US policy has changed, significantly, since the takeover of Krim.  Russia is now seen as a belligerent. 

Ultimately, there will be appeasement, but at what cost to Russia?  Economic stagnation?  Frozen out of European markets?  Alternative supply of natural gas and oil from sources other than Russia? 

The obvious question that is raised, again and again, is what is the ultimate end game for Putin.  The answer is that he has no clue.  He is playing his hand with a busted flush and at some point in time some country is going to require him to put his cards on the table.

[mendeleyev]

I would love to be wrong on this one.

[2tallbill]

If this were a popular perspective, every Republican candidate would be describing a plan for deciding who runs Syria.  Again, this is a stupid idea. 

I have plenty of conservative friends  as well liberal friends. Few of my friends from the right are itching for a military fight in Syria, especially with Russia. 

They do express their disgust towards Obama, feeling  he has allowed Putin to outmaneuver him.  They want this to be reversed in some way other than by military war with Russia.   And they want a larger military presence in Iraq or Kurdistan or somewhere in the region. 

Me?  I say let Europe take the lead.  Europe has  more at risk in this theater.

Chicken Hawk Lindsey Graham is the only Republican who currently wants to start a war with
anyone and everyone. He can't muster even close to 1% of the vote so his philosophy isn't
very prevalent among the GOP.

[fathertime]

Chicken Hawk Lindsey Graham is the only Republican who currently wants to start a war with
anyone and everyone. He can't muster even close to 1% of the vote so his philosophy isn't
very prevalent among the GOP.

Graham and McCain are on the extreme end, aside from Rand Paul, the rest of the Republican candidates are also quite hawkish.


Fathertime! 

[2tallbill]

Graham and McCain are on the extreme end, aside from Rand Paul, the rest of the Republican candidates are also quite hawkish.

Fathertime!

I'm of the Teddy Roosevelt Speak softly but carry a big stick school of thought.
I have a son who's been sent to both Iraq and Afghanistan and I've met countless of his
buddies, so you won't see me spouting of about sending our kids into war unless absolutely
necessary.

Once the congress voted to send our sons and daughters to Iraq and Afghanistan, I didn't
complain, debate or argue about it because I didn't want to be anything like some Jane Fonda
type undermining our troops while they were on missions risking their lives. We through our
representatives sent their asses there and needed to support them while their asses were
hanging out. 

I steamed when some Democrats voted to send them to hell Iraq and Afghanistan
but then undermined their missions every step of the way.

[2tallbill]

U.S. officials believe ISIS planted bomb on Russian plane
By Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent

(CNN)The latest U.S. intelligence suggests that the crash of a Russian passenger jet in
the Sinai over the weekend was most likely caused by a bomb on the plane planted by
ISIS or an ISIS affiliate, according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter.

But the official stressed a formal conclusion has not been reached by the U.S. intelligence
community.

"There is a definite feeling it was an explosive device planted in luggage or somewhere
on the plane," the official, who is familiar with the latest U.S. intelligence analysis of the
crash, told CNN.

There is more read all about it here
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/04/politics/us-isis-planted-bomb-russian-plane/index.html