rayjay

The Assad/Russian strategy is becoming clear.

If they can figure out the mess.. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _Civil_War

read the list of combatants. (If you go into the talk section you'll find that the list is very fluid and that some of the groups are "a couple of guys")
All of this supposes that ISIL doesn't attack ... And they are often on the offensive. And supposes that the Russians and Assad can actually tell who they are bombing all of the time. Or care. Based on the reports of Assads air force barrel bombing, that's doubtful.
Or that the Russian intelligence can actually tell whats going on on the ground...
This isn't a conventional war. And its not a two or even three sided conflict.

Fate

This is a big win for Putin

Sure. And Iraq will greet the Americans as liberators...

freeman

And drawing the ire of radical Muslims. Great strategy.

good point....

Islam is the second most widely professed religion in Russia. Islam is considered as one of Russia’s traditional religions, legally a part of Russian historical heritage.[2] According to a poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, 6% of respondents considered themselves Muslims.[3] According to Reuters, Muslim minorities make up a seventh (14%) of Russia's population.[4] Muslims constitute the nationalities in the North Caucasus residing between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea: Circassians, Balkars, Chechens, Ingush, Kabardin, Karachay, and numerous Dagestani peoples. Also, in the middle of the Volga Basin reside populations of Tatars and Bashkirs, the vast majority of whom are Muslims. There are over 5,000[5] registered religious Muslim organizations (divided into Sunni, Shia, Sufi and Ahmadi groups), which is over one sixth of the number of registered Russian Orthodox religious organizations of about 29,268 as of December 2006

Sure, Putin's thinking strategically ...

freeman3 wrote:Russia spent 80 billion dollars on its military in 2014;we spent over 600 billion. In the first quarter of 2015 Russia spent 9% of its GDP on the military, double what it anticipated. Falling oil prices are making continued such spending on its military unsustainable.

http://neweasterneurope.eu/articles-and ... tary-power

And they are flexing their muscles supporting Syria which gains them what? A country in the Middle East with no oil. And drawing the ire of radical Muslims. Great strategy.

Yes, it is. Iran has plenty of oil. So does Iraq. Both will be Russian clients.

Furthermore, this is about opening markets for Russian arms. Countries which see the US as an unreliable ally (and, frankly, who wouldn't?) will be tempted to start buying Russian arms.

A country overreaching, spending money on the military that it cannot sustain, and getting involved in a quagmire in a Muslim country...sounds like Russia is reliving the 1980s.

Syria is no Afghanistan. Defeat the rebels. Turn. Defeat ISIS. End of war. Few Russian losses and some Iranian losses. Major win in terms of face: Assad, a man presumed to be on the way out, is saved by his patron, Putin.

The Middle East loves the strong horse. Obama wears a helmet when riding a bike. Putin shoots an AK-47 while riding a horse at a full gallop bare-chested.

Yeah, I can see them selling arms. I don't know how much influence they will have any other country other than Syria, which may wind up being a costly drain in Russian resources. So what steps would you have done? Bombed Syria into oblivion to make the red line mean something , even though that would have strengthened ISIS? Taken military action against Russia to stop their involvement in Syria? What are the rational alternatives?

The best result for Russia is if Middle Eastern oil production gets reduced so that oil prices go up-- how does their current strategy accomplish that?

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, I can see them selling arms. I don't know how much influence they will have any other country other than Syria, which may wind up being a costly drain in Russian resources. So what steps would you have done? Bombed Syria into oblivion to make the red line mean something , even though that would have strengthened ISIS? Taken military action against Russia to stop their involvement in Syria? What are the rational alternatives?

I've said what I would have done.

Here's what's funny: we have a "62 nation coalition." As far as I can tell, that means nothing. We send deficient arms to the Kurds (not all that they want--and what they get are things like unarmored personnel carriers that are death traps). We boast of a coalition, but who is fighting ISIS? What is Belgium contributing? MRE's?

What I would have done: armed the Kurds, Jordanians, etc.--anyone who would actually fight ISIS. I would have used them to occupy ISIS on the front lines and our special forces would have raided and raided and raided. We would have "terrorized" the terrorists. We should also have moved, even if it took a Constitutional amendment, to strip citizenship of anyone who went to train with, visit with, or fight for ISIS.

So:

1. Stop ISIS from advancing. Turn up the pressure on them on the front lines.
2. Disrupt their supplies, oil connections, and any semblance of governance with special forces raids. Make their leadership sleep with one eye open.
3. Cut off the flow of foreign fighters by leading the way in punishing Americans joining the cause.

What Obama has done:

1. Talk smack.
2. Hold meetings.

Net effect: less than zero.

The best result for Russia is if Middle Eastern oil production gets reduced so that oil prices go up-- how does their current strategy accomplish that?

Who knows? Maybe Russia's gets enough influence within OPEC to get them to agree to limit production?

Furthermore, I suspect we will see increased terror and malfeasance from Iran. Destabilization and occupation of Western attention may be exactly what Putin wants. Who's talking about Crimea or Ukraine these days?

Domestically, Putin has made himself look pretty freaking awesome. I think that was a lot of his rationale too.

rickyp wrote:rayjay

The Assad/Russian strategy is becoming clear.

[If they can figure out the mess.. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _Civil_War

read the list of combatants. (If you go into the talk section you'll find that the list is very fluid and that some of the groups are "a couple of guys")
All of this supposes that ISIL doesn't attack ... And they are often on the offensive. And supposes that the Russians and Assad can actually tell who they are bombing all of the time. Or care. Based on the reports of Assads air force barrel bombing, that's doubtful.
Or that the Russian intelligence can actually tell whats going on on the ground...
This isn't a conventional war. And its not a two or even three sided conflict.

I think it's pretty easy for the Russians and Assad; they don't care. They bomb anyone who doesn't support the regime. They are careful about western sensitivities as it pertains to the Kurds. They get to ISIS last. It's not that complicated. They really don't have to worry about how many supporters each rebel group has.

[note: edit just fixed quotations.]

rayjay

They bomb anyone who doesn't support the regime.

Mostly thats ISIS, or Alqueda.
There are very few of what are supposed to be moderates.... the numbers do matter to your claim that they are

They are going to remove all of Assad's opponents except ISIS, and the Kurds (who Turkey will weaken)

That's already happened for all intents and purposes. Except for the Kurds,
They've either joined ISIL or aligned with Al Queda or become refugees. .

Fate

Yes, it is. Iran has plenty of oil. So does Iraq. Both will be Russian clients.

God your an idiot.
Iran is a competitor with Russia for the European market for oil. One of the consequences of the treaty with Iran is that European nations will have a source other than Russia for gas and oil. Its going to hurt Russia to have Iran competing for that market and the Asian market.
Iran will not be a "client" to anyone. (Iraq Will be Iran's but that's been the case since shortly after the US invasion.)

Russia has benefited mightily from Iran's exclusion from the world energy market.
Iran is the world's third leading natural gas producer, but -- largely due to sanctions -- only the 25th leading exporter. And once sanctions are lifted and all that Iranian gas comes online, it will cut dramatically into Russia's dominance of the European market.
European energy companies are reportedly champing at the bit to sign deals with Iran. Soon they will get their chance.
And Brussels' new get-tough policy with Gazprom, which has long flouted the EU's antitrust legislation, will get a boost with the alternative of Iranian gas on the market.
Russia also stands to lose on the oil markets. Since the European Union banned oil imports from Iran in 2012, and U.S. sanctions made it difficult to purchase Iranian oil in dollars, Russia moved quickly to gobble up Tehran's market share in both Europe and Asia.

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-and ... 27097.html

Iran's involvement in Syria is all about the support for the Alawite minority. They are a Shia sect and that comes down to the religious war... Sunni versus Shia.
They accept Russia's contribution against their enemies but they aren't aligning with them in a fundamental way.

Ricky:

God your an idiot.

That's too funny.

I think this op ed from the Abu Dhabi is a fair summary

http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comme ... -far#page2

rayjay

I think this op ed from the Abu Dhabi is a fair summary

Including this?

But the chances of any kind of Syrian settlement that would end the war and please Russia are extremely slim.

rickyp wrote:rayjay

I think this op ed from the Abu Dhabi is a fair summary

Including this?

But the chances of any kind of Syrian settlement that would end the war and please Russia are extremely slim.

I wouldn't characterize those odds as "extremely slim". I think it is a real possibility that Assad will severely weaken all rebel groups (thanks to Russia air support and Iranian ground troops. I think it is possible that he would then defeat ISIS(with the help of others). I think it's reasonable to believe that the Sunnis will suffer mightily and many more will become refugees as a result. There are a lot of possibilities here.

rayjay

There are a lot of possibilities here

.
Any that are likely to please Putin? Please be specific.
The notion that Syria would become a "client state" of Syria might ...but Syria have the option of their Shia religious brothers that means they won't be leaning on Russia completely. Plus the extent to which Russia can burn assets and wealth in Syria is limited. Putin has a floundering domestic economy and potential domestic unrest at home....
The notion that Russia can gain anything significant from a permanent military presence is wooly headed. If ISIL and the other remnants of resistance are forced underground, then there will be constant acts of terrorism. You think the occupation of Iraq was tough for the US? Especially if it sparks more terrorism in Russia.
Iran is only sending its fanatical Quds force as advisers and Basiji volunteers as ground troops. There are about 20,000 foreign fighters in Syria on Assad's side. Backed by Iran and Hezbollah. All Shia.
This is a religious war. (Propping up a despot wrapped in his Alawite religion)
How Russia ultimately benefits from any resolution, is questionable. What that resolution will be is an even deeper mystery.Putin seems to have little idea of the risk reward equation... (A character trait he seems to share with Dick Cheney and George Bush).

rickyp wrote:rayjay

There are a lot of possibilities here

.
Any that are likely to please Putin? Please be specific.
The notion that Syria would become a "client state" of Syria might ...but Syria have the option of their Shia religious brothers that means they won't be leaning on Russia completely. Plus the extent to which Russia can burn assets and wealth in Syria is limited. Putin has a floundering domestic economy and potential domestic unrest at home....
The notion that Russia can gain anything significant from a permanent military presence is wooly headed. If ISIL and the other remnants of resistance are forced underground, then there will be constant acts of terrorism. You think the occupation of Iraq was tough for the US? Especially if it sparks more terrorism in Russia.
Iran is only sending its fanatical Quds force as advisers and Basiji volunteers as ground troops. There are about 20,000 foreign fighters in Syria on Assad's side. Backed by Iran and Hezbollah. All Shia.
This is a religious war. (Propping up a despot wrapped in his Alawite religion)
How Russia ultimately benefits from any resolution, is questionable. What that resolution will be is an even deeper mystery.Putin seems to have little idea of the risk reward equation... (A character trait he seems to share with Dick Cheney and George Bush).

Spend some time correcting your many grammatical mistakes, among others ("Syria would become a 'client state' of Syria"?), and I'll spend some time being specific.

That's a factual, not a grammatical error. Curse of the pedant...

Sassenach wrote:That's a factual, not a grammatical error. Curse of the pedant...

meaning grammatical mistakes plus other mistakes, such as ...