Middle East and North Africa 20 - The End of the Beginning in Syria? SPECIAL BONUS RUSSIAN JET CRISIS EDITION

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

He won't. Lets be honest neither the russian nor the american military is that incompetant. If it would be like that, we would all play the fallout series in real life.

It was a stratigic play by putin not more not less, made possible by turkey shooting down the russian plane. Erdogan is a chest pounding macho monkey and putin is a KGB trained killer...Putin uses emotion, but he is not guided by them.

Not really. Putin was a low level officer who wasn't a stand out by any means. Kind of a glorified paper pusher. He did prevent the looting of his outpost during the fall of East Berlin, but that's really the only noteworthy thing he did in the KGB.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

 

This is quite a rosy picture of what is happening in Iraq. The main difficulties with this narrative are that the Iraqi army has been supplanted by Shia militias that do not answer to a weak government in Baghdad, and that there are already disputes between the peshmerga and these groups in areas where their forces do overlap. Retaking Ramadi does not of itself establish that the problems securing Sunni territory from ISIS have been resolved - not least because the Iraqi security forces were in control of it at the start of the year only for it to fall to ISIS infiltration teams. And Ramadi is just one of the problems - ISIS reinfiltration is a live issue for all Sunni areas, and this is before we get to Mosul.

The big flaw in the argument that the timescale for defeating ISIS needs speeding up is that calls for accelerate come at the expense of post-war planning. The Iraqi government is a shambles and has been badly weakened by the events of 2014. It is now  reliant on Iranian-backed armed groups that do not have any interest in re-establishing an Iraqi state, much accomodating its Sunni population, yet this is the government that is supposed to administer occupied Mosul? As we'll see, this problem is even more severe when it comes to Assad in Syria.

Even that may be a bit optimistic for Iraq. Most major Middle East specialists tend to ignore the events in Iraq and focus on Syria, but from what I have read there seems to be full on sectarian war in Iraq, with some of the Shia militias acting as nothing more than outlaws, and seemingly terrifying some Sunni villages into the arms of Daesh.

Not to mention them apparently kidnapping those hunters from the Gulf (though why they thought hunting in war torn Iraq was a sensible decision I have no idea).

For the next decade or so I suspect that much of the Sunni dominated area of Western Iraq and Eastern Syria will be controlled by Daesh, Al Nursa, or other Islamists, since Syria and Iraq seem to have no real plans to form more inclusive governments.

[jarl the climber]

1. The Jerusalem Post had a nice article recently on why Erdogan's fake attempts to normalize relations should not be trusted by Israel. He is just trying to use it in his game against Russia.

2. The air defence system is indeed not aimed against ISIS. It is aimed against the actual threat to Russian aircraft - which is Erdogan the Mad. A move that is justified, given the shooting down of  a Russian jet under the most ridiculous of pretenses. 

As the Israeli's rather smugly announced to the world: THEY resolved Russian incursions into their airspace peacefully. With the subtext obviously intended to say: "Unlike that reckless Erdogan chap".

The Israelis and Turkey do not currently have ambassadors in each others countries nor have they for several years. On the other hand trade ties have never been more brisk and Israeli tourists returned to Turkey years ago. In order to totally restore relations with Israel Turkey has asked for reparations for the ten Turkish citizens who were killed trying to break the blockade of Gaza, which Israel has all ready offered. They also demand that Israel end of the blockade of Gaza, which seems to be the main sticking point. 

Having said that I would say that there is some agreement between Russia and Israel regarding Turkey, that the road to repairing relations with Moscow goes through Israel to an extent . Also there is a difference between Edrogan and the Turkish foreign policy establishment, which is rational and pragmatic. So I'd say that a deal with Israel that leads to a settlement with Russia that avoids sanctions is possible. I suppose it all hinges on the Gaza issue and how that is settled. 

The Russian SAM's do change the military equation in the region.

[cgrnosfe]

Well I hate to say it but I was right. Daesh attacks istanbul...

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Well I hate to say it but I was right. Daesh attacks istanbul...

Allegedly.

[Horza]

Did people forget the massive bomb that took out an opposition rally last year?

Turkey has been wracked with violence for most of last year, from the breakdown of the PKK talks and from IS's clandestine network.

[Mr Fixit]

I'll just put this here.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

[cgrnosfe]

I'll just put this here.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

Gaddafi was a different man, but definitely not the monster they painted him to be. Libya is much worse than it was under his rule. In fact same can be claimed for Iraq. Was daesh possible under saddam rule? I think not. The guy was definitely a bad guy and a dictator, but he had control of the country. What is the difference between Iraq and Saudi?

[Shryke]

I'll just put this here.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

Newly disclosed emails show that Libya’s plan to create a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and dollar was a motive for NATO’s intervention

 Why is it always gold?

[Mr Fixit]

Gaddafi was a different man, but definitely not the monster they painted him to be. Libya is much worse than it was under his rule. In fact same can be claimed for Iraq. Was daesh possible under saddam rule? I think not. The guy was definitely a bad guy and a dictator, but he had control of the country. What is the difference between Iraq and Saudi?

One follows US lead, the other doesn't? I mean, it always boils down to that.

[Altherion]

So, it looks like the Syrian government is finally making some progress:

Quote

Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees are moving to Turkey's border to flee heavy fighting near the city of Aleppo, officials and activists have said.

Intense Russian air strikes have helped Syria's government troops make advances near the country's largest city.

Russia's defence ministry said that since 1 February it had hit 875 "terrorist objects in the Aleppo, Latakia, Homs, Hama and Deir ez-Zor provinces".

This helped the Syrian army to cut the main rebel supply from the Turkish border to Aleppo, according to reports.

The question is now whether Turkey will accept the defeat of the people they've been supplying (and they've stopped seriously contesting that they have been supplying them) or whether it will try to intervene. Russia claims that it has cause to believe in the latter:

Quote

 

Separately, Russian defence ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said Moscow "has reasonable grounds to suspect intensive preparation of Turkey for a military invasion" into Syria.

He added that Russia had already presented "incontrovertible video evidence" which reportedly showed Turkish shelling of Syria.

 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Probably the same good evidence the US had WMDs in Iraq. Or the Russians had for Ukrainian troops downing that Malaysia Airlines jet, and not those seperatist backed by Moscow.

 

No, in all seriousness. This is Russia screwing with Turkey.  Another example were the peace talks, when the Russian mentioned that the Kurds should be involved (which they indeed should). Of course that's the last thing Erdogan wants, and he probably has pressured the EU as best as he could to ensure that the Kurds are nowhere near the negotiations. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

So, Putin seems to be outwitting the Western politicians rather well in Syria after all, despite all the talk of Syrian quagmires and the like that originated from the Obamas of this world a few months ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/syria-putin-assad_b_9169998.html

Basically the above article is saying that Putin is shaping the facts on the ground and is winning the strategic war with the West in Syria. And worst of all (for the impotent Western leaders), the Syria he is creating is not really a bad one for Western interests either.

And secondly, back in October when Putin first launched his military intervention in Syria I listed a number of strategic goals Putin had in Syria.

Among them, I proposed that the Syrian intervention allowed Putin to manipulate the refugee situation in a way that allows him to apply pressure on Europe and thereby give him increased leverage in his ongoing troubles with the West. This suggestion was scoffed at by some members of this forum, and lambasted as a ridiculous idea.

Well, now, months later, this article seems to be suggesting something similar.

https://euobserver.com/foreign/132186

Basically, it suggests that Putin is using the refugee crisis to reduce Merkel's popularity in Germany, in a bid to weaken or potentially even topple her. In short, the more Russia bombs areas like Aleppo, the greater the stream of refugees to Europe, and the more unpopular Merkel becomes.

Overall, Putin's strategic gains from the Syria intervention are numerous and wide ranging. And he has been achieving them pretty well, contrary to the scornful predictions from certain Western quarters about the strategic mistake that Syria would turn out to be for Russia.

Maybe he knows what he is doing after all.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

33 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Overall, Putin's strategic gains from the Syria intervention are numerous and wide ranging. And he has been achieving them pretty well, contrary to the scornful predictions from certain Western quarters about the strategic mistake that Syria would turn out to be for Russia.

Maybe he knows what he is doing after all.

He definitely knows what he is doing, but he is playing a very high stakes game. He is essentially chicken-racing Turkey and Saudi Arabia now to not up the stakes by sending in their own military forces. If they back down, he succeeds in keeping Assad in power and reasserts Russia as a great power in the eyes of the world. But if they don't, he could trigger a disaster. The Russian economy is already doing really badly due to the collapse in oil prices, so a costly, drawn out war in the Middle East is the last thing they need. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DON'T DO IT VLADI... WE LOVE YOU!!!

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

He definitely knows what he is doing, but he is playing a very high stakes game. He is essentially chicken-racing Turkey and Saudi Arabia to not up the stakes by sending in their own military forces now. If they back down, he keeps Assad in power and reasserts Russia as a great power in the eyes of the world. But if they don't, he could trigger a disaster. The Russian economy is already doing really badly due to the collapse in oil prices, so a costly, drawn out war in the Middle East is the last thing they need. 

 

Turkey's economy would also tank if they got involved in military action against Russia, and Saudi Arabia is facing the same economic challenges from the oil price collapse that Russia is. Except, Saudi is even MORE dependent on oil than Russia is.

In short, if Turkey invades Syria they can expect no support from Nato.

Furthermore, I can think of few things that would make the oil price shoot sky high faster than a Middle Eastern War involving Saudi Arabia and Russia. Not to mention that Saudi is already bogged down in Yemen.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

10 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Turkey's economy would also tank if they got involved in military action against Russia, and Saudi Arabia is facing the same economic challenges from the oil price collapse that Russia is. Except, Saudi is even MORE dependent on oil than Russia is.

In short, if Turkey invades Syria they can expect no support from Nato.

Furthermore, I can think of few things that would make the oil price shoot sky high faster than a Middle Eastern War involving Saudi Arabia and Russia. Not to mention that Saudi is already bogged down in Yemen.

Sure, hence why Putin's strategy might work. It is still very risky though. Erdogan is clearly a man with great ambitions and the Saudis... well, they might not be all that predictable or rational. Their current military leader in the Yemeni War is a 30 year old lawyer who was made supreme commander purely because his father is the king, for example. 

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

What do you guys think of the Saudi suggestion that they send ground troops into Syria? Are they seriously contemplating it or is it just to try and increase their relevance to the discussion?

[Altherion]

I think the Saudis are bluffing. The problem with sending in ground troops is that you need some manner of air cover and neither Turkey nor the Saudis have the capacity to challenge Russia in the skies. NATO could do it, of course, but, with the obvious exception of Turkey, the rest of NATO is not touching this one with a ten foot pole.

That said, this scenario is indeed very risky, though not because of the economies. Consider the following course of events:

1) Turkey sends ground forces into Syria.

2) Russia bombs them.

3) Turkey publicly expresses outrage and closes the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles to the Russian navy.

4) Russia follows through on their long-advertised contingency for this event (which was repeated again in the wake of the November plane incident by one of the jesters they keep in the Duma for such announcements) thereby starting what is at the very least a full-scale war between Russia and Turkey and quite likely WWIII.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

I think the Saudis are bluffing. The problem with sending in ground troops is that you need some manner of air cover and neither Turkey nor the Saudis have the capacity to challenge Russia in the skies. NATO could do it, of course, but, with the obvious exception of Turkey, the rest of NATO is not touching this one with a ten foot pole.

That said, this scenario is indeed very risky, though not because of the economies. Consider the following course of events:

1) Turkey sends ground forces into Syria.

2) Russia bombs them.

3) Turkey publicly expresses outrage and closes the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles to the Russian navy.

4) Russia follows through on their long-advertised contingency for this event (which was repeated again in the wake of the November plane incident by one of the jesters they keep in the Duma for such announcements) thereby starting what is at the very least a full-scale war between Russia and Turkey and quite likely WWIII.

I see some commentators suggested that Russia's massive military exercise today in Southwest Russia was intended to threaten Ukraine. Of course, it is entirely coincidental that it also happens to be the part of Russia closest to Turkey.