Putin Defends Russian Military Aid to Syria

MOSCOW — President Vladimir V. Putin on Tuesday forcefully defended Russia’s military assistance to Syria, describing it as aid for a government fighting “terrorist aggression” and saying the migrant crisis in Europe would be far worse without it.

The United States has expressed concern about a recent Russian airlift to Syria that is believed to have included military hardware and soldiers.

“If Russia had not supported Syria, the situation in this country would have been worse than in Libya,” Mr. Putin said, and the flood of refugees would have been even higher.”

Pentagon officials say that Russia has sent some of its most modern battle tanks and other equipment to an airfield near President Bashar al-Assad’s hometown, Latakia, in western Syria, possibly to secure the area as a base for airstrikes in support of the government.

“It’s obvious that without the Syrian authorities and the military playing an active role, without the Syrian Army fighting Islamic State ‘on the ground,’ it’s impossible to drive terrorists from this country and from the region as a whole,” Mr. Putin said.

“We are supporting the government of Syria in the fight against a terrorist aggression, are offering and will continue to offer it necessary military and technical assistance,” he added. . .

It depends on whether you are talking about the First Chechen war or the Second.

In the first, under Yelstin's 'leadership,' the Russian army made numerous critical errors. For example, heavy use of conscripts (who were simply fodder for the more experienced, and dedicated, Chechen Islamic Jihadis) and the use of tanks without sufficient infantry support (the Jihadis would simply shoot RPGs from the top of buildings).

It was a massacre.

Fast forward to the Second Chechen war. That was a whole new kettle of fish. First of all it was under Putin (and there's some evidence that he may have used a false attack to get it started), second it employed heavy use of Special Operations forces (read: professional soldiers as opposed to wet-behind-the-ears conscripts), and third heavy use of artillery (where towns harboring Jihadis would be levelled).

The Second Chechen war was also a massacre, but this time for the Jihadis (and due to the Russian heavy handed tactics and lack of value for human life, civilians as well).

A similar case can be seen earlier in Afghanistan. Prior to US involvement, the Soviets really hit the Afghanis hard. Very hard. After US involvement, Soviet conscripts were hammered by the Mujahadeen (who later became Al Qaeda Jihadis, but then they were the good guys). The Mujahadeen were significantly better than the silly Ruskie conscripts. However, there were four things the Mujahadeen were scared of ....first the 5.45 bullet (the nickname from them in English was the 'poison bullet' due to the way the light fast AK-74 bullet would tumble in the body), second was the Hind helicopter (which is why Stinger missiles became thay important), third was the SU-25 Frogfoot (the Russian equivalent to the A-10, and just as bad to civilians), and at the top of the list the nightly attacks by Soviet Spetsnaz special forces (which would sneak in at night and wreak havoc on the Mujahadeen - various Spetsnaz units, including GRU and KGB versions, had been operating for years starting for the KGB's Alpha Group Spetsnaz attack on the Afghani presidential palace where an Alpha unit killed the president, the president's son, and slightly over 200 of their bodyguards).

As for Syria ...it's more of an open war than an insurgency. Assad has lost most of the country and is only fighting for a portion in Damascus and to the West that is tribal Allawite territory.

Not at all. They're not moving because they're scared of the Russians. I think the ones moving to Europe (that are not genuine refugees and are infact Jihadis) are moving to Europe in order to mount terrorist attacks on soft/vulnerable European targets. Think of it this way - ISIS has already shown that it is more capable than Al Qaeda. It holds territory (vast territory) and has created the semblance of a caliphate (at least in name). However, there's one thing it hasn't done.

Effected a spectacular attack against a Western target.

The flow of refugees to Western Europe gives ISIS the perfect opportunity to pull off a spectacular attack (or, more probably, a series of attacks) that enables them to finally surpass the one area left that Al Qaeda still has an overhang over them - a large attack on Westerners.

They're not fleeing the Russians, the Russian military is not superhuman by any measure (I'd not rate it highly to be honest), and in terms of the Russians having 'relaxed' rules of engagement - well, the Syrian Army also doesn't give a whit about human rights, thus that's not the reason either (being captured by Putin's army is the same as being captured by Assad's in terms of one's happiness quotient).

The only reason none-refugees would be moving is to attack the West.

Now, the only hope of good I have for Putin's involvement is that it may protect some of the minority groups that have been slaughtered by ISIS (and TOTALLY ignored by the West). Putin and Assad are monsters, but that's one area where they've done something that the West has ignored.

Thank you for the answer.

Every time the situation shifts, I take out maps and try to figure out what it means. What has looked truly frightening on those maps is that if Assad falls, ISIS has a corridor to the Med. If that ever happened, ISIS would be able to run cruise ships full of jihadists to Europe.

That's what I just don't get. The elitists have to be either totally clueless, way overconfident that they can stop the cancer from spreading through northern Europe, or they want European civilization to fail. Assad and the former govs of Egypt, Libya, Ukraine, even going back to Yugoslavia were not lapdogs to the ruling class, for sure. But they did provide a barrier keeping hordes of invaders out of Europe. Now that barrier is gone. Keeping Assad in power for a stable western Syria could provide a pause. Could the Kurds then be involved in a coalition that would support their horribly under-supported fight against ISIS, perhaps leading to a Kurdish state?

It's mind-boggling that the lessons of history have been so horribly ignored. It's leading to a collapse of civilization as we know it.

My humble opinion on the matter is as follows. I think the main issue is a medley of two important factors that are operating in tandem:

1. Political correctness (coupled with the desire to do good no matter what). This aspect is what makes the Western European countries bring in more and more refugees. They want to genuinely help, plus they are so politically correct that they are (mostly) unwilling to entertain the thought that not all of these refugees are refugees. Countries like Sweden are so politically correct that in places like Malmo you find Moslems committing crimes like rape and arson with nigh-impunity.

2. The second issue is ideological blinders. By this I mean that because they are against, say, person or entity X, that means they will turn a blind eye against Y. A good example here is Assad. Assad is a horrible person. A veritable monster. He is bad to his people, he has committed human rights violations, and (as another FReeper mentioned) has used barrel bombs against his people.

Bad man! Right?

Right. The only problem though is in their need to overthrow Assad, they forgot to look at what the alternative would be! This is why you have photographs of people like McCain meeting 'rebel' leaders who were clearly Jihadis. The ideological blinders only make them see a specific array of outcomes, and they ignore all other pertinent factors.

This applies to other people. Eg Russia could come up with a workable solution (and to avoid those in FR who go and out accusing people of being trolls, no - I do not think Russia has a solution, but the West does not have one either and in the case of Syria the West has been indirectly assisting ISIS)...anyway, I was saying Russia could come up with a solution and it would never be accepted because it is Russian. Personally I look beyond who is saying something and focus on what is being said. If Hillary gave me water when I was suffering from thirst, I would drink it (I'd pray first). If Cruz told me to stick my hand into hot coals I'd tell him to shove it. The messenger matters to me, but the message matters more.

The same ideological blinders led to the ouster of Qaddafi, another horrible horrible man that was, however, largely harmless to Western interests for several years before his demise, and a situation that gave Libya to Jihadis.

So, you have those two situations. Political correctness and ideological blinders.

However, I believe it is a situation that is self correcting. Nature is always self correcting. Have too many deer in the park, and they're too many for the available grass, and they will eventually starve to death until the population equalises. Have too many barracuda in the stream, and they will eat all the little fishes to the point they'll be too few prey for the barracuda, and they will starve until they reach equilibrium.

Have too many weak-@$$ GOP presidential candidates, and the system makes it inevitable that an Alpha-man like Trump will emerge to show the girly-men how behave (if I had the time - at the business lounge waiting for a flight back from a private equity conference in Cape Town - I would tell you why Yelstin's stupid leadership after the fall of communism, and Bull Clinton's stupidity during the Yugoslav crisis, made it inevitable that Putin would begin his monstrous rise). Cause and effect.

Same thing for political correctness and ideological blinders. It will (WILL) resolve itself. When several dozen 'refugees' turn out to be terrorists and attack several Western cities, you'll see Europe get 'cured' of its political correctness and ideological blinders for a generation.

Guaranteed

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.