Posted on 01/06/2017 3:08:14 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
Russia recently helped facilitate the surrender of Aleppo to its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but its motives may be financial, as opposed to virtuous.
Russia’s intervention in Syria is estimated to cost approximately $4 million per day, according to data collected by IHS Jane’s. Russian military forces began bombing Syrian targets around Sept. 30. Since the beginning of its relentless bombing campaign, Russia spent approximately $1.84 billion.
The total defense budget for 2016 of the Russian Federation was approximately $50 billion, meaning that the Kremlin spent an astonishing 3.6 percent a year on Syria alone. Though the percentage may seem relatively small, for Russia, it is unsustainable.
Most of any country’s defense budget is already committed; money is allotted to acquisitions, recruitment, development and up-keep. A standing army, even a small contingent like the Russian force in Syria, requires pay, provisions and needs to be properly outfitted. The original IHS Jane’s figures were collected in October, 2015, not long after Russia began its intervention. At the time, the figures were considered conservative, and Russia periodically increased its strikes since that time. The actual price tag could be much higher. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Russia is broke.
And their situation is not getting any better.
Russia and Syria defeated the jihadists in Aleppo.
More truth than not. Russia is about as poor as Mexico. It might be a threat to adjacent territories, but its influence on the world stage is mostly a memory. Russia can’t even afford to WIN wars.
That might very well be true that Russia is broke. But they could be redeploying their troops to Eastern Europe and leaving a proxy army in Syria. It appears that is NATO’s concern, as they have been deploying troops, tanks and missile launchers to Eastern Europe (via Germany) in much larger numbers in the last week.
In your dreams. They are a major problem. What you read in the papers and the media is not worth a warm cup of spit.
Maybe they accomplished what they set out to do - stop the US from supporting ISIS and to stop the US from supporting the Qatari gas pipeline.
LOL!
China has LOTS of money and IMO they are paying for it. They are the ones who benefit- they have billions invested in the Middle East, and more to come.
Ultimately China wants a port in the Med at the end of their new Silk Road.
Mexico doesn’t have more nukes and proven ICBMs than the rest of the world combined.
The fact that Russia is unwilling to invest vast sums into a ground war in Syria or obsolete carriers does not mean they are not dangerous.
They have taken 1/3 of Ukraine without a hiccup and are building a 10 mile bridge to Crimea as we speak.
All true, I think. The nukes make Russia a player. Maybe the only thing, along with chutzpah.
The Soviets could have extended life by more aggressive imperialism. Their empire came from the chaos of world wars. In the end, they didn’t have the will for further big war. I just doubt the Russians have such willingness either.
I agree with others - wishful thinking on our part. Russia flipped the war around in Syria, and the rest is likely just clean-up. With Trump coming in, they know they that Assad is safe in power and the terrorists are simply out of luck (something that I support, by the way, given the alternatives), so why bother hanging around.
They’re simply not into the STUPID IDEA of ‘nation building’ like the neocons, and I guess Obama, are into. They came there to save Assad, they saved him, now they can go home and enjoy the terrible weather there (at least this week).
Look up Russian debt - both total and as a percentage of GDP. Look up ours. Tell me who’s broke?
I think you hit the nail on the head. We instigated the overthrow of Assad to gain our preferred pipeline route, and Russia intervened to save Assad and preserve its gas advantage over Europe. And while Russia might be "broke" it is also relatively debt free, with a Debt/GDP ratio of 17% (compared with our 104%). And there are all those nukes. Yeah, they're gone for sure.
If they wanted to go into debt you can bet the Chinese would be more than happy to hand them a credit like for a few trillion at a very attractive interest rate as would several of the little Gulf countries the US is such "close friends" with.
But your standards, they would be smart and somehow not broke if like the US they went trillions in debt to fight wars that haven't hurt and have in fact helped the Muzzie killers we're in theory fighting against?
They have no intention of becoming the resource rich debt slave the Globalists have been working so hard (and so successfully) to turn the US into. That's the real reason they have no intention of making any more effort in Syria or anywhere else beyond the minimum it takes to achieve their limited goals.
Debt is part and parcel of wars and if the debt isn't counter balanced by a corresponding increase in national wealth from expanding national manufacturing base and increased employment to support the war the only things anyone gets out of little wars is national debt for working folks to suffer from but fat profits for a few wealthy folks and the politicians they own.
If you'd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Good, they can bleed rubles for Assad. Afghanistan redux.
“They have no intention of becoming the resource rich debt slave the Globalists have been working so hard (and so successfully) to turn the US into.”
Russia’s per capita GDP is just $100.00 more than Kazakhstan and $400.00 more than Greece.
Russia is a failed third world state.
Russia is a failed third world state.
LOL, and we've been spending borrowed money in Afghanistan for fifteen years but the Russians are the ones dancing on flypaper?
That's rich. Given the fact that the "War on Terror" has cost us trillions, all of which we borrowed, and ended up with us shipping arms to and training the very same organizations that were behind 9/11, I think you need to do a whole new analysis of who is bleeding their national wealth into the dirt of the Middle East.
You pick and choose terms and numbers any way you like the same way the government defines unemployment numbers and inflation numbers if that's what it takes to keep you deluded.
Whether or not Russia is a failed State or not doesn't make much difference when it comes to looking at whether they're better at balancing means and ends than we are. Especially since by comparison we're all badass only as long as someone is buying our debt.
Of course, their motive is financial. Every country in the world that ever invaded or started a war with another country did it for financial gain. Except the stupid George Bush and the American leaders. NO WAR FOR OIL! Why the hell not?
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.