Posted on 07/03/2017 8:41:08 AM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Russian President Vladimir Putin's Syrian gambit was a fatal mistake that may soon destroy Russia and Putin himself. Putin’s strategy in Syria makes the Titanic look watertight.
It’s gotten so bad for Putin in the Syrian quicksand that a Russian analyst, Leonid Issaev, who actually lives in Russia, just published an article in al-Jazeera entitled, “Russia is at a dead-end in Syria, Russia is struggling and failing to find a way out of the Syrian quagmire.” Mr. Issaev’s thesis is that “the Kremlin’s gamble to use the conflict in Syria to normalize relations with the West after the disaster in Ukraine is not paying off. Moscow is appearing to be stuck in Syria, entangled in Damascus’ and Tehran’s desperate plots.”
For a Russian analyst living in Russia to openly declare Putin’s Syria policy a “dead-end” without fearing for his life shows how truly dire the Syrian situation is for Putin.
I, however,wouldn’t say Putin has hit a “dead-end.” I would say that it is much worse, in fact, a potentially fatal, disaster for Putin and Russia that is worsening by the day.
Putin has been geo-strategically reduced to being a pawn of the two greatest sponsors of state terrorism and genocidal war criminals on the planet earth today, Assad and Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Other than possibly proving he had more knowledge of the world outside the Soviet Union than most people, his being former KGB is damn near meaningless given the fact that under the Soviet system the government told you where you were going to work once you graduated from college (if they let you go to college before assigning you a job). IOW, it's not like he had a choice until the USSR fell apart.
Russia has been with Syria for decades. Syria is a strategic asset for Russia as between critical location flanking Turkey etc, seaports, airports, and yes those energy supply routes. i doubt Russia is even thinking about abandoning Syria, nor does Russia have, or need, the massive ground troops there that cost USA so much in Vietnam Nam. . I think this article is pretty much wrong
No, Afghanistan was (where Russians themselves were dying). Not the only similarity; both the USSR in Afghanistan and the US in South Vietnam were invited in by the existing government, and those governments survived a few years on their own after each of us left. For some reason, we referred to the USSR’s presence in Afghanistan as an “invasion”.
This is neotard BS. Russia is doing just fine.
He is cunning, crafty and is playing for all the marbles.
He doesn’t want all of the old Soviet Union, but he’s taking back the parts he wants. He will keep his satellite in Syria. That keeps him in control of gas to Europe.
He’s looking out for Russian interests like American Presidents looked out for American interests in the 1800’s.
Reagan and Eisenhower came close, but the deep state that wants one world government inhibits modern Presidents.
“Wow, I had no idea Russia’s GDP had collapsed so badly but I double-checked the article’s figures and they’re true. This is a disaster for Putin.”
What’s making it even worse is that gas in the US has dropped to 1.90 a gallon, some places as low as 1.79. Put wants that oil pipeline so they can feed Europe. If we can get oil across the ocean before Putin gets it, then Putin is gone.
Flexibility after the election? ROFL.
Putey was deep into his egg money just trying to take the Crimea. There is a reason Russia is usually not at war. They can’t afford it.
Seriously.... Putin in “peril”. Men like him don’t have “peril”...they “peril” other people.
1st- If this is being put out with “lack of fear of dying” then... it’s being allowed by Putin.
2nd- Putin, I believe, wants to make Russia the power broker in the area from Scandinavia to the Aleutians. This is to include Europe, the Mideast, and other areas of interests that compete with capitalism. In other words he wants to restore Russia to a world power. He has the nukes, the population and the willingness to kill anybody that gets in his way.
3rd- He will choke Europe with muslims to destabilize the entire area and control the energy that they need to survive. He can do this by making the mideast an unstable mess allowing Russian energy exports or those that he allows to flow to Europe.
4th- I read somewhere a profile of Putin that stated in order to insure conflict with him, just threaten or try to corner him. In other words when Obama shoved the gay Olympics in his face, gave him a red line in Syria or tried to get the world to condemn him for the Ukraine..... he says f#@k you and then does it anyway or retaliates anyway.
Everyone (not educated FReepers) forgets that Russian lost 30 MILLION civilians in WWII. .... 30 MILLION. Let that sink into your heads and think if our grandparents generation had lost 30 million relatives, had New York, Washington DC and most of the East cost destroyed by an invading army..... how would we be?
Putin is going nowhere. His main concern is China and the US. He needs to make sure that a conflict puts his two rivals at odds and he can play one against the other. He’s playing chess....... etc.
“I would say that it is much worse, in fact, a potentially fatal, disaster for Putin and Russia”
The media never learns. They predicted the same doom and gloom for Trump (how many timesa now?) and have been wrong.
Why they think they’re right on this utterly eludes me.
It’s CHINA that “...wants control in Iraq and Syria so as to clear the way for a trans-Iraq-trans-Syria path from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea.” for the western terminus of their One Belt, One Road plan.
Russia would gain leverage with China if it can provide that. Ditto for Iran.
Turkey would rather China’s road go through Turkey.
And, of course, we and everyone else is jockeying for a piece of the action.
Mark Langfan doesn’t have clue.
Putin now has four naval bases in Syria.
I am not sure that I agree with this totally. Putin has the only group that can hold the country. There are two strong groups who can be trusted. Assad and the Kurds. But we can’t make a deal with either. Assad has the Russians and Iran. The Turks hate the Kurds and are making sure we, and NATO can’t make a deal with them. So we have to rely on “good rebels”. And good rebels are unreliable. ISIS are Sunnis. And we have Sunni friends. Shiites can fight ISIS but they hate us and our friends. So Russia’s position is better in that we don’t have anything bug guns and money. And that just isn’t enough. We can fight ISIS, in which case Assad or Iran wins. Or we can fight Assad in which case Iran or ISIS wins. There is no case in which America wins.
aside from the GDP issue, this article is a nothingburger; it simply repeats over and over again that syria is a ‘disaster’ for Putin, but never really explains WHY it is a disaster, or offers any analysis or examples about what is supposedly disastrous about syria for putin.
as far as i can see, putin was instrumental in helping to defeat ISIS in syria, which to me is pretty much all that matters.
I thought Afghanistan was Russia's Vietnam, and Syria was Russia's Iraq, and Russia's Afghanistan is America's Afghanistan.
There was no disaster in Ukraine.
Russia held the Crimea, all else was smoke and mirrors to obfuscate latching on to Crimea.
The exercise in Syria was a sales effort where customers could come and see Russian arms on display.
The pitch has been made and those with money have signed contracts so there is no longer a need for a Russian Military effort in Syria
The worth of the effort is measured in Russian arms sales. What happens to Syria is irrelevant.
+1.
This article reeks of desperation. It’s 90 degrees from reality.
The Russian intervention in Syria is a model that others should learn from. They’ve protected their interests and shored up a key ally.
And (now that the initial ‘shock and awe’ phase has passed) they’re practically doing it on their training budget.
They have, what, 4000 guys in theatre? Plus those high-profile AA assets acting as billboards for their arms business.
The Russian intervention is in sharp contrast to that of the previous White House, that in 2015 famously spent $500M to train five - literally five! - ‘anti-ISIS’ fighters.
US foreign policy has been schizophrenic on Syria. Thank God that Trump is bringing some sanity at last. Hopefully he’ll be able to root-out the covert US state funding of ISIS and Al-Queda.
I tend to believe this is true, which explains why Trump has turned the screws against Syria as of late. Our bargaining position has just gotten much stronger. The deal on this one will be quite a piece of Art.
From what Bill Sallus teaches:
Damascus is destroyed by Israel first (possible response to chem warfare spillover) Gog/Magog invasion follows.
Would that not be the “hooks” Ezekiel talks about in 38:4?
I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out . . .
WE are so strong and great, huh..?
Ridiculous.
It’s a potential quagmire for US also.
Wow, what a high-horse, I can see clouds below me.
This is anti-Russian propaganda.
I read a blog where the shoe is put on the other foot as to who is in a ‘quagmire’ in Syria.
There’s more than one side to every story.
I’m not endorsing everything said here, but it is another side of the story from another point of view.
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.