Posted on 02/17/2005 10:59:12 AM PST by Alex Marko
Russia is trying to work with France to save Syria from the U.S.-Israeli threat in hopes of reviving its ties with Paris and Damascus and regaining some of its international influence. Moscow is unlikely to get Paris' support, since France is backing anti-Syrian forces in Lebanon. This will further distance Paris from Moscow and will not help Damascus avoid future problems.
Beirut wasn't called the "Paris of the Med" for nothing..
Russia's involement in Syria is also a backlash at the US for Putin being embarrassed in the Ukraine.
I don't think Russia /Putin has that much of a long-range vision thing..
They may be dishonest back-stabbers, but they're not stupid - the jig is up for Syria, and everybody knows it - (except Assad).
There is no "backlash" against the U.S. over the Ukraine simply because it was France and Germany that backed and aided Yushenko, not the U.S.
Words to the contrary, words that blamed the U.S. for installing a leader in the Ukraine who immediately WITHDREW Ukraine's troops from Iraq, were little more than Euro-propaganda.
I am going to have to politely disagree with you. The US sent millions to the Ukraine opposition for the election there. To say that there was no US involvement is flat out wrong.
Besides me saying that Russia is dealing with Syria because of the US in the Ukraine, FoxNews had an expert on today saying the same. I beleive he used the term "bloody nose" in describing what the US did to Putin in the Ukraine.
Unless you call the same old tired ploys some kind of 'long range vision'.
France and Russia go back a long way. They started the first world war together. After the war France got Syria (which included Lebanon) as a colony. It was Russian infiltrators that helped the Nazis take over France in the second world war (and Syria in the package) and then Syria sent their fascists into Iraq to fight Brits just like they would 60 years later.
France and Russia -- there's a pair to draw to on an inside straight!
It's a farcical myth to think that the U.S. paid to install a Ukrainian leader who would immediately withdraw Ukraine's troops just prior to Iraq's big national elections.
Good propaganda, but hardly believeable.
The French and the Germans paid to have Yushenko installed, and he delivered back to them what they wanted: Ukrainian troops out of Iraq just prior to Iraq's elections.
Nations don't have friends, only interests. Where our interests coincide with Russia there will be cooperation. But on Syria (as with Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Ukraine) where those interests diverge we'll need to treat them like the adversary they are. They will do exactly the same with us.
The same holds true with France and every other country, friendly and otherwise. I think you can expect M. Chirac to be on, what for him, is his best and most clammy palm on the shoulder behavior when the president is in Europe next week.
This is complicated. Syria is on its own except for Iran and N Korea, who actually cannot do much. Russia wants some arms business with Syria, but won't oppose France. The question is who will take down Syria. It could be the EU.
The reason for Ukraine's talk of withdrawl of troops is related to the fact that they are bankrupt militarily. Personally, I beleive its a ploy to get the US to step in and grant some military financing to them.
He does seem to be stepping in it a lot lately, and he does seem to bet on the wrong horse a lot.
Had they stayed in Iraq (certainly past the elections in Iraq), we would have given them that money and more.
France and Germany got away with an amazing central-European powerplay in the Ukraine. They'll now attempt to pull the Ukraine into the EU's new military, possibly through NATO as a first step.
In any event, Russia's energy contracts (and hence, Russia's leverage over them) to Germany depended on their transit through the Ukraine. Now that the Ukraine has broken from Russia and sided with France and Germany, that changes.
Germany is no longer held hostage to Russia's energy contracts (75% of Germany's entire national energy), and France got the Ukrainian troops out of Iraq prior to their elections (an effort designed to destabilize and potentially ruin those democratic elections).
France got what it wanted and Germany got what it wanted. Russia and the U.S. both took a hit.
In the meantime, the socialist propaganda machine managed to blame the U.S. for France and Germany's powerplay.
That takes gall. French Gaul.
Is it not reasonalbe to assume that the Ukraine playing nice with the EU is important especially if that means the US getting another ally within the EU??
The Ukraine has stabbed the U.S., stabbed Russia, and cosied up to France and Germany.
In the short term, France and Germany will pretend to lure the Ukraine into NATO. Over the long term, France and Germany will lure the Ukraine into the new EU military...a military that specifically *excludes* Russia and the U.S.
There are two different issues. For the sake of Le Grandeur of France's lost foothold in Lebanon, and because Chirac just had his nose rubbed in a large pile of camel s*** by Assad Junior, we can expect their cooperation on getting Syria out and they may even (for show) be allowed to appear to take the lead.
But for anything that might involve overthrowing Assad and his Baath Socialist Allawi dictatorship, the EU may turn out to be as much or more of a problem than they were with Iraq. With a few exceptions (Britain and Poland, for instance) these are not brave or risk taking people we're talking about and they have a visceral dislike and envy for everything we stand for or will try to do.
It's really hard to overstate the size of the political risk Bush took in deposing Saddam. The man gambled his presidency on an exercise most "experts" thought would turn into an unmitigated disaster. The Europeans and leftists everywhere are still denying a reality that is staring them in the face. Every time they use the words "quagmire" and "catastrophe" for something that has gone 95% right it shows that they just cannot believe they could have been wrong while a man they thought to be "stupid" has accomplished what would have just a short time ago been thought to be a miracle.
It would be pathetic if they weren't so annoying and self righteous about something they were so completely wrong about.
Another complication, and what might encourage the entrance of the EU into the matter, is Turkey. Turkey wants to join the EU and may sign off on an EU action in Syria or give tacit approval so as to keep its own membership proposal active, even though Turkey hasn't had the strength to make a difference in the region for a long time.
But I can't see them going into Syria or even being supportive unless they were given a green light to take care of the "Kurdish Problem" as part of the deal. Also, based on the experience on the Iraqi border, if we and/or some combination of EU countries decide to try and take military action against the Assad regime in Syria, the Turks might not try to prevent it, but it would make them anything but happy to see another chunk of a future Kurdistan appear on another section of their border. It's a tricky problem for them and for us.
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.