Posted on 03/20/2017 10:56:47 AM PDT by elhombrelibre
Key Takeaway: Russian President Vladimir Putin's primary objective in Syria is to constrain U.S. freedom of action - not fight ISIS and al Qaeda. Russia's military deployments at current levels will not enable the Iranian-penetrated Assad regime to secure Syria. Moscow's deepening footprint in Syria threatens America's ability to defend its interests across the Middle East and in the Mediterranean Sea. The next U.S. step in Syria must help regain leverage over Russia rather than further encourage Putin's expansionism.
Russia's intervention in Syria in September 2015 fundamentally altered the balance of the Syrian Civil War.Russia re-established momentum behind Syrian President Bashar al Assad and his Iranian allies at a moment when major victories by ISIS and Syrian rebels threatened to force the regime to contract into Syria's central corridor.The capabilities Russia deployed were not limited to the airframes, artillery, and personnel needed to conduct a counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency mission, however. Russia deployed advanced air defense and ballistic missile systems, naval units, air superiority aircraft, and other capabilities in a display of major Russian force projection in the region. Russian President Vladimir Putin is altering the balance of power in Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean through sustained Russian military operations and additional deployments of high-end capabilities.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign.r20.constantcontact.com ...
You should hate the neo’s. They’re not apologist for the Russian imperialism.
By Russian Imperialism I assume you are referring to Ukraine/Crimea?
Are you aware of the history of Ukraine and Crimea?
I refuse to concede that is Imperialism.
Imperialism is when we tried to pull Ukraine from their historical place in the Russian sphere of influence (if not outright possession) into EU/NATO. The same can be said of the Baltics and Georgia.
And you can save your “Putinista” shaming. that sh!t doesn’t work around here anymore.
You support Putin where ever he wants his troops to go. You support Assad despite his aid to those who killed Americans in Iraq. I don't doubt that you hate all that will support freedom. So be as shameless as you please. Your malice is transparent.
You are accusing me of things not in evidence. I have not expressed support for Putin or Assad.
Is that how you want to be known around here?
And on the subjects of Russia and Syria, your position aligns 100% with Obama’s.
And Clinton’s.
You’re the one who thinks Ukraine is a Russian possession. Is that how you want to be known, as a man who implies the freedom of others is whatever your pal putin says it is? Think about it, and why you believe putin gets to own other nations than the one he is president for life in now.
Apparently, you, who art without shame, don’t know the policies of the current president and what CENTCOM and EUCOM are executing. If you did, you’d realize you’ve been bamboozled. Your president is not a dupe of the KGB thug putin. You’d be angry that the wicked “neo-con” policies are being carried out. LOL.
The only time I have mentioned Putin is in response to you, and never on this site as an advocate.
However, I believe Ukraine is clearly in the sphere of Russian influence and has been since 1763. Catherine the Great built the city of Odessa from a swampland. And the Russians freed Crimea from the Islamist Khanate.
Then the Russians twice defended Crimea from the Western Nations and lost over 1.5million men buried there.
Ukraine is to Russia what Texas is to America. They will fire every nuke they have to keep it.
And you are foolhardy enough to try to take it from them?
Historical precedent is not reasoning.
Unless there has been a permanent transformation of a Russian ideology that would align Russian interests with that of the interests of the US and the western powers, the west should maintain the strategy of containment as expressed by Kennan.
However, as of now, the overall interests of the west are not the same as the interests of Russia, and Russia is by no means among the West in terms of GDP or any other economic or democratic standard.
Instead, Russia is a will be for the foreseeable feature an economic basket case that lacks the democratic institutions that define the West.
We should deny them a warm water port because they are not Democratic in the Western mold?
Should we use whatever military force is necessary to accomplish this goal?
Instead, we should maintain our control of access to Europe and the energy resources that can be accessed via the Dardanelles.
I think it’s time to look again at what our interests are.
I don’t believe it’s a core interest of the US to ensure Europe has access to resources in the middle east and southern Asia. They have the means and ability to do that for themselves. If they choose not to, how can we care?
As for spheres of influence, where does Russia threaten us?
I suggest it’s only in their own historic sphere. Maybe because it’s the extent of their ability to project power. But also maybe because that’s the extent of their ambition.
The key takeaway in the OP cannot be a surprise to anyone, even if some freepers don’t like the source it should be obvious that the Russians are acting in self interest. It may or may not be specifically to hamstring US maneuvers but generally to gain a toehold in the mideast. They were shut out of the region entirely (except for one small naval port in Syria) after Carter’s Camp David accords flipped Egypt to the West.
Another issue that surely must be a factor is the upcoming gas pipeline from Israel to Europe. For those who don’t know Israel has discovered massive underwater gas reserves. Currently, Europe is almost entirely dependent on Russia for natural gas imports and Russian enterprises have over 90% market share into Europe. The new pipelines - being routed through Turkey and Cyprus iirc, will provide Europe a second source and reduce Russian market share and EU dependency. Having a warm water Mediterranean port allows Russia to project more power and influence over the gas. I am not suggesting they would attack it unprovoked but having the capability is a chess board move and will draw EU and NATO attention and resources.
You have it backwards. It's we who should align ourselves with the current (now going on for 25 yrs and growing) Russian ideology.
They are, anti homosexual agenda, pro life, pro family/marriage, a united democracy with +70% Putin support, anti sharia and caliphate to top it off. The list is a lot longer.
In the ME supporting Assad they accomplished more in one year countering our 5 years supporting the brotherhood re Egypt and Syria at a fraction of the cost.
The "interests of the western powers" has submitted to a take over by Islam over Christianity and western civilization as we known it. Do you want that?
Good job on your posts. I nominate you for a position as Trumps foreign affairs adviser.
How can Russia be pro life when it has the highest abortion rate in the world?
“I don’t believe it’s a core interest of the US to ensure Europe has access to resources in the middle east....”
As it pertains to natural resources in the Middke East, how does one delineate the interests between the United and Europe?
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.