Obama Versus Putin: The Making of Another Great Power Proxy War in the Quicksand of Syria
Ehsan M. Ahrari
The United States has announced that its Special Forces will participate in ground operations in Syria against ISIS. That announcement contradicts President Barack Obama’s previous assurances that there would be no American forces participating in ground operations. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter went beyond the aforementioned statement by noting that such Special Forces operations would increase in the future. Is President Obama breaking his frequently iterated promise of no troops on the ground, or is it just a crucial tactical adjustment? Has he quietly reached a moment of desperation whereby he sees his promise of “no boots on the ground” has been overcome by events (OBEs); or has he decided to outdo Russian President Vladimir Putin in his own determination to take drastic action to save the regime of Bashar al-Assad? At this point, Obama’s decision appears to include factors mentioned in both questions. Putin, for his part, seems to have forgotten that military involvement in a Muslim country may turn out to be too costly for Russia. He seems to have forgotten the lessons of the Afghan war of the 1980s.
Things are not going well for the United States in Syria. Despite its heavy reliance on air power (as an alternative to committing ground troops) to degrade and then eradicate ISIS, the latter has yet to lose its effectiveness. The United States decided to rely on recruiting, training, and equipping the so-called moderate Islamists to fight ISIS. It originally allocated $580 million to train and equip those individuals. But the chief restriction imposed on those recruits was that they would only engage in fighting ISIS and not the Assad regime.
To Washington’s dismay, much of the US-supplied equipment and vehicles quickly fell into the hands of Al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate). The next twist in the policy, according to the Wall Street Journal, was, instead of training the moderate rebels, it was also to equip them. The “equip” part of the program was to be “dramatically reduced to providing weapons to some 5,000 friendly moderate Syrian rebels to carry on the fight against both ISIS and presumably, against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.” Senator John McCain was spot-on when he observed that the Obama administration’s insistence that rebels fight only against ISIS was a “fundamental flaw.”
The greatest American hesitation has been about providing heavy equipment to the anti-ISIS forces. Sadly, from Washington’s perspective, the pro-American Syrian insurgents have not impressed the American advisors with their fighting capabilities. In addition, their loyalty to the American objectives of ridding the country of ISIS first conflicted with the Syrian insurgents’ own intense desire to defeat pro-regime forces first.
The US-Turkish alliance also suffers from intricate problems of its own. Turkey remains focused on ousting Assad first, but it also remains acutely worried about enabling the Kurdish forces to emerge as an effective fighting force. Ankara has also remained vexed about the possibilities that the territories liberated by the Kurdish forces are likely to become an integral part of Kurdistan, which is the dream of Kurds of all political stripes. Thus, “Turkey appears to be actively working at direct odds with U.S. anti-ISIS strategy, having attacked Kurdish groups in Syria—the same groups that the United States recently armed and counts among its ‘capable partners’….”
The United States, on the contrary, has a high degree of trust in the commitment of the Kurdish forces to fight, degrade, and destroy ISIS. However, it has to be careful about not antagonizing the government of President Recep Erdogan. Thus, while the Kurds are fighting ISIS, they are also frequently targeted by the Turkish Air Force. That is also one more reason why the United States is careful about not increasing the fighting capabilities of the Kurdish forces by supplying them with heavy equipment. There is a great possibility that those arms might also be used against the Turkish forces.
America’s other problem is that no Arab country is ready or willing to commit its ground troops to the Syrian theater of operations. As much as everyone claims to despise ISIS and its ghastly tactics, no Arab regime is willing to commit ground forces and then becoming a powerful target of ISIS global propaganda that it is killing Sunni Muslims.
Russia has studied the modalities of America’s involvement in Iraq and Syria within a Machiavellian framework. If the United States were to be effective in defeating or at least substantially weakening ISIS forces in either of those countries, Russia would have stayed out of the fray. However, President Obama’s overly cautious approach—indeed, his sustained refusal to commit ground troops to Syria or Iraq—has provided Russia with a superb window of opportunity. Putin fired his opening salvo on behalf of Bashara Assad in September 2013, when the latter violated Obama’s declared “red line” by using chemical weapons. As the United States was poised to take limited military action against the Assad regime as punishment, Putin came up with the suggestion that Assad transfer the ownership of his chemical weapons stock to an outside body. The United States readily accepted that palpably sensible proposition. However, the Russian President had an ambitious agenda up his sleeve. He operates as a believer of that old adage: Nature abhors a vacuum (Horror vacui).
Undoubtedly, Russia has been looking for a long-term, if not a permanent, presence in the Middle East, since its ouster from Egypt by President Anwar Sadat in 1972. It has a naval base in Syria, but the potential ouster of Assad from power would have permanently closed that facility. As an integral aspect of his profound desire to reestablish Russia as one of the great powers to have a major say in the future power plays in the Middle East, Putin needed an even a larger Russian presence. He has already made significant overtures by reaching out to the Egyptian dictator, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, in the form of arms sales, and promises of further boosting that aspect of Russo-Egyptian ties in the future. Russia has been well on its way to filling that vacuum.
Putin asserted Russia’s influence in Syria with a bang. He sent bombers to Syria ostensibly for bombing ISIS; however, in reality, he started targeting the US-backed Syrian insurgents, who were already facing an uphill battle because of America’s legalistic requirement of vetting them first, training them, and only then supplying them with light weapons. On the contrary, Putin instantly went after the US-backed insurgents for the explicit purpose of weakening or even eradicating them. That was the most assured way of saving the Assad regime, according to his calculations. Bombing ISIS was only his secondary objective, especially considering the fact that the Iranian Quds forces and Hezbollah were already carrying the heavy baggage of fighting ISIS.
Putin plan seems to be working for him, at least for now. Russia has emerged as a major player. He has already entered into negotiations with the United States, Iran, and Saudi Arabia over the future of Syria. The Saudis themselves have approached Moscow to inquire about the modalities of the post-Assad era, a topic that is most irrelevant to Putin as long as Russia and Iran have an upper-hand in the Syrian theater of operations. More to the point, Putin has managed to elevate his country as a coequal of the United States, as the American and Russia military officials have started regularly coordinating their air attack plans to eliminate any potential for a mishap.
The Obama administration has maintained that it has no intention of deploying ground troops in Syria. Thus, the decision to insert a small number of US Special Forces is merely a tactical adjustment. As President Obama is becoming increasingly focused on his legacy of not becoming a party to another war in Syria, Putin seems to have calculated that the path to Russia’s advantage leads through the battlefields of Syria, especially while Moscow’s ally, Iran, is bearing the major brunt of the ground fight and the resultant losses in its war against ISIS.
The Syrian conflict has all the markings of transforming itself into another proxy war between two major powers a la the Afghanistan war of the 1980s. One feature of that war materialized when Putin decided to plunge his country into the Syrian quagmire. The ghosts of the Afghan war are awakening in the battlefields of Syria, when one considers the fact that heavy weapons are once again emerging as the game changer of winning that conflict. While reports surged that the Russian bombing decimated the heavy weapons used by ISIS fighters, there was also a report that the United States and Saudi Arabia were supplying heavy weapons to pro-US forces. In the meantime, 55 Saudi Wahhabi clerics have declared a Jihad against the Russian forces. As consummate practitioners of Machiavellian power game, one can be rest assured that Putin’s advisors are busy calculating the long-term implications of their boss’ decision to plunge them into the quicksand of Syria.
About the Author(s)
Comments
Everyone, I believe, should read -- and re-read frequently -- the following "War on the Rocks" article entitled: "America Did Hybrid Warfare Too"
http://warontherocks.com/2015/04/america-did-hybrid-warfare-too/
Here is the very model that Putin appears to be using to wage proxy war against the U.S. the West in the New/Reverse Cold War of today.
Thus, one finds Putin today -- much as one would have found Reagan back-in-the day -- using:
a. "Hybrid warfare," etc., in support of
b. "Containment" efforts vis-a-vis the opponent's "expansionist" designs; this,
c. In the more important areas of one's own back yard/one's critical "sphere of interest."
The reality -- and the dilemma -- that the Soviets/the communists faced in their "expansionist" interests in Central America in the Old Cold War;
This would appear to be the exact same reality and exact same dilemma that the U.S./the West faces today in our New/Reverse Cold War of today, and re: our "expansionist" designs in Russian's back yard/"sphere of interest."
This being -- and as expressed in the referenced "War on the Rock" article relating to our "contaiment" efforts in the Old Cold War:
"Employed as part of a broader strategy, what hybrid warfare did was allow the United States to carry out open-ended competition and signal certain confidence that the value of protecting the U.S. sphere of interest was greater than any opponent’s interest in upsetting it."
In the pargraph above, and re: our New/Reverse Cold War of today, simply substitute the words "Russian" for "United States" and "U.S." to understand everything?
You're falling into the trap of the article above: treating Syria as a binary US vs Russia fight, which it is obviously not. There's a huge difference in commitment level. The Russians have a clear interest at stake, the US does not. The Russians have a clear goal, the US does not. The Russians are in it up to their eyeballs and sinking; the US is dabbling from the sidelines with little, if anything, to lose. Everything about this Russian campaign, from the crude and pointless internet trolling to the attempt to reanimate the corpse that is the Assad regime, has failure written all over it. No reason at all for the US to commit to that conflict, and countless reasons not to.
Slipping someone a bit of aid here and there does not make them a proxy. A tool, maybe.
This reflexive notion that the US should somehow match the Russian commitment, for no clear reason, is thoroughly absurd and is wisely being ignored.
The idea that the US is somehow "losing" a proxy war in Syria is laughable. The US has no proxy, no vital interest at stake, no need to be involved in the fight at all. The reasoning here, using the term very loosely indeed, seems to be that if the Russians jump into quicksand the US should jump in and join them there. I see no logic al all in that. The Russians want to play in that pen, let them. They are only going to sink into their own mess, and there is no reason at all for the US to join them there.
Russia wants Turkey out of NATO--why--it has the largest standing combat ready Army in all of NATO and it has paid it dues in preforming countless NATO and UNSC missions over the last 30 years and watns to be a regional player which it should be.
So Obama instead of running for the hills should actually be defending Turkey every step of the way even if he thinks otherwise.....this is a war of perceptions and he is not even in the game......
Notice how Russian info war attempts to split NATO one of the three declared geopolitical Putin goals.....from the main Russian info warfare media outlet...elegantly using a quoted US media source
http://sputniknews.com/military/20151126/1030816707/turkey-nato-members…
Farewell Time: Turkey is ‘Problem Child’ NATO Needs to Ditch
19:23 26.11.2015Get short URL
With the changing times and different threats the international community is currently facing, Turkey should be removed from NATO, the US magazine American Thinker said.
Turkey's admission into NATO in 1952 had a clear military purpose — the country's membership was supposed to help the Western alliance to avoid Soviet expansion in the region. From the Western point of view, it might have been the right decision to make during the Cold War era.
However, right now NATO doesn't need Turkey and it's time to ditch Ankara, especially after finding out that the Turkish government has ties with Islamic extremists in the Middle East, the US newspaper said.
"Old adversaries need to be re-evaluated, as do old ‘allies' — which were never likely allies to begin with… The time has come: Turkey should be removed from NATO," the American Thinker reported.
Turkey Aims to Turn Su-24 Incident Into Russia-NATO Row - Egypt Foreign Council
Turkey has always been "the problem child in NATO," the magazine said. The Turkish government has been using its NATO membership as an effective tool to achieve its own political goals, which don't coincide with NATO's interests.
In 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus, causing a split in NATO, which resulted in Greece withdrawing its forces from the alliance until 1980. Then in 2012, after repeated and deliberate airspace violations the Syrian Air Force shot down a Turkish plane causing NATO unwanted headaches.
According to the American Thinker, Turkey has always had Islamic ties due to its complex history. Under the protection of its NATO membership, Turkey managed to increase its influence in the region to the point that it supported ISIL by carrying out illegal oil sales with the terrorist organization, the US magazine said.
Following the rise of ISIL and a series of terrorist attacks in Europe, the EU and the United States need to defeat ISIL. NATO can't afford to have a country that "pretends to be a friend while stabbing [the West] in the back" and that's why Turkey needs to be dropped from the Western alliance, the American Thinker explained.
Instead, NATO should find a common ground with Russia since both parties are currently involved in the fight against Islamic extremism.
The Russian Su-24 Fencer bomber was shot down by two Turkish F-16s Tuesday morning while conducting operations over Syria.
One of the pilots from the downed Su-24 was rescued by the Syrian Army Tuesday morning. The other pilot was killed by fire from the ground after ejecting from the plane. A Russian naval infantry soldier also lost his life after an Mi-8 chopper was downed during a rescue operation.
The Turkish president said that Ankara acted in line with its sovereign right to respond to threats, claiming that the Russian jet had violated Turkish airspace. However, flight data released by the Russian Ministry of Defense shows that the Su-24s never entered Turkey, and were attacked while performing legitimate maneuvers over Syria.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...cid=soc-tw-rdr
What happens when Russia is fighting a proxy war against the US and the US is not fighting back....interesting concept....
Proxy Wars
Russia's Intervention in Syria and What Washington Should Do
By Tom Cotton
The attacks by the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) in Paris have forced a major rethinking of U.S. strategy in the Syrian conflict. A part of that rethinking must be U.S. President Barack Obama’s unwise decision to treat Russia as a legitimate partner in negotiations over Syria’s future.
At the G-20 meeting in Turkey this week, Russia quickly offered itself as a key partner in the fight against ISIS and the stabilization of Syria, and Obama again expressed his willingness to entertain that notion.
This is a grave mistake. Rather than being a constructive partner, President Vladimir Putin’s Russia has been engaged in a proxy war against the United States in Syria, despite Obama’s protestations to the contrary. And when an enemy wages war against the United States, it does not get to choose whether it is at war; its only choice is to win or lose. Right now, the United States is losing the proxy war in Syria—and a wider competition for regional influence—against Russia. And it will continue to do so without a dramatic shift in policy to confront Russian aggression.
A PROXY WAR AND THE WIDER STRUGGLE
In Syria, Putin professes that he wants to fight ISIS, but this is mere posturing.
Continued......
Outlaw: Happy Thanksgiving !
Re: my New/Reverse Cold War thesis below (and elsewhere), note the following from your Russian expert, Evelyn Farkas, at the Politico Magazine article you provided us below:
"As regrettable as it is to go back, in a sense, to a Cold War-type confrontation, it will be increasingly difficult not to do so as long as Russia continues on its current course."
This "current course," I suggest, in Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere today, is for Putin, et. al, to try to prevent the U.S./the West from transforming these (and other) states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines.
(Much as the U.S./the West, in the Old Cold War sought, via various ways and various means, to prevent the Soviets/the communists from transforming other states and societies more along communist political, economic and social lines.)
Back-in-the-day, and re: our such "containment" designs, we had, used and protected our share of brutal/terrible dictators. But they did help us get the "containment" job done. Yes?
Thus, in our New/Reverse Cold War of today, might we say that Putin -- who today is in the "containment" mode -- simply wishes to follow our such Old Cold War example -- brutal dictators and all?
Given the U.S./the West's success in using "containment" against the Soviets/the communists (back when they were doing "expansion" in the Old Cold War)
Then does it not make sense that Putin would want to turn the tables on us today and give us a taste of our very own medicine?
Bottom Line:
The U.S./the West, in the Old Cold War, "wrote the book" on "containment"/"roll back", etc.
In our New/Reverse Cold War of today, Putin et. al, -- now in the "containment"/"roll back" mode themselves -- versus the U.S./the West's "expansionist" designs of today -- to be seen as, essentially, following the example and guidance provided by this very excellent book?
Happy Thanksgiving from Berlin......work day here and currently sitting on a customers global network that is struggling due to the dark side of the net problem...eating a really large turkey tomorrow evening with a large number of German friends and their kids.......with all the trimmings....might not be in the US and on the wrong day, but it is the circle of friends that counts in the end....listening in the headset to Country Music 108 via the net and watching zeros and ones fly by.......going to be a really long long night...strange world we live in these days....
pic.twitter.com/2b3X7A3e7B
Really worth listening to this commenter---he states much of what we here at SWJ have also said ie Robert Jones and what the West does not want to hear about the ME.
Not sure the WH fully understands this....
Iyad El-Baghdadi @iyad_elbaghdadi · 29 Oct 2014
The official video of my speech at @OsloFF is out, captioned in English & Arabic. Please watch, comment, and share:
http://bit.ly/1tP86g0
Who is actually advising Obama on his support to the Kurds as the only viable force capable of taking own IS........
Seems kurdish #YPG change its politics- try to expand & gain new territory instead of only defend it
-Imperialism-
Russian (#RuAF) targeted Rebels position on the outskirts of Azaz and Al-Malikiyah. Russia supporting #YPG.
https://twitter.com/aboferasalhalab/status/669930721914568704 ….
In Arabic....
Syria Kurdish #YPG try to storm #FSA held arab villages in northern #Aleppo
If #Assad wins the war he will also finish their independence
Why is it that when these writers are no longer part of the administration they tend to speak truth to power.............she was the DoD expert of Russia and especially Putin AND absolutely ignored by the Obama WH and NSC....AND when she spoke power to truth Obama did not like it..
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...irspace-213393
Putin Is Testing Our Resolve
A former senior Pentagon adviser says recent Russian incursions into NATO airspace are evidence of the Kremlin’s growing aggressiveness.
By Evelyn Farkas
November 24, 2015
If the Turkish military shoot-down of a Russian SU-24 fighter aircraft is a “stab in the back,” as President Vladimir Putin characterized it on Tuesday, then the knife wound came after some very loud footsteps from behind and shouts of “Here I come!” Following recent Russian incursions into Turkish airspace, in other words, no one should be surprised.
On October 3 and 4, Russian fighter jets first veered into Turkish airspace. Both incursions were met with sharp warnings from Ankara, as well as from NATO headquarters and Washington. In one official explanation, the Russian military blamed weather conditions—which an Internet search demonstrated were excellent. And Tuesday, according to the Turkish government, the Russian pilots were warned 10 times before their plane was dispatched to the ground.
We may never learn definitively whether the pilots strayed into Turkish airspace accidentally or whether this incursion was a test of Turkish and NATO resolve. But considering Putin’s past behavior, we should go on the assumption that it is the latter.
In the end, it is Russia that is wielding the knife here—shredding international law and conventions that have held firm for decades. The hard cold truth is that the sum of Russia’s agenda, not just in Syria but globally, runs counter to the values and interests of the United States, its allies and partners. Russia’s challenge is so fundamental to the international system, to democracy and free market capitalism that we cannot allow the Kremlin’s policy to succeed in Syria or elsewhere.
As regrettable as it is to go back, in a sense, to a Cold War-type confrontation, it will be increasingly difficult not to do so as long as Russia continues on its current course. As a former senior State Department official said to me recently, “The only thing worse than bilateral escalation is unilateral escalation.” If we fail to counter Russia’s actions, deterring and responding to Russia will become more difficult over time and we will be forced to do so having already lost the initiative. For this reason, even while the coalition expresses genuine interest in cooperating with Russia to fight ISIL, Turkey’s shoot-down of the Russian SU-24 makes sense.
The problem we in the West have, apart from ISIL, is Russia. While we must do everything to avoid miscalculation or conflict with the Russia, we must demonstrate resolve on small probes or even what may be accidental air incursions. If we don’t do so, in an excess of caution, the result could well be that we only embolden Russia. Let’s keep the stakes low.
The confrontation between Turkey and Russia comes at a time when Putin is already testing transatlantic unity over Syria policy by attempting to forge a new coalition with France to respond to the ISIL attacks specifically on Paris and on the Russian Metrojet airliner over the Sinai. It remains to be seen what action Putin may take to retaliate against Turkey for the downing of the aircraft. There are potential targets; the two countries have strong trade and economic ties, with Turkey providing a major tourist destination for Russians and Russia providing over half of Turkey’s natural gas. But relations were already soured because of the fundamental difference between Russia and the U.S.-led coalition’s policy toward Syria.
In Syria, Russia’s main objective—despite occasional official comments indicating that Moscow is not wedded to Bashar Assad per se, or to his staying in power indefinitely—is to keep Assad in power. The one indicator of this intent is Russian military action; the fact is, Russian airstrikes have mainly targeted Syrian opposition forces, not ISIL. Meanwhile, try as Putin might to fracture coalition or NATO unity, the United States, Turkey and France are adamant that the dictator who used chemical weapons and barrel bombs against his citizens be removed.
So even if Russia starts targeting ISIL increasingly as part of bilateral cooperation with France or an arrangement with the U.S.-led coalition, we’ll still have a big gap in overall objectives, as President Barack Obama made clear at his news conference with French President François Hollande on Tuesday. "We've got a coalition: 65 countries," Obama said. "Russia right now is a coalition of two: Iran and Russia supporting Assad." The world and the Syrian people are crying for a political compromise, but an arrangement acceptable to Russia and the coalition, as well as Syrian opposition leaders, Saudi Arabia and Iran, is not in sight.
The chief obstacle, again, is Russia.
Russia’s objectives in Syria are driven by Putin’s overall political objectives. Those include: 1) Retaining his position as the leader of the Russian Federation and preserving the autocratic political system and mafia-style crony economy that together comprise “Putinism”; 2) restoring Russia’s status as a great power, prospering economically and militarily and capable of not only balancing but checking U.S. and Western power; 3) rewriting the international rules and norms to prevent interventions in sovereign affairs of states to protect its citizens; 4) maintaining political control of Russia’s geographical periphery (Europe/Eurasia and Central Asia) to ensure economic access and to provide a geopolitical buffer zone against purported NATO encirclement; and 5) breaking NATO, the European Union and transatlantic unity.
To achieve these objectives, Russia has invaded neighboring countries, occupied their territory, and funded NGOs and political parties not only in its periphery but also in NATO countries. It has exerted economic pressure through its near monopoly of oil and gas supply and through its corrupt ties with elites worldwide. And it has used lies and propaganda to influence ethnic Russian populations and the international community and to confuse policy debates. In Syria, as in Ukraine, military force is being used to set the diplomatic table; much as Slobodan Milosevic did in the 1990s during the war in Bosnia, the map created by the fighting will determine the new baselines for negotiations.
While the United States and its allies intervene to try to save Syria’s citizens from further abuse from their dictator, the Russian government intervenes to save the ruthless leader. True, we can forge a temporary alliance with Russia against ISIL, and we should. Retribution should rain down, and ISIL should be eliminated. This is one important element of any Syrian settlement. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that Assad can never be regarded as a legitimate leader again.
Meanwhile, Russia is not finished in Ukraine; its military equipment and forces in Ukraine and over the border can and may be moved into renewed action. It is not finished in Georgia or Moldova, and if Belarus continues to resist the new base Moscow wants to build there, what will happen next? Kremlin officials are making noises about Afghanistan and putting pressure on the Central Asian states. Putin likes to surprise his opponents and keep them off balance. If Russia’s Syria intervention stalls, the temptation to strike again elsewhere will be that much greater.
So we must look up from Syria and beyond Syria and forge a consistent policy that prioritizes political, economic and military assistance to allies and partners globally in the face of Russian pressure. Senior U.S. officials must be present in the vulnerable Russian periphery—as Secretary of State John Kerry was recently (in Central Asia). And diplomats must focus again on the former Yugoslavia, where Russia is attempting to take advantage of existing political tensions to undermine the existing central governments and integration with NATO and the EU. In the NATO context, we must continue to build our ability to deter Russia militarily, and we must provide assistance to allies to break their dependence on Russian military hardware. The Defense Department should also continue to provide training for territorial defense to Ukraine, but also to Georgia and Moldova. Defensive lethal assistance (mainly anti-tank weapons) should be provided to those countries so they have a chance at deterring the larger, more ready Russian forces. We must also devise additional economic means to pressure Russia. We cannot take for granted the low oil prices that have fortuitously assisted us so far. At some point, the price of oil will increase.
If the MH-17 tragedy in 2014, where Russian separatists shot down a commercial airliner, didn’t demonstrate the fact that Russia’s challenge is international, Moscow’s actions in Syria have. We must continue to work with the international community—non-transatlantic allies and partners, including Japan, Israel, Australia and Malaysia, among others—to hold Russia accountable for the MH-17 crash, the violation of the Budapest memorandum, which offered political assurances to Ukraine in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons, and for failing to implement the Minsk agreements in Ukraine. Finally, Russia must answer for its violations of and poor compliance with arms control agreements—first and foremost the INF Treaty—and come into compliance or face consequences.
We need to steel ourselves and outmaneuver Moscow so that U.S. national security interests and objectives prevail.
RuAF targeted @ihhinsaniyardim, convoy in Azaz. IHH is a Turkish charity with long-suspected ties to AQ.
Note that @EliotHiggins's playlist of videos from today's bombing in Azaz doesn't show secondary explosions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJEfPLBkqxQ&list=PLPC0Udeof3T61Y093_1Le… …
So the Turkish aid convoy was not carrying munitions and or arms it appears..
NOT like those carried by Russian humanitarian aid convoys into eastern Ukraine which then triggers attacks every time they come in and photos have indicated Russian military supplies are in the aid convoys.
SO an interesting comparison--- legally can now the Ukraine shell those Russian aid convoys using the exact same logic Putin is using in Syria....especially since the Russian convoys are entering the Ukraine fully illegally and uncontrolled?
Western MSM coverage of this is exactly where again.....???
Russian destruction of civilian infrastructure---exactly the same tactic in the Ukraine and the West said not a single word THEN....
Syria 7 #Russia'n airstrikes hit the big water purification plant for #Aleppo at Euphrates
http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=36...11193&z=16&m=b …
This Russian AF use of cluster munitions was carried immediately by social media BUT not picked up by MSM until this article---and one wonder why the Turks shot down the SU24?
Russia drops cluster bombs on Syrian camp http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article4623770.ece …
While the Obama WH tends to want to talk to Putin even after his invasion of eastern Ukraine will all that destruction--he has not said a single comment on the killing of civilians, and bombing of churches, hospitals and residential areas using dumb bombs, cluster munitions and WP....not a single word.
So maybe Turkey finally got fed up with the inaction by western countries in finally throwing out Assad.
Why did Obama deliberately slow down the supply of TOWs to FSA--KSA and Qatar are the major suppliers and they only supply when the US "allows" it..
Obama has his ground army and it is fully capable of taking on IS but they want to eliminate Assad first--is Obama trying to appease Putin in holding FSA back so Putin can get rid of Assad--that will never happen in my life time so why does Obama think it will happen in his lifetime?
So WHY the slow down...........???
News
The #FSA's "Coastal Division" in #Latakia didn't have TOWs to use for 3 weeks.
Two new vids just today ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V4E9jq261A …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQZ2WAW_IvU …
THIS happened also back in the summer when FSA was on a roll and pushing back Assad forces--is the US intent by Obama to not kick Assad out of power despite ALL his statements to the contrary???
OR is Obama trying to appease Putin in order to get him to reign in Assad--OR is this payback for Putin's efforts in the Iran Deal that Obama praised him for in his NYTs interview....
REALLY depicts a totally messed up foreign policy by this WH if in fact they deliberately slowed down the flow of the TOWs ALL the time claiming they have a anti IS strategy.
Right now Syria has nothing to do with a direct challenge between East and West but rather a dictator gone wild and committing genocide that is not being called that on a Sunni majority and that civil society going into a rebellion to push back on the genocide.....and this is critical---with no assistance from the West that rebellion slowly became more and more radicalized to simply survive in that ongoing genocide--who would blame a civil society in that development---it is normal and natural.
In turn that genocide on a Sunni majority and the closeness to Iran has triggered a full gauge religious war similar IMHO to the 100 and 30 years wars in Europe that virtually destroyed any living thing that was in the way until both religions sat down and decided to find a solution.
I have asked the question a number of times here--just who is the proxy in this fight---Russia and or Iran--I am tipping that Putin who inadvertently stumbled into being the proxy as his anti liberal drive against the US and his drive to be a superpower having a say in the ME blinded him to the religious war that was already ongoing. Putin has his goals for the ME and did not pushback when Iran approached him...just think that now he has no idea how he is going to get out as his so called army of Hezbollah, IRGC and Iraqi Shia militia is not gaining any ground since he has bombed for over now six weeks---at some point he might have to use his own round forces and that means loses for the home front...
Remember in the interview before his UNGA speech he openly stated he was not going to get into a religious war--wonder what he would say that now he has agitated Turkey to the point that I believe turkey is going to via their Army establish a NFZ and Putin and his ground supporters can not hold back the Turks. Those Turkish tanks being openly hauled to the border points was just not a game of I will show you who is stronger in Syria-it was real as Turkey is angered that Assad has not gone yet--their main geo goal for over four years and it is Putin who is hindering that move.
Ask the question--will Russia openly bomb A NATO force coming in to establish a security zone for the protection of civilians being bombed by Russia and Assad?
Also remember Turkey and the KSA are the two critical Sunni Front States.
The proxy wars of today might be seen and understood in much the same light as the proxy wars of yesterday, to wit: from the standpoint of:
a. One group of powerful nations (the Soviets/the communists during the Old Cold War; the U.S./the West in the New/Reverse Cold War today) seeking "expansion" -- of their unique way of life, their unique way of governance and their unique values, attitudes and beliefs. And
b. Another group of powerful nations (the U.S./the West during the Old Cold War; the Russians, et. al, in today's New/Reverse Cold War) seeking, via various ways and various means, to prevent such an expansion from happening.
If the above depiction of the "conflict environment" -- yesterday and today -- is accurate, then might we, today, question/challenge both Putin and, indeed, Obama's claim that their primary focus, currently, is simply on defeating ISIS?
Or should we, instead, see Syria and ISIS (etc., etc., etc.) more from the standpoint of today's New/Reverse Cold War; wherein, one group of powerful nations (the U.S./the West today) seeks "expansion" and another group of powerful nations (Russia, et. al currently) seeks to prevent such an expansion from taking place?
Another Russian contributor to the Syrian mess.....
Super Russian military technology......the actual cause of their shot down..??
2nd pic of a #Russia|n Su-24 fighter jet using consumer grade @Garmin GPS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH3TtpwPLqw …
Following downing of Russian SU24 by Turkish Air Force, militaristic-patriotic fervour in Russia (MSM/SM) is reaching fever pitch. Danger.
Putin is close to losing control of his own civil society by the constant barrage of info warfare propaganda directed at them...he might not want a war with NATO although some actually think this is his goal--he may have no other choice if the info war propaganda against his people continues at the pace it has set.
Is it really possible Putin is envisioning a true war at this time either in Syria (meaning against KSA who he views as being behind IS all along in Syria) and or the Ukraine with the open ramp up to fighting again.
A valid question....
Social media sums up Putin's S400 stationing move nicely.....
We've located our longest range AD missile system 60km from Turkey to continue our protection against ISIS flying carpets.
Real truth has to yet sink-in in DC--does the USAF now flying out of Turkey and well within range of the S400 HAVE to request permission to enter Syrian airspace to attack IS....think about that for a moment.
That is the true intent behind this move---Putin wants to force Obama to join his anti IS- proAssad front.
Note: NATO airbases Akrotiri (Cyprus) & Incirlik (Turkey) in range of S400s-also IAF Ramat David Airbase
AND Putin's intentions are to attack and destroy Islamic State???
About time Obama, his NSC and the DNI wake up??????
Checkmate is the game and we are not even in the game....
OK ---so who is now lying...sometimes lately I am not so sure even Putin and his inner circle really knows what they are doing and or are they just playing the game day to day with no real strategy....?
Putin now says S-300 systems going to Syria. Shoigu said S-400. Both? Or was one man mistaken?
Appears that actually both Putin and Obama are "trapped" in their analytical models combining also their respective biases.
INTERESTING development---appears that at least Putin listens to his military leadership something Obama does not do lately or at all.
Peskov has just said that Putin "has agreed to the MoD's proposal" to send S-400 instead of S-300.
ANOTHER Putin lie......
Several weeks ago social media already indicated theS400s are in Syria along with photos of their radars--- Russia denied BUT now.......
Depending on missile model, Russia’s S-400 could range over 1/2 of Turkey, all of Cyprus, all of Lebanon & south to Jerusalem & Israel-that's not counting the Med areas.
That is not a so subtle threat being carried out by Russia and yet Obama wants to talk and talk and talk....
AND this threat does not also cover the same Iranian geo political goals for the same areas???
When will the WH finally realize that both Russia and Iran share the same goals for the ME AND Syria---corner the Sunni Front States, drive up the price of oil and kick the US completely out of the ME.....
Yet Obama retrenches and retrenches and retrenches....
Direct Russian challenge to NATO and the US--with the S400 Russia will have airspace control and airspace denial abilities even into Israel, Turkey and the Med.
What will the Obama response be and far more important what will the Israeli response be if they cannot strike Hezbollah weapons shipments ie this week for example.
Putin has been looking for this excuse to state they clear intent which has always been there to station them PLUS the fire control and acquisition radars for the S400 are already in Syria--missing were the missiles--question is now have they been there the whole time??
Russia|n defense minister says they will deploy S-400 defense missile system to #Syria
BTW---with the S400s coming online in Kaliningrad (closing the Baltic), in the Crimea (closing the Black Sea/Azov Sea) and now in Syria (closing the Med)Russia will be establishing three critical air defense/air denial bubbles giving them virtual control of these three areas AND NATO cannot say and or do anything accept complain as the US ie Obama has retrenched so far back to the US---returning is next to impossible.
REMEMBER the Russian Navy shut down a large portion of the Med for three days for a "naval exercise" now what if they "exercise" for months and use the S400 to backup that closure?????
Russia(Propaganda) Sputnik News-"Turkey enters war on side of ISIS"(So bomb Turkey now?) http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151124/1030680429/turkey-isil-war-su2… …
pic.twitter.com/xdgX0y4ukP
QUOTE:
Turkey has officially entered the war on the side of ISIL by downing at the order of [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan a Russian aircraft which has participated in operations against Islamic terrorists in Syria,” the leading member of the Northern League (Lega Nord) Party wrote on his Facebook page.
According to Calderoli, Turkey is a “’Trojan Horse’ with which assistance the Islamic fundamentalism would like to take a clear shot at the West.”
“Why is Turkey still in NATO after what happened? What else can be expected of the UN apart from taking a strong stand on ISIL and its allies?” Calderoli wondered.
The politician has also criticized Rome's official stance.
“The Government [of Matteo Renzi] is on the wrong side with [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel, instead of taking the side of Putin in this war to defend our values, our freedom and our traditions,” Calderoli wrote.
So Turkey stabbed Russia in the back while Russia was fighting ISIS in an area where there is no ISIS around?
If Hurriyet's summary is correct, seems Turks told Russians on Friday what even the tiniest violation would provoke.
pic.twitter.com/ouDUUEXCSq
Russian state news really unleashing on Turkey tonight. Accusations of funding ISIS through oil trade, sheltering Caucasus militants, etc.
BUT what is not being said to the Russia public is that the allowance to land in the airports being used by Russian in Syria crosses Turkish airspace......
Secondly, all Russian sealift (Syrian Express) of military logistics to Syria also controlled by Turkey......think Dardanelles 1936.
Maybe that is why Russia is going extremely carefully in their response and using info war as the alternative to a strictly military response.
Even NATO is now "a mess"..........
How times #change ...
#NATO members 1949-1989: "We stand united."
NATO members 2015: "It wasn't us!"
US backpedals like crazy and states it is a Russia/Turkey thing.......Pentagon: "This is #Turkey and #Russia. We are focusing on #ISIL
Meanwhile, South West of #Damascus, #Russian jets continue to hit civilians in #FreeSyria's towns and villages.
ScorchedEarth, just like #Assad!
Heavy #RussianAirStrikes on the villages, lost yesterday south west of #Aleppo.
Most outlandish suggestion yet: Russia Su-24 shot down by Ukraine rockets on Washington's orders. @lifenews_ru.
http://lifenews.ru/news/171514
Russia has been striking churches, hospital, critical infrastructure that feeds the Syrian population, and residential areas with dumb bombs, cluster munitions and verified WP strikes and the civilian death rates are high from these types BUT not a word from the WH.
Russian info warriors are hard at work spinning the shot down as follows.....
Nataliya Vasilyeva
@NatVasilyevaAP Military analyst Korotchenko on Rus TV: the US is to blame because it supplied the rebels with the weapons capable of shooting down our jet.
BUT wait did not Turkey actually claim the shot down over their own air space so how does that work when the US is being accused....?
Info warriors prepping for the next round-the MANPADS were shipped to the FSA by the Ukrainians and they were Chinese MANPADs.....with full support of the US...
AND Putin is not in the creation of his own "mess" in Syria.....?
Russian SU-24 and Mi-8 destroyed, pilots killed. Bad - yes - but #Putin entered this war with open eyes. https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/669165026469658626 …
VIDEO showing rebels/Turkman shooting at pilots as they come down on parachutes
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Default.aspx?PageID=428&VideoID=819 …
US mil source; US pilots heard Turks warn Russian pilots on GUARD radio frequency. Multiple warnings, according to US pilots.@FoxNews
Again Putin mentions the US is supporting IS in his comments from today's events.......
Moment when #Russia'n fighter jet was shot down- filmed by #FSA coastal division
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Yx...ature=youtu.be …
Moment when #FSA destroyed #Russia'n Hind helicopter in #Latakia mountains today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isch...ature=youtu.be …
Syria rebels force #Russia helicopter into crash landing
http://mme.cm/6HAW00
Crash site of shot down #Russia'n helicopter in #Latakia mountains
https://vid.me/wS4d
The FSA’s 1st Coastal Division claims to have destroyed a Russia helicopter in Jebel al-Turkman with a TOW anti-tank missile. #Syria
Now confirmed...one POW held by FSA and one pilot KIA.
CNN Turk: "One pilot dead, the other one captured by Turkmen"
Telling move by Russia......
Russia's Foreign Minister cancelled his visit to Turkey tomorrow following the downing of the Russian jet probably did not want to have to hear from the Turks that his jet violated Turkish and NATO airspace and what was he going to do about it in the future..
One of the pilots identified by social media out of the Ukraine....
InformNapalm identified Russian pilot that was downed (Su-24)
https://informnapalm.org/en/informnapalm-s-ultimatum-to-russian-militar… …
pic.twitter.com/6mIFlQ2zoJ
Russian KIA pilot identified as major Rumyantsev Sergei Aleksandrovich (profile archive), a pilot of Su-24M aircraft (serial No. 0715323, photo archive) of the 6980th guards aviation base of the 1st class (military unit No. 69806, Chelyabinsk, Russia). The aviation group is based on Shagol airfield prior to his deploying to Syria.]
This is exactly just how confused the Russians are right now....
Expert on Russian TV: Syrian rebels could have shot down a Russian jet at 6000m if they were standing *really high up* on a mountain.
On Russian TV rolling coverage of the SU-24 shooting down centres around criticism of Turkey, Syrian opposition & the West (except France)
Here the official Russia version on the Su24 shoot down. From the ground at altitude of 6.000 m, they say. http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12066609@egNews …
Russia must hate it when the radar track confirms the Turkish version of events...
Turkey military reveals radar print of #Russia jet before shotdown, indicating the plane violated Turkish air space https://twitter.com/soncanemre/status/669097918742269953 …
Russian media reporting this....
Russian TV now discussing Turkish claim: "We know for certain the plane didnt leave Syrian airspace. So did the Turks get over-nervous?"
All seem to be in denial of the true reality of the world around them...that is a serious problem when one believes your own info warfare narrative.....
Blame someone else has been the standard Russian info war theme throughout their invasion of eastern Ukraine and now Syria...it's Nazi's, it's the junta, it's the UAF beating up on ethnic Russians and the list just goes on and on....to now it is IS yet they never seem to attack IS positions only FSA positions like today.....
Russian media ie TV is having a hard time with this shot down......
Oddly Rus TV suggesting plane shot down by rebels.
Anchor asks mil expert: "What chance they wont be captured by those who shot them down?"
They are not broadcasting the capture of one of the pilots....although the capture video is online already.
Cannot confirm if one is captured and or one is dead or both are dead....both chutes deployed.
Pic allegedly shows dead #Russian SU-24 pilot after being shot down by #Turkey. Unconfirmed.
via @sametdgn1
pic.twitter.com/VBJhV2Irws
Russia is now desperately trying to defuse a NATO/Russian direct engagement over NATO airspace....
In sep statement Russia's MoD said SU-24 seemed to be downed by ground fire (Turks say fighters shot it down). https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/669081746177138688 …
OR are they trying to blame the Ukraine as their info warriors have been claiming all week the UAF sent Chinese MANPADs to the FSA?????
4 days ago Turkey threatened 'serious consequences' if Russia didn't stop bombing Turkmen villages in north Syria.
pic.twitter.com/jrQMGPhfRJ
Putin truly hates to listen to others.....but maybe he should start......
Time to remember two statements: Turkish PM: "We will shoot down any airplane violating our airspace" http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/18/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turke… … ...
Ukrainian social media has some humor for Putin based on his constant denials of Russian troops inside eastern Ukraine......
Lavrov says the pilots of the downed Su-24 resigned yesterday, stole the plane early this morning and attacked turkey on their own wearing civilian clothes and while on a paid vacation
pic.twitter.com/VINUuqwai2
Putin needs to fully understand he is now in the true "fog of war"---this is his worst nightmare---how is he going to handle it with his info warriors for the home front??
The moment Turkman rebel fighters captured one of the two Russian pilots in #Latakia countryside.
Putin and Assad info warriors are pushing back massively claiming it is a video from 2013--meaning the shot down itself. But went silent when they saw the newer 2015 version being posted in full clarity.
They are though having a hard time disputing the FSA capture video just released.
Turkmen FSA allegedly holding the captured pilot in/near Ateera (عطيرة) in northern #Latakia, 3.5km from #Turkey.
Russia says its jet never left #Syria airspace
Turkey's military reportedly claims it bounced 10 warnings to #Russia’s Su-24 jet within the space of 5mins.
Perfect timing or terrible timing?
#Russia FM due to visit #Turkey tomorrow.
Search is on for the second pilot who ejected in the same area--but there are no Russian ground troops and or Iranian/Iraqi/Hezbollah troops nearby.
Side note: The Russian Ambassador had been called in this week by the Turks and bluntly warned concerning the bombing of the Turkman villages along the border...appears Russian arrogance paid a heavy price today......
QUESTION for Obama --after the blistering comments by the KSA concerning the total lack of any ME US plan and the continued bombing of Turkman villages and other FSA positions INSTEAD of IS positions which Putin claimed he has been doing HOW will Obama now keep MANPADS from entering into this war???
Not only was it violating Turkish airspace but pilot was given ample warnings as all other Russian jets
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-plane-shot-down-… …
Russia'n Defense Ministry confirms Sukhoi 24 fighter jet shot down at the #Turkey-#Syria'n border
NOW Obama has a true mess on his hands........
BREAKING.............
Turkey shot down fighter jet near border to #Syria #Latakia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoGAcgz9HOg&feature=youtu.be
Rebels downed Russian jet over Turkman Mount near Turkish boarders #Latakia countryside. --Initial report BUT then just came in......
Hard to tell, but the downed jet looks like a Sukhoi Su-24 (it was downed by #Turkey F-16s).
Syria/#Turkey Hard to tell what type of jet downed?
Video shows the Russian jet seems burning over Turkman Mount #Latakia.
Allegedly the location of the downed Russian jet near Turkish boarders in Turkman Mount #Latakia countryside.
In DC there arises again the idea of a Reset 2 with Putin......really??
That is what got the US into this mess in the first place....
Iran leader hosts Putin, says U.S. policies threaten Tehran, Moscow
http://reut.rs/1OnW8kV
Iran's supreme leader, at a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Tehran, said on Monday U.S. policies in the Middle East region were a threat to both countries and called for closer ties between Tehran and Moscow.
The civil war in Syria has evolved into a wider proxy struggle between global powers, with Russia and Iran supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while Western powers, Turkey and Gulf Arab states want him out.
"The Americans have a long-term plot and are trying to dominate Syria and then the whole region ... This is a threat to all countries, especially Russia and Iran," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, according to his website, at the meeting on the sidelines of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) Summit in Tehran.
"The United States is now trying to achieve its failed military objectives in Syria by political means," he added, referring to proposed peace talks to end the civil war in Syria.
At a meeting in Vienna this month following deadly attacks in Paris and Beirut, world powers, including Russia, the United States and countries from Europe and the Middle East agreed on a political process in Syria leading to elections within two years, but differences remained on key issues such as Assad's fate.
A Kremlin spokesman was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying that Putin and Khamenei had agreed at their talks that global powers should not impose their political will on Syria.
Putin, on his first visit to Iran since 2007, presented an old edition of the Koran, the Muslim holy book, to Khamenei, the Iranian leader's website said, publishing photos of the book.
Khamenei praised Putin for "neutralizing Washington's plots" and said economic relations between the two countries could "expand beyond the current level".
Tehran and Moscow have stepped up ties following a landmark nuclear deal in July between Iran and six world powers including Russia and the United States. Under the deal, Tehran agreed long-term curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions.
On Monday Putin relaxed an export ban on nuclear equipment and technology to Iran.
Iran's ambassador to Russia also said on Monday that Moscow had started the process of supplying Tehran with an S-300 anti-missile rocket system.
Russia and Iran are undertaking joint military action in support of Assad. Backed by Russian air strikes, hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived since late September to take part in a major ground offensive planned in western and northwestern Syria, their biggest deployment in the country to date.
KSA critic of the lack of any Obama concepts for the ME...well worth reading...a bulk of this article is totally correct thus it is a rather embarrassment to have the lack of a US strategy called out in the open by those ME allies that still do look to the US for leadership......the open question is though just how much longer "will they look towards the US for any form of leadership......???
BTW---this is one of the most frank and brutal responses from a close ally to the perceived US FP in the ME depicting in my opinion a total failure of Obama AND yet we debate here just why we have a mess in Syria and for that matter even eastern Ukraine...it is all tied together---"this is not simply Obama retrenchment--this is Obama abandonment plain and simple"....
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/20/gulf-states-in-the…
Opinion
Mr Secretary, the Gulf states would be ‘in the game’ on Syria if the US had a plan
Mohammed Alyahya
In a recent interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, the US secretary of defence, Ashton Carter, harshly criticised his country’s Arab Gulf allies for their eagerness to “build show-horse air forces” when they needed to be more like the Iranians who are “in the game, on the ground”.
He was obviously referring to Iran’s meddling in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. Carter said in the same interview that he rebuked the Gulf Cooperation Council states privately: “Guys, you come and complain to us but you’re not in the game. You have to get in the game.”
Had the United States listened to its Gulf allies’ advice since the beginning of the Arab uprisings there would be no sinister game that Carter could criticise the council for not playing. In fact it is Washington that should be criticised for no longer having a real game plan in the Middle East.
For the past four years, Saudi and Turkish officials have been lobbying Washington for a no-fly zone to limit Bashar al-Assad’s slaughter of his own people, and for a military intervention to topple the Iran-Russia-backed dictator. These calls went unheeded in Washington, where the administration’s policy has been disengagement rather than providing a coherent strategy to address the increasingly chaotic security architecture of the entire Middle East.
When Assad repeatedly used chemical weapons against his own people, President Obama threatened him with airstrikes. When Assad defied Obama’s threat and used chemical weapons yet one more time, Obama first hid behind Congress, and then gladly took a face-saving initiative from none other than Assad’s patron, Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.
But when it came to the flawed Iran deal, the president doggedly pursued it against the interests of America’s historic allies in the region. The inevitable aftermath was the recently witnessed intensification of Iran’s destructive interference in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.
In the short term, the deal is expected to release billions of dollars of frozen assets which the regime in Iran will use in backing more destructive activities by Hezbollah and the Houthis. In the long term, Iran is likely to increase its undue influence over the lives of millions in Arab lands – a prospect that will have a further destabilising effect in the region.
In reproaching the Gulf Cooperation Council for not being more assertive, Carter conveniently ignores the Saudi-led military and political effort to restore Yemen’s internationally recognised government and prevent the country from turning into a completely failed state. This, after all, was an effort that came in no small part as a response to Obama’s mantra demanding that US allies in the region learn to sort out their own problems independently as “America cannot solve all of the world’s problems”.
As to the reason why Saudi and the Gulf Cooperation Council’s efforts in the fight against Isis have been perceived as not being as intense as their efforts in Yemen, the answer is twofold.
First, the international coalition’s strategy in the fight against Isis has failed as it becomes clearer that in order to remove Isis, Assad has to go. Second, with the Houthi threat at its border, Saudi Arabia has to efficiently prioritise its interventions to preserve its own security and avoid a Yemen controlled entirely by an Iranian proxy militia on its doorstep.
In addition, Saudi Arabia is faced with the challenge of fighting Isis’s terrorism on its own soil.
This type of prioritisation would have done wonders for the White House had it formulated a concrete plan to swiftly deal with Assad and set the stage for a transition in Syria well before so-called Islamic State took large swaths of Iraq and Syria, and well before other extremist groups such as Jabhat al Nusra grew to the level it is at today.
It is precisely due to US inaction in the region that Russia has placed itself as the military gatekeeper in the heart of the Middle East, undoing the main dividend of the cold war – Russian disengagement from the Middle East.
The concrete result today of this sinister turn of events is that the White House has made America’s entire Syria policy – and its allies’ regional security – hostage to the whims of Russia.
Arab states are often criticised for deflecting blame and avoiding responsibility for their actions. It seems that Mr Carter has become too acquainted with that tactic. Mr Secretary, your allies are more than willing to play, but they need a game plan. Do you have one?
Posted by a proAssad and Putin blogger....worth reading and understanding and then asking is this the direct result of the Obama Syrian mess....??
REALLY understand the TENOR/tone of the article and you will now fully understand Putin's direct challenge to Obama and the US--interesting to see if Obama understands what this article truly means for US FP in the ME and for Europe especially the Ukraine........
Moscow imposed rules and procedures in the Mediterranean in an unprecedented moved
Original article here: http://www.alraimedia.com/ar/article...37513/nr/syria
Elijah J. Magnier @ejmalrai
For the first time a Russian infantry backed by T-90 tanks and Russian Air Force SU-25M stormed the Syrian Takfeery opposition between Latakia and Idlib countryside’s, capturing a strategic hill after five hours of fierce battle resulting in no casualties among the attacking forces.
A high ranking source said ” the Russian live manoeuver required the use of 130mm artillery battalion backed by a heavy air bombardment to the hill before the advance of the infantry as a test of the troops’ readiness and to raise the efficiency of engagement of the Russian forces in further battles on the Syrian soil against terrorists. Russia is also showing the real evolution and strength of its troops that did not participate in real battle for many years. The Syrian forces and allies provided only logistic support without participating to the battle as requested by the Russian officers. Many terrorists were killed and left behind in the battlefield.”
“Also for the first time, Russia showed its determine presence in warm Mediterranean water imposing its rules and procedures during the last naval manoeuver that took place last Saturday and Sunday, forcing measures on nearby countries as it deems appropriate for the safety of its troops. In the past, Russia has been shy in the Middle East, but today, the new Russia is dictating its sets of guidelines on civilian airports and commercial ships navigation in a way that never the former Soviet Union in its gander dared too. The modern Russia forces a “safe triangle” in international water starting from the city of Beirut, Lebanon, down to the island of Cyprus and ending in Iskenderun Turkey. It is clearer now that the Russian fleet has become an integral part of the control and defense of Syria. Russia paves the way for larger future operations calling for revenge for its citizens from terrorism regarding the Russian airliner where 224 people were killed and to turn the page on the history of Afghanistan, firmly restoring the glory of the new Russia”, said the source.
And the Obama response is...exactly what again??.......trust Putin to get a solution in Syria...yeah right...Putin's own solution that is...kick the Us completely out of Europe and the ME nothing more nor less is the core Russian geopolitical goal.
Russia T90 with anti TOW kit spotted on the front lines.....
Syria Russian T-90A with Shtora active protection system allegedly in Aleppo front.
pic.twitter.com/vthhtlLVUJ
Russian infantry unit backed by 130mm artillery & RuAF Su-25M participated in Turkman Mount attack for the 1st time.
http://alrai.li/2whbntz
Russia ground forces in north #Syria battle:
report
http://mme.cm/XHAW00
pic.twitter.com/Fz26NrM6Ef
REMEMBER it was Putin who stated in public that he would not get Russian troops involved in the fighting.....so after just how many Putin lies does Obama need to finally figure out Putin is not to be trusted on anything he says.......
I tend to not follow WSJ but this article is well worth reading as it goes to the heart of the Obama mess here in Europe, eastern Ukraine and in the ME.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-crisis-of-world-order-1448052095
The Crisis of World Order
After Paris, Islamic State’s rise and Syria’s agony are shaking a weakened Europe—and the international system. Can the U.S. summon the resolve to respond?
Portion taken from the article......
Now the Syrian crisis has further bolstered Russia’s position. Although Europeans generally share Washington’s discomfort with Moscow’s support for Mr. Assad and Russia’s bombing of moderate Syrian rebels, in the wake of the Paris attacks, any plausible partner in the fight against Islamic State seems worth enlisting. In France, former President Nicolas Sarkozy has long been an advocate for Russia, but now his calls for partnership with Moscow are echoed by President François Hollande, who seeks a “grand coalition” with Russia to fight Islamic State.
.
Where does the U.S. fit into all this? The Europeans no longer know, any more than American allies in the Middle East do. Most Europeans still like Mr. Obama. After President George W. Bush and the Iraq war, Europeans have gotten the kind of American president they wanted. But in the current crisis, this new, more restrained and intensely cautious post-Iraq America has less to offer than the old superpower, with all its arrogance and belligerence.
The flip side of European pleasure at America’s newfound Venusian outlook is the perception, widely shared around the world, that the U.S. is a declining superpower, and that even if it is not objectively weaker than it once was, its leaders’ willingness to deploy power on behalf of its interests, and on behalf of the West, has greatly diminished. As former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer recently put it, the U.S. “quite obviously, is no longer willing—or able—to play its old role.”
Mr. Fischer was referring specifically to America’s role as the dominant power in the Middle East, but since the refugee crisis and the attacks in Paris, America’s unwillingness to play that role has reverberations and implications well beyond the Middle East. What the U.S. now does or doesn’t do in Syria will affect the future stability of Europe, the strength of trans-Atlantic relations and therefore the well-being of the liberal world order.
This is no doubt the last thing that Mr. Obama wants to hear, and possibly to believe. Certainly he would not deny that the stakes have gone up since the refugee crisis and especially since Paris. At the very least, Islamic State has proven both its desire and its ability to carry out massive, coordinated attacks in a major European city. It is not unthinkable that it could carry out a similar attack in an American city. This is new.
If, in addition to an increased threat to America, there is also a threat to the fundamental stability of Europe, does this not call for a reassessment of the policies that have so far been tried in Syria and Iraq? Those policies were based, in part, on a cost-benefit calculation: How much risk should be run, and how high a price should be paid, given the interests and the stakes involved? Now the interests and the stakes are higher than originally anticipated: The Middle East crises have metastasized and moved from what a cold, realist, interest-driven analysis might have described as peripheral parts of the body to its main organs. Have not events in the Middle East, and now in Europe, reached the point where significant interests are at stake, thereby requiring a more substantial response?
Continued........
Not today. Americans remain paralyzed by Iraq, Republicans almost as much as Democrats, and Mr. Obama is both the political beneficiary and the living symbol of this paralysis. Whether he has the desire or capacity to adjust to changing circumstances is an open question. Other presidents have—from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton—each of whom was forced to recalibrate what the loss or fracturing of Europe would mean to American interests. In Mr. Obama’s case, however, such a late-in-the-game recalculation seems less likely. He may be the first president since the end of World War II who simply doesn’t care what happens to Europe.
If so, it is, again, a great irony for Europe, and perhaps a tragic one. Having excoriated the U.S. for invading Iraq, Europeans played no small part in bringing on the crisis of confidence and conscience that today prevents Americans from doing what may be necessary to meet the Middle Eastern crisis that has Europe reeling. Perhaps there are Europeans today wishing that the U.S. will not compound its error of commission in Iraq by making an equally unfortunate error of omission in Syria. They can certainly hope.
Example of just how Obama got into this mess in the first place.....
Was this not the main argument used by the President to twist arms for his legacy deal with Iran......
One of the major benefits of the Iran nuclear deal, moderation of Iran and a constructive role in region...emphasis was placed by the WH on the words "moderation and constructive role"....how did that go after the IRGC statement......??
So now that they are "out of the closet" would does he have to say....absolute silence.....
Russian war crime against civilians now confirmed ..........video footage confirmed Russia strike using WP munitions. Video was posted on the Syrian thread the day it occurred.
Report confirming Russia used Phosphorus on Benin village Idlib Nov 12
Syria
http://sn4hr.org/public_html/wp-cont...orus_bombs.pdf …
Not sure that Putin exactly understands that he has effectively now taken sides against the Sunni global community and the Sunni Front States when this report gains track in the MSM.....
The "mess" just keeps on getting deeper with each passing day and yet not a single word from the WH, the NSC, the DNI and or the entire IC.
I have been saying this over and over here at SWJ….and Obama has never SEEN this coming at us???....…he is a President, has a DNI, has a 700 person NSC and the entire IC AND yet he twisted arms for his Iran Deal which was strictly for his legacy………
BREAKING: Head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards says country is leading a “single Islamic nation” in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Source for this item can be found here
http://www.ana.ir/news/66358
Iran coming out of the closet now: Their Islamic Revolution to spread throughout the Middle East.
How many times in say the last five years have I mentioned here at SWJ that Iran has since Khomeini stated his concept of the “revolutionary Islam” prior to the takeover of our Embassy and it’s declared defense by the IRGC as well as the Khomeini stated “Green Crescent”—the current Iran is not about to change.
Regardless of what the dreamers inside the WH think….
What we are now seeing and it is the core believe of IS--they are equally at war with the Shia and Iran as well as the West...we should never forget that tidbit......
Also with this development from today we are seeing the fighting in Syria now morph into a true Sunni Shia conflict--AND it was Putin who stated he did not want to get into a religious war...well he is now in one heck of a religious war.
Nationalists from #Turkey sending "hundreds of fighters to #Syria to defend turkmen villages" against #Assad-regime
The Ukraine is just as much a total mess as is Syria......
State Department tried to block congressman’s Ukraine fact-finding - says Rep_Hunter
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/13/state-department-tried-… …
pic.twitter.com/XGOBEQT393
THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WANTS LETHAL AID THERE, says congressman Rep. Duncan Hunter - via @politico
pic.twitter.com/fvKRq8gGPk
Check the date.......
Iyad El-Baghdadi
@iyad_elbaghdadi A warning I direct to the world: If you don't do something soon to help #Syria's people, it will become a jihadist magnet. Big time.
Tweet dated 20 Dec 2011
Some saw this "mess" coming four years ago....and with a 700 person NSC, the DNI and the entire US IC--we did not see it coming.....??
Obama has boots on the ground and they are effective against the IS but they need better weapons, more direct air support AND THEY NEED Obama to get Putin off their backs so they do not have to dodge bombs when actually fighting IS.....WHY BECAUSE Putin is definitely fighting to support IS.....
BREAKING: FSA forces take over Harjaleh area of northern Aleppo after intense clashes with ISIS Syria Aleppo
Syrians taking care of the problem has always been the way forward...WH does not seem to realize that though....