Putin's Power Play in Syria

[bemildred]

This woman has a nice feel for language. The piece itself deserves its own thread, it is unusual to get such a sober assessment from within the DC bubble. There is hardly anything she says that I find it necessary to disagree with, and then it is a matter of views, spin, slant, not of facts.

How to Respond to Russia’s Intervention

---

Once again, Washington has been caught off-guard, just as it was in March 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and began supporting pro-Russian separatists fighting Ukrainian forces in eastern Ukraine. For all of Russia’s domestic problems—a shrinking economy, a declining population, and high rates of capital flight and brain drain—it has projected a surprising amount of power not only in its neighborhood but also beyond. U.S. President Barack Obama may refer to Russia as a regional power, but Russia’s military intervention in Syria demonstrates that it once again intends to be accepted as a global actor and play a part in every major international decision. This will be a vexing challenge not only for Obama during his remaining time in office but also for the next occupant of the White House.

Why has Washington been so slow to grasp the new Russian reality? Russian President Vladimir Putin has not kept his agenda a secret. In February 2007, for example, he delivered a scathing critique of U.S. foreign policy at the Munich Security Conference. “One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way,” he warned. Countless times since, Russia has vowed to replace what it sees as a coercive U.S.-led global order with one in which the West respects Russia’s interests. In retrospect, Russia’s war with Georgia in August 2008 signaled Moscow’s willingness to use force to prevent its neighbors from drifting toward the West and to reassert its influence in areas that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. But the United States and its allies have repeatedly underestimated Russia’s determination to revise the global order that Moscow feels the West has imposed on Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union.

---

Putin’s intervention in Syria has sent a mixed message. On the one hand, he has blamed the United States for creating the conditions that allowed ISIS to emerge; on the other, he has offered to join the United States in an anti-ISIS coalition. In remarks last October, Putin said, “Syria can become a model for partnership in the name of common interests, resolving problems that affect everyone, and developing an effective risk-management system.” Yet unlike in Afghanistan in 2001, Moscow and Washington do not agree on the identity of the enemy. Although they both see ISIS as a major threat, Russia has bombed Syrian opposition groups that the United States has supported, and Washington sees Assad’s rule as a major part of the country’s problems. Thanks to these differences, it will be difficult for Russia and the United States to work together in Syria.

---

GETTING REAL ABOUT RUSSIA

For the remainder of Obama’s second term, tensions over Syria and Ukraine will dominate U.S.-Russian relations. The best that can be achieved in Ukraine in the near term is a “frozen conflict” in which the cease-fire holds even though Kiev remains unable to control the Donbas region and Russia continues to exercise influence there through its proxies. The most the United States is likely to do is continue its modest economic and political support for the Ukrainian government, which is struggling to address systemic problems of corruption and economic disorder. Although some in the U.S. government have argued for more economic and military assistance to Ukraine—including the provision of lethal defensive weapons—the White House has consistently refused to do this for fear of further provoking Russia, and it is unlikely to change its policy in 2016.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-12-14/putins-power-play-syria

[leveymg]

1. This regressed to a bipolar view, ignoring the wildcard of Saudi

military expansion and excess spearheaded by its semiautonomous paramilitary that seems to be fighting Russia, the US and Iran simultaneously. The OP would have been far more meaningful had she been candid about that.

[Ghost Dog]

3. Yes, the Saudi/Gulf States and the Iranian and wider Shi'a

factors (and Yemen and what Bush/Cheney's planners called Greater Africa)...

[Jesus Malverde]

5. The article while a good read also ignores the obvious.

The purpose of ISIS, and our real objectives in Syria. The fact that Putin intervened doesn't change the goals.

“The end of the Assad regime would sever Hezbollah’s lifeline to Iran, eliminate a long-standing threat to Israel, bolster Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence, and inflict a strategic defeat on the Iranian regime. It would be a geopolitical success of the first order. More than all of the compelling moral and humanitarian reasons, this is why Assad cannot be allowed to succeed and remain in power: We have a clear national security interest in his defeat. And that alone should incline us to tolerate a large degree of risk in order to see that this goal is achieved.

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floor-statements?ID=e460be36-c488-e7de-8c38-64c3751adfce

[leveymg]

8. McCain: US should "tolerate a large degree of risk in order to see that this goal" of overthrow

succeeds.

In other words, increased terrorism worldwide and the millions of casualties in the region are acceptable costs to overthrow the Syrian government and to weaken Iran, in the neocon agenda. None of this was spontaneous or unanticipated, including the spread of terrorism to the U.S. and Europe.

That's the money line, right there, that explains the rationale this disastrous policy. We should be honest that this forever war will continue under Hillary, who is an architect. The American people need to see this with greater clarity.

[Ghost Dog]

9. ... And, yes of course we have to mention

current Israeli government policies against Shi'a players...

[leveymg]

11. Of course, the intellectual origins of the neocon agenda belong to the Israeli-American RW

The most comprehensive articulation was the 1996 planning document written for then PM Beneyam Netanyahu by Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and the Wurmsers. These are the conspirators who were later identified as operating a disinformation factory in the Rumsfeld Pentagon Office of Special Plans (OSP). The OSP cherry-picked Iraq WMD intel to provide the Bush Administration with fraudulent justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You may remember them.

Years earlier, this group wrote a strategy paper for Netanyahu that called for the serial regime change in the Mideast starting with Iraq moving to Syria and Lebanon ending with the overthrow of Iran as the path to creating a Greater Israel that is powerful enough to throw off limitations imposed by Washington. The strategy is essentially for the Israeli Right-wing to take over Israeli politics and militarily dominate the region along with "moderate" Arab allies. This remarkably prescient document is available as, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

[Ghost Dog]

2. "(T)he United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way,” he warned."

True enough.

"Russia has vowed to replace what it sees as a coercive U.S.-led global order with one in which the West respects Russia’s interests." We should all respect each others' interests and consider the historical and cultural as well as the economic and political contexts involved, then seek to work together to build not an elitist federal 'one world order' but a workable planetary confedration.

Putin’s message on Syria isn't mixed, it appears to be honest and open. "On the one hand, he has blamed the United States for creating the conditions that allowed ISIS to emerge; on the other, he has offered to join the United States in an anti-ISIS coalition." The first is accurate and the second appears to be genuine. I don't see any hidden agenda here. As for posssible outcomes in Syria, the US and allies seek to impose regime change by ousting the President while Russia speaks of establishing conditions for an orderly transition (through elections, presumably)...

Ukraine, by European standards, is a large country. Perhaps a Ukrainian Confederation of semi-autonomous regions would work better than attempts to impose a unitary State. Majorities in Crimea and in the industrial Don valley areas did vote against Kiev's policy line.

[bemildred]

4. +1.

Local autonomy has much to be said for it, but as our Jim Crow laws demonstrated governments at higher levels have to set the ground rules, and they are unfortunately often not so good at policing themselves.

I was thinking we should implant little electrodes in all politicians skulls, like an RFID chip, and have it connected to a big computer that will zap them every time they think selfish thoughts or their dicks get hard.

I think Putin is quite sincere in defending Russian interests as he sees them, why would he not be? It is not like Russian interests as he sees them at all conflict with his.

[Jesus Malverde]

6. According to many's thinking...

He's not allowed to have interests, only bow down to American Hegemony. The role of the Chinese is another wild card.

[bemildred]

7. I think he is allowed to have interests.

I think everybody is allowed to have interests.

[KoKo]

10. This is well worth the watch: Putin Answers Questions re ISIS at Valdai International Conference

This is not a long watch, but Putin covers ISIS, Libya Invasion, U.S. Paying Mercenaries to fight in Syria and why he believes Russia and US (given past cooperation) can and should be allies.

Valdai International Discussion Club
Published on Oct 1, 2015
Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.

[KoKo]

12. Putin Throws Down the Gauntlet

(A bit of a breathless article by Mike Whitney...but, some of what he says is interesting in perspective.)
----------------------------

December 15, 2015
Putin Throws Down the Gauntlet

by Mike Whitney

When Kerry arrives in Moscow tomorrow he’ll be rushed to meeting room at the Kremlin where he’ll be joined by Lavrov, Putin, Minister of Defense Sergey Shoygu and high-ranking members from military intelligence. Then, following the initial introductions, Kerry will be shown the evidence Russian intelligence has gathered on last Sunday’s attack on a Syrian military base east of Raqqa that killed three Syrian soldiers and wounded thirteen others. The Syrian government immediately condemned the attack and accused US warplanes of conducting the operation. Later in the day, Putin delivered an uncharacteristically-harsh and threatening statement that left no doubt that he thought the attack was a grave violation of the accepted rules of engagement and, perhaps, a declaration of war.

Here’s what he said:

“Any targets threatening the Russian groups of forces or land infrastructure must be immediately destroyed.”

This was followed shortly after by an equally disturbing statement by Putin to the Russian Defense Ministry Board:

“Special attention must be paid to strengthening the combat potential of the strategic nuclear forces and implementing defense space programs. It is necessary, as outlined in our plans, to equip all components of the nuclear triad with new arms.”

Why would an incident in the village of Ayyash in far-flung Deir Ezzor Province be so important that it would bring the two nuclear-armed adversaries to the brink of war?

I’ll tell you why: It’s because there were other incidents prior to the bombing in Ayyash that laid the groundwork for the current clash. There was the ISIS downing of the Russian airliner that killed 224 Russian civilians. Two weeks after that tragedy, Putin announced at the G-20 meetings that he had gathered intelligence proving that 40 countries –including some in the G-20 itself–were involved in the funding and supporting of ISIS. This story was completely blacked out in the western media and, so far, Russia has not revealed the names of any of the countries involved.

So, I ask you, dear reader, do you think the United States is on that list of ISIS supporters?

Continued at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/15/putin-gives-kerry-a-chance-to-pull-back-from-the-brink/

[bemildred]

13. Whitney has a vivid imagination and he gets too emotionally involved. nt

[KoKo]

14. Oh...yes..and that's why I cautioned..

Last edited Tue Dec 15, 2015, 09:41 PM - Edit history (2)

But, you know, on reflection, I think his extreme viewpoint be worth considering in the "long run."

It's hard to fathom that (considering our Space Program Sharing of Info) that both USA and Russia don't have access to the SAME Satellite Info and that there aren't "Back Room" Discussions going on about the "Findings."

It's gotta be hard for both to Deal With...that INFO and get "On the Same Page with Propaganda Reports?"

We Shall See!

[KoKo]

15. Had to Edit the above for clarity..