Syria conflict: Russia's Putin orders 'main part' of forces out


#1

Oh well, all the usual hysterical theories bandied about, for months, e.g. that Putin will take over Syria, and/or other countries in the region or Russia’s presence in Syria will effect the peace talks - all bite the dust! :smiley:

MSM back to the drawing board.

*In a surprise move, Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered his military to start withdrawing the “main part” of its forces in Syria from Tuesday.

He said the Russian intervention had largely achieved its objectives.
The comments come amid fresh peace talks in Geneva aimed at resolving the five-year Syrian conflict.

Russia is a key ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose office said in a statement he had agreed to the move.
*
bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35807689

Russian warplanes leave Syria

rt.com/news/335624-russia-planes-withdraw-syria/


#2

blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/03/15/why-and-how-russia-won-in-syria/

Why — and how — Russia won in Syria

“An attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad and try to pacify the population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire and it won’t work.” So said U.S. President Barack Obama when Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his military campaign in Syria to support the country’s authoritarian ruler.

There’s just one problem, though: A day after Putin announced a Russian withdrawal from Syria, it’s clear that his gamble has turned into a major win for Moscow. Here’s what Russia achieved — and why it was so successful.

First — and most importantly — Russian bombing turned the tide of the war in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s favor. When the Russian military deployed to Syria, Assad was in serious trouble, with many predicting the regime could collapse. Five months later, after recapturing key chunks of territory in both the south and north, Assad clearly holds the military upper hand. Even Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart, head of the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, admits “the Russian reinforcement has changed the calculus completely.”

Second, Putin recently achieved an important diplomatic objective by forcing the United States to acknowledge that Russia plays a key role in determining Syria’s future.

Russia entered Syria with one overriding objective: Preserve the Assad regime. To avoid another Afghanistan-style quagmire, Russia relies on fighters from its Shi’ite allies, including Assad, Hezbollah and Iran. By picking a clear and achievable goal and then ensuring that Moscow and its allies all rowed in one direction, Putin enacted a textbook proxy strategy.*


#3

**This withdrawal taken together with the lack of recent action in Ukraine might be a Russian strategy to encourage the election of a democratic party president in the USA.
After the election we might see a renewal of Russian advances in Ukraine and maybe Syria too.

I think that Putin would prefer to deal with Mrs. Clinton rather than Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz. **


#4

As Russia never entered Ukraine, that would be a first.

How could this effect the US election? :shrug:

In addition, Trump has stated he admires Putin, and also that he finds financing and arming ‘moderate’ Islamic terrorists alarming - hence by default Trump would be more agreeable to Putin, however that’s assuming Putin is even interested in the first place.


#5

**FYI: The Crimea used to be part of Ukraine and is no more, and it is common knowledge that Russia has enabled the separatists in eastern Ukraine. I believe that these separatists march to Moscow’s orders.
That being said, my opinion is that Russia has had valid reasons for her actions in this theater.

I think that Mr. Putin would much prefer Mrs. Clinton as president over any Republican because she has been to Russia several times and is a known quantity, preferring negotiation over military show of force.
Whereas most Republicans are much more confrontational, and Mr. Trump especially is unpredictable.

Isn’t it obvious that Russian “aggression” in either Syria or the Ukraine enables the Republican propaganda machine to accuse the Democratic administration of being “weak,” and also allows the Republicans play their favorite card; the “fear” card. **


#6

Russia’s aims in Syria have been achieved. It now is comfortable in holding Tartus it’s only port in the region, just as it holds Servastopol in the Ukraine peninsula which was its strategic objective in the Ukraine dispute.
Russia has also given Assad breathing space and a significant place at any negotiating table.
War is expensive and the Russian economy cannot afford to be bogged down in a war of attrition in Syria, thus the Blitzkrieg approach.
Putin has made a laughing stock of the US military campaign of wasted fuel and little success, constrained by risible rules of engagement and poor leadership from the White House. America is tired of the Middle East with its own Arab Spring in its political campaigns for both majority parties. After strategic failures in nearly all its recent wars in the area, America is entering an isolationist framework mentally that may see an end to its significant global hegemony.

The White House’s recent treatment of the UK and Israel, two significant allies shows the level of childish petulance that now pock marks an administration in decline. This petulance is continued domestically by the strategic withdrawal from two significant political funerals, that of Scalia and Regan. Pitiful petulance that has not gone un-noticed internationally.
Putin may well succeed in his bold and swift intervention.


#7

Crimea was a semi autonomous republic with a majority Russian citizenship. It wished to return to Russia, especially whilst under a coup d’etat, illegal Ukraine government, that was visibly anti-Russian. A referendum was held and the greater majority wished to return to Russia. Needless to say, there have only been celebrations ever since, in Crimea, no riots, protests etc…i.e. that they wish to return to Ukraine.

Only Putin knows whom he would prefer - Clinton or Trump - if any.

What Russian aggression in Syria? :confused: Syria asked Russia, as an ally, to help them several months back. Up to that point ISIS, the moderate rebels, the Syria army, the FSA etc… and more recently the West were all fighting, in Syria and needless to say it is in total ruins.

Russia, at the outset, said it would take several months to assist Assad and to bring some stability to Syria, so that peace talks and hopefully elections can then take place. Putin has helped Syria, enormously, as repeatedly stated by several Catholic patriarchs, living in Syria, over the past months.

So job done - unless ISIS and the ‘moderate’ rebels start up all over again.


#8

Putin is in the middle of a game of chess, nothing is over.


#9

Flattering one wants the US to be intervening in a war in a foreign country.

Really? Putin made a laughing stock of the US military campaign? Russia who sources showed out of the 4500 people they killed, 1700 were civilians? Oh, yeah, that really makes a laughing stock out of the US along with Russia/Assad helping ISIS if anything. ISIS is still in Raqqa, their capital.

When ISIS leaders got hit, the latest being Omar the Chechen, the US and coalition forces did. Russia barely laid a glove on ISIS and fought opposition forces.

It will be surprising to see Assad last long in power now.


#10

Well, if the russian aims have been achieved, those aim were never about establishing protection for Christians, or taking out ISIS.

but if it has all about keeping a Mediterranean port open, mission accomplished, I guess.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.