The Bear Steps In: Russia's Expanding Military Presence in Syria

[bemildred]

The current increase of the Russian military presence in northwest Syria is a function of the declining military fortunes of the Assad regime. It represents a quantitative, rather than qualitative, change in the nature of the Russian engagement in Syria.

Moscow's goal throughout the conflict has been to keep Syrian President Bashar Assad in power by all means necessary. The ends remain the same. But as the situation on the ground changes, so the Russian means employed to achieve this goal must change with it.

Since the outset of the Syrian civil war, the key problem for Assad has been manpower. Against a Sunni Arab rebellion with a vast pool of potential fighters from Syria's 60 percent Sunni Arab majority and from among foreign volunteers, the regime has been forced to draw ever deeper from a far shallower base.

At the outset of the conflict, the Syrian Arab Army was on paper a huge force – of 220,000 regular soldiers plus an additional 280,000 reserves. But the vast majority of this army was unusable by the dictator. This is because it consisted overwhelmingly of Sunni conscripts, whose trustworthiness from the regime's point of view was seriously in doubt. Since then, the army has shrunk in size from attrition, desertion and draft dodging.

http://www.meforum.org/5491/russian-troops-syria

[bemildred]

1. Russian intervention in Syria pushes Europe towards Assad

Russia has succeeded in minimising the importance of US anger over its support for the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad after several European leaders called for cooperation with al-Assad to reach a solution for the four year civil war.

The German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday that Germany and other EU countries should work with Russia and the US to resolve the crisis in Syria.

In an article published in the New York Times, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the recent agreement between Iran and the six world powers opened a new window of opportunity for the region and possibly a chance to break the gridlock on Syria.

The minister warned that there are worrying signs that this opportunity for progress in Syria is slipping away including “reports of ongoing Russian support for the Syrian Army, Iranian pledges of unconditional support for Mr Assad and new preconditions for peace talks from neighbouring countries.”

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/21039-russian-intervention-in-syria-pushes-europe-towards-assad

[bemildred]

2. Dempsey: 'Terrible Human Suffering' in Syrian Conflict

TALLINN, Estonia, September 14, 2015 — The Syrian refugee crisis and the "terrible human suffering" could cause Europe to become "more involved in the Syrian conflict," according to the top U.S. military officer.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not predict what sort of additional actions Europe could take, but he did note the refugee crisis in the Balkans in the 1990s "galvanized" European political leaders and eventually led to NATO intervention in the Balkans.

Dempsey spoke to reporters aboard his plane Sunday as he traveled from a NATO Military Committee Conference meeting in Istanbul, on to Estonia for meetings with military and government leaders.

Refugee Crisis Impacts Strategy

"One of the things we are going to carry back home and recommend to elected officials, in Europe in particular, is greater collaboration with the European Union on this crisis," he said. "There's already collaboration."

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/617046/dempsey-terrible-human-suffering-in-syrian-conflict

[bemildred]

3. Cameron prepared to bypass Corbyn to get Syria airstrikes backing

David Cameron has indicated he is prepared to bypass Jeremy Corbyn and seek to build support among rebel Labour MPs for extending Britain’s involvement in airstrikes against Islamic State (Isis) targets from Iraq to Syria.

In his first public comments about the new Labour leader, the prime minister said the usual courtesies had been extended to Corbyn, who has been invited to join the privy council as leader of the official opposition. This would allow him to be briefed on intelligence matters.

Corbyn, who told the Guardian last month he would rather attend intelligence briefings on a different basis, is understood to have given a non-committal response to the prime minister.

Cameron, who has indicated in recent weeks that he believes that Britain should extend its involvement in airstrikes against Isis targets from Iraq to Syria, indicated that he still believes it is possible to win parliamentary approval. Corbyn rejects any British involvement in air strikes against Isis.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/14/david-cameron-prepared-bypass-jeremy-corbyn-get-syria-airstrikes-backing

[bemildred]

4. What Drone-Strike Data from Yemen and Pakistan Says about the ISIS Fight

Washington's drone program has cost a great deal of blood and money with little to show for it. Absent a political strategy, the effort in Syria will likely fare no better.

This week, the Washington Post published a story about a new U.S. plan to use lethal drone strikes in Syria to destroy ISIL capabilities on the ground.

The desire to do something—anything—to destroy the capabilities of a group so luridly destructive is understandable, but our haste to show results will likely result in a hollow victory at best.

Proponents of lethal drone strikes argue they are an effective way of reducing operational capabilities and that they make Americans safer.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/09/what-yemen-and-pakistan-say-about-drones-vs-isis/120878/

[bemildred]

5. Don’t Trust Putin on Syria

LONDON — SYRIA is being destroyed. The civil war, now more than four years old, has left the country in ruins. The implacable Islamic State controls vast areas of the north and east, and the barbaric regime of PresidentBashar al-Assad maintains its Damascus stronghold.

The Western powers — the United States and Europe — have no good options to combat the Islamic State, but they can’t do nothing. Either they must work with Mr. Assad’s regime to combat the jihadists, or ignore its existence and undertake military action alone to push back the jihadists. Thus far, though, the American-led air campaign against the Islamic State has done little to halt its advances.

This stark choice is a result of the failure of recent Western policy. One person who understands this better than most is the Russian president,Vladimir V. Putin.

On Sept. 4, Mr. Putin announced that Russia had been providing military aid to Damascus against the Islamic State — support that has recently beenramped up. He also called for “some kind of an international coalition to fight terrorism and extremism.” This is in keeping with Moscow’s Syria policy, which has been consistent since 2010: Block any American-backed move to remove Mr. Assad from power and instead force the West to embrace him as a partner.

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/09/dont-trust-putin-on-syria/

[bemildred]

6. Searching for Strategy in Putin’s Russia

Critics of Vladimir Putin charge him with serious strategic blunders. Russia is paying a high price for annexing Crimea and intervening in the ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine. The Russian economy, already in shambles from mismanagement and corruption, can hardly afford such costly gambles. Putin’s military adventurism also puts at risk his ambitious plans for military modernization. Worse yet, he has alienated the countries he needs most to rescue Russia’s economy. Instead of cultivating European leaders, he caused them to rally around the NATO flag. A leader who weakens his own economic and military power while uniting his adversaries qualifies as a bad strategist.

Not so fast, writes Michael Kofman. Last week at War on the Rocks, Kofman made the case for Putin, arguing that critics fail to put his strategy in historical and political context. Kofman identifies me as among the worst offenders who fail to describe Putin’s strategy, blame him unfairly for events outside his control, and ignore his track record of success. Russia’s economic distress is a function of falling oil prices, he writes, and Putin has done well to hold the line against the United States and NATO despite his disadvantageous starting point. Kofman believes that Putin’s approach toward the use of force has been mostly successful during his long tenure. Moreover, he has displayed a “flexible approach” in Ukraine that allows Russia to absorb the costs of its intervention while keeping Ukraine divided internally and outside of NATO’s orbit.

This defense of Putin is unconvincing. It uses strange criteria for judging his strategy, and ends up presenting contradictory arguments about his performance. The biggest gap, however, is the lack of evidence in support of the main argument. Kofman searches for signs of strategic behavior in the Kremlin and finds none.

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/searching-for-strategy-in-putins-russia/

[bemildred]

7. Putin’s Strategy is Far Better than You Think

Is Vladimir Putin a strategic genius or not? In a recent War on the Rocks article, the scholar Joshua Rovner comes down hard in the “not” camp, arguing that Putin is a terrible strategist and laying out the ramifications of his strategic incompetence for the United States and its NATO allies. This is another salvo in a long-running debate between competing Western narratives of Russia: an alarmist position perpetually worried that “the Russians are coming,” and a dismissive one that believes Russia is a giant Potemkin village destined to fall apart as a result of self-defeating behavior. Unfortunately both views are wrong, but Western analysis often see-saws between these two perspectives as soon as one falls out of favor. One of the shortfalls of Rovner’s article is that it fails to explain what Russia’s strategy is, which in turn raises a more important question: Does American failure to understand Russia’s strategy make it a poor one?

Russia in perspective

First, there needs to be a more balanced and informed understanding of Russia. A quote, variously attributed over the years to Churchill, Talleyrand, or Metternich sums it up well: “Russia is never as strong as she looks, nor as weak as she looks.” Russia is a regional power in structural decline, but retains a remarkable capacity to muddle through, hang around, and cause trouble. It has often appeared to be the sick man of Europe (a term originally used to describe the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century), technologically backwards, with a political system that does not meet the demands of modern society. Napoleon and Hitler, among others, have made the mistake of assuming that Russian weakness and backwardness made the country an easy mark.

Since early 2014, Russia has suffered from a recession followed by an economic crisis, largely due to a sharp decline in oil prices. While Western sanctions have multiplied the hardship, Russia’s economic problems are structural and its current economic crisis a result of global factors that have nothing to do with events in Ukraine. They are due, in fact, to Saudi Arabia’s efforts to keep oil prices low in an effort to crush the U.S. shale extraction industry (and from a U.S. point of view, this is nothing to be happy about, even if it comes at Russia’s expense). China’s economic downturn is also little cause for cheer.

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/putin-is-a-far-better-strategist-than-you-think/

[bemildred]

8. . nt

[leveymg]

9. Pure BS -They've been there for half a century. It's Russia's last base in the region. Why should

they give it up? Maybe, when the US gives up its bases and bloody pet regimes in the region.

[KoKo]

10. Much to Read!

Thanks!

[bemildred]

11. You are welcome.

#1 appears to have some substance.

#s 2 + 3 I take to indicate salivating in certain parts of the War Party to get troops into Syria now, we can't let Russia have all the fun.

#4 is another one about why drones are as stupid idea politically no matter how good they are at sanitizing the killing experience for the killers..

#5 was interesting because is assembles the crisis somewhat differently from anybody else I've seen. I always look for cognitive issues, which always show up as a different version of what is "real".

#s 6 + 7 were an argument about Putin, who seems to arouse strong emotions in all sorts of people whom one would think would want to ignore him.

leveymg is not wrong, but he is going on about the OPs miscasting of the headline in the story, and I do think that Putin is making another move, so it is arguable that the sense is correct in the headline, even if the allusive meanings are wrong. That sort of slanting is very popular all over these days.

[KoKo]

15. Yes...what you say about the read...and synopsis. n/t

[bemildred]

13. Graham On ISIS: We Need To Go Into Syria And ‘Kill Every One Of These Bastards That We Can Find’

During Wednesday’s Republican debate, Lindsey Graham said that in order to deal with ISIS, we need to assemble a coalition, go into Syria, and “kill every one of these bastards that we can find.” (Trump On ISIS: ‘Let Them Fight Each Other And Pick Up The Remnants [VIDEO])

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/16/graham-on-isis-we-need-to-go-into-syria-and-kill-every-one-of-these-bastards-that-we-can-find-video/

[KoKo]

16. It's hard to believe anyone takes him seriously.....

but, then, I've thought that before and had a "Shock & Awe" about what the Average Person...finds serious and worth following without question.

[bemildred]

17. A long-range mouth-fighter, that's Lindsey. nt

[bemildred]

14. US open to talks after Moscow urges engagement with Syria

MOSCOW — Russia on Thursday strongly urged the United States and its allies to engage the Syrian government as a “partner” in the fight against the Islamic State group, and offered to share any information about its military supplies to Damascus with Washington.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, speaking after talks with his Turkish counterpart in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi, said the US-led coalition fighting the Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq should coordinate its action with Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government in conformity with international law.

“There is no reason to evade cooperation with the Syrian leadership, which confronts that terror threat,” Lavrov said. He added that “the Syrian president commands the most capable ground force fighting terrorism.”

“Rejecting such a possibility, ignoring the capability of the Syrian army as a partner and ally in the fight against the IS means sacrificing security of the entire region for political or geopolitical intentions and calculations,” he said.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-open-to-talks-after-moscow-urges-engagement-with-syria/

[KoKo]

18. Somebody's Got to Do Something about this Refugee Crisis from US & Allies Interventions....

I've been surprise the EU doesn't even want to address it, publically (although I suspect they are in the background in secret). I watch Business News because I need to...and so far it focuses on either Richard Haas's View or whether Yellen will increase Interest Rates and Who Won the Latest Clown Car Debate on CNN. From Trivia to Panic describes our MSM these days. And, the Business Channels work to Protect "Their Own." It's truly mind blowing.

[bemildred]

19. I think the EU pols have been somewhat gobsmacked by events and are still working on a narrative.

Ditto the MSM. When they come up with one, I am sure we will hear it. In the meantime I think the clock is ticking, events won't wait for them.

[KoKo]

23. BTW: This is a very good read.......!

[bemildred]

20. U.S. Administration Rethinks Syria Strategy

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is considering scrapping its effort to create a large-scale Syrian force to fight Islamic State as it searches for alternatives to prevent the American-led effort from collapsing, officials said.

Under one proposal being crafted at the Pentagon, the $500 million train-and-equip program—a core component of the U.S. Syria strategy—would be supplanted by a more modest effort focused on creating specially trained militants empowered to call in U.S. airstrikes, defense officials said.

The reconsideration comes after new disclosures of failures in the U.S. strategy in Syria, which is under intensified scrutiny at home and abroad. The overhaul in the training mission is one of a number of important changes in the Syria policy under discussion, the officials said.

The White House is also debating whether to accept a Russian proposal for talks on military activity in Syria as Moscow builds up military support for President Bashar al-Assad’s embattled regime. At the same time, the White House wants to reignite long-stalled international talks aimed at reaching a resolution to Syria’s multi-sided war.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-administration-rethinks-syria-strategy-1442533644

[bemildred]

21. Finger-Pointing, but Few Answers, After a Syria Solution Fails

WASHINGTON — By any measure, President Obama’s effort to train a Syrian opposition army to fight the Islamic State on the ground has been an abysmal failure. The military acknowledged this week that just four or five American-trained fighters are actually fighting.

But the White House says it is not to blame. The finger, it says, should be pointed not at Mr. Obama but at those who pressed him to attempt training Syrian rebels in the first place — a group that, in addition to congressional Republicans, happened to include former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

At briefings this week after the disclosure of the paltry results, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, repeatedly noted that Mr. Obama always had been a skeptic of training Syrian rebels. The military was correct in concluding that “this was a more difficult endeavor than we assumed and that we need to make some changes to that program,” said Mr. Earnest. “But I think it’s also time for our critics to fess up in this regard as well. They were wrong.”

In effect, Mr. Obama is arguing that he reluctantly went along with those who said it was the way to combat the Islamic State, but that he never wanted to do it and has now has been vindicated in his original judgment. The I-told-you-so argument, of course, assumes that the idea of training rebels itself was flawed and not that it was started too late and executed ineffectively, as critics maintain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/world/finger-pointing-but-few-answers-after-a-syria-solution-fails.html

[KoKo]

22. ...!

The "Blame Game" begins... Isn't it time that the U.S. and Allies started examining "Regime Change Policy" and how chaos doesn't profit anyone except the MIC and their Think Tanks. It has been a massive policy failure. One has to cringe when Jeb Bush, in the latest Debate, says his brother "...kept us safe after "9/11." There's been not a peep of backlash so far for that idiotic statement which should have had him booed off the stage, imho.

-------

The idea of bolstering Syrian rebels was debated from the early days of the civil war, which started in 2011. Mrs. Clinton, along with David H. Petraeus, then the C.I.A. director, and Leon E. Panetta, then the defense secretary, supported arming opposition forces, but the president worried about deep entanglement in someone else’s war after the bloody experience in Iraq.

[bemildred]

26. Yep.

And that is an improvement over the previous obstinate adherence to stupid, failed, destructive policies of the past ...

The stupid motherfuckers that run this country have been eroding their own power assiduously for the last three and-a-half decades, meanwhile babbling on about making their own reality etc., and it finally dawns on them that its not working when they get flooded with refugees ...

[thebighobgoblin]

24. The lesson is...

...when you have stability in the Middle East, keep it.

[bemildred]

25. Breaking things is the easy part, anybody can do it.

Putting things back together is hard, and expensive, and takes time.

[bemildred]

27. Salam Says Lebanon Breaking Down

Prime Minister Tammam Salam has warned that Lebanon is breaking down because of differences between the rival political parties and their failure to resolve controversial issues.

Salam told the Washington Post in an interview that the 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon “are a burden because they share our electricity, our water, our schools, our roads, our commerce, our jobs — and yes, the Lebanese are tired of this.”

“But the (real) breakdown in Lebanon will take place because of the inability to solve the problems of the country, like the garbage issue and others,” he said.

The garbage crisis erupted when Lebanon's largest landfill in Naameh was closed on July 17. Trash began piling up on the streets, leading to anti-government demonstrations.

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/190132-salam-says-lebanon-breaking-down

[bemildred]

28. Zasypkin: Russian initiative on resolving Syrian crisis to have three stages

Beirut/Moscow, SANA – Russian Ambassador in Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin will announce his initiative for resolving the crisis in Syria and combating terrorism during the UN General Assembly session on September 28th.

In a televised interview on Friday, Zasypkin said that this initiative consists of three stages, and that it comes as a result of talks held between Moscow and countries with influence on the situation in Syria.

He explained that the first stage focuses on uniting all sides to take out ISIS in Syria, while the second involves having influential regional and international forces pressure armed groups to embrace a political solution, and finally the third involves uniting efforts to stop the funding of terrorists and prevent them from entering Syria from neighboring countries.

On a relevant note, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson Maria Zakharova asserted that Moscow is prepared to hold dialogue with Washington regarding all issues, including the Syrian issue, asserting that Russia has never refused to hold such dialogue with the United States.

http://sana.sy/en/?p=55136

[KoKo]

29. Is the U.S. Secretly Welcoming Increased Russian Syria Involvement?

Last edited Sat Sep 19, 2015, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Is the U.S. Secretly Welcoming Increased Russian Syria Involvement?

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson tells Paul Jay that cooperation with Russia and Iran is the only way to resolve the situation, but U.S. policy is catering to Saudi Arabian, Turkish and Israeli ambitions - September 19, 2015

Transcript:

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.In Syria apparently there are four or five fighters trained by the United States who are actually fighting. It seems a rather ridiculously low number, as supposedly the Obama strategy was all about training local fighters. There was supposed to be I guess at least more than 5,000 at this point. And 5,000 is a far cry from four or five. That number came out in committee hearings in Capitol Hill the other day.Now joining us to try to make sense of just what U.S. foreign policy in Syria is is Larry Wilkerson. He's the former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and he's a regular contributor to the Real News. Thanks for joining us, Larry.

LARRY WILKERSON, FMR. CHIEF OF STAFF TO COLIN POWELL: Good to be with you, Paul.

JAY: So what exactly does the United States want in Syria? We've been saying on the Real News what they generally seem to want, because I think this is what Israel wants, is they want both sides to keep fighting and killing each other. We've heard various people articulate this openly. We've heard it from various of the Israeli pundits. We heard it actually even from Donald Trump in the debate Wednesday night where he said let them all just kill each other. That seemed to be really what the policy was.Now, but with the growing strength of ISIS and Al-Qaeda type forces, the Russians apparently strengthened their support to Assad. They're going to have a somewhat more involved military involvement in Syria. Why wouldn't the United States actually want that if they really want ISIS and Al-Qaeda defeated? I mean, how is Assad the big problem here in terms of American foreign policy?

WILKERSON: Let me describe what I would hope is happening. But I won't in any way assert that it is happening. And I'll say, open parentheses, I really don't think this administration has a policy or a strategy, close parentheses. That means it's just going from day to day.But what possibly could be happening is this. First of all, the administration confronted enormous challenges here because one of its principal allies, Saudi Arabia, and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council are actually supporting and funding some of the most radical elements in Syria. So you've got that challenge at the beginning. You also have a NATO member, Turkey, and the leader of that NATO member, Erdogan, vigorously pursuing a policy vis-a-vis Syria that is antithetical to U.S. interests and to the interests of Syria as a state, if it can still be called a state. So you have some enormous challenges, and I didn't even talk about Iran and Hezbollah, the most effective fighting instruments, as I see it, in Syria right now and mostly working for Assad.

At the same time, they're fighting similar elements of Daesh, ISIL, ISIS, whatever you want to call them, that are in Iraq, realizing that the core element within ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, are the Sunnis we disenfranchised, disempowered in Iraq, and forced to go onto the battlefield again. This is a very complicated situation.I think what I would like to see happening right now, and I do hope the administration is secretly doing this, much the way it started out the secret negotiations with Iran. We're dealing with Moscow and with Ankara, and Tehran, on the basis of okay, what can we do, each of us, that won't look like it's coordinated, at least not initially, until we achieve success that will achieve an interim political solution and we all admit Assad has to stay around, at least for a time, for that interim political solution. We want to stop the killing. We want to stop the now increasing destabilization of some key allies by all these refugees that are heading out of Syria. We want to get the situation under control, stabilize it, and somehow turn it around so it's more positive. It also will impact Iraq. It will impact Afghanistan. And ultimately it will impact this growing rapprochement with Iran, which can handle a lot more of these problems.So I hope that's what's happening. I hope Tehran, Ankara, Moscow, and Washington are all talking in this vein.

I recently had an opportunity to talk to a person at the secretary of state level, on that floor, who indicated to me that that might possibly be going on. I hope it is, because that's the only way we're going to stop this.And they can't put a public circus on it, just like they couldn't put a public circus on the closed talks with Iran that Bill Burns was conducting originally. They have to do this in secret, and I agree, because there's so many morons in my political party. People who are not interested at all in the national security of this country, but only in their own political power and the advancement and increase thereof, that they'll throw it all in a cocked hat in a heartbeat. They'll ruin it. So I hope that's what's going on, Paul.JAY: So you're sort of suggesting that perhaps there might even be tacit approval of the Russians supporting, increasing support for Assad. But rhetorically, especially for domestic public opinion because of the Republican position, the Obama administration has to sound critical of it.

WILKERSON: Yes. And you have to think too that, you know, in the back of the mind if you're President Obama and John Kerry and Ash Carter, you're thinking well, now, if the Russians put naval infantry and helicopters and tanks and so forth in Syria, they don't have them to put in Ukraine and the Baltic states and other places where they might be a little more [anemical] to our interests. So I mean, this is crafty stuff, if it's happening the way I hope it's happening.

JAY: The Republican debate and the rhetoric coming out of the Republican candidates, more or less has Russia as the number one foreign policy enemy of the United States, actually, more than ISIS or anything else. Which also leads to why they think over, seems to think overthrowing Assad's more important than anything else. How much do you think this is rhetoric and how much do you think if these people actually were in the White House they would be--they would actually take action on this Russian front?

WILKERSON: You've got to have a bugaboo. If you're a Republican and your national security bonafides are in question for the first time for 30-plus years, you've definitely got to have a bugaboo. You throw out China, you throw out Russia, you throw out ISIS, you throw out everything you can possibly throw out. And that gets people scared, it gets your base all worked up. You exploit this politics of fear, which is a very powerful force. And you get more votes that way.

MORE CONTINUED AT..........

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14746

[bemildred]

30. Not exactly secret, but we don't want to talk about it.

But I was glad to see the alacrity with which the Kerry wing of the administration foreign policy team picked up on the possibility of working with Russia and Iran to tamp things back down in the Middle East before the refugees destabilize the EU (maybe).

[bemildred]

31. Russian build-up in Syria puts Israel on the back foot

There is a saying, ‘misfortunes never come singly’. That must have been the thought on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netayahu’s mind as he headed for Moscow Monday on what the Russians described as a 3-hour “short working visit” – a call on President Vladimir Putin at his residence in city suburbs for what a top Kremlin official forecast would be “a business and frank conversation” (read plain-speaking), and back to the airport on the return journey. We don’t know whether Putin hosted a lunch for ‘Bibi’.

The Russian military build-up in Syria comes as a big setback to Netanyahu’s regional policies. And it comes immediately after the spectacular defeat he suffered in the campaign to kill the Iran nuclear deal.

In the normal course, the Syrian developments should have prompted Netanyahu to huddle together with the American president, but the White House has earmarked a slot for the Israeli leader in November. The Israel-US relations are in visible difficulty, and on top of it now, a cloud of uncertainty has appeared over Israel-Russia ties as well. It is a moment of reckoning for Israeli diplomacy.

Netanyahu’s office had said he would discuss with Putin “the stationing of Russian forces in Syria… (and) will present the threats posed to Israel as a result of the increased flow of advanced war material to the Syrian arena and the transfer of deadly weapons to Hezbollah and other terror organizations”.

http://atimes.com/2015/09/russian-build-up-in-syria-puts-israel-on-the-back-foot/

[bemildred]

39. Israel military says it is coordinating with Russia on Syria

JERUSALEM — Israel has set up a joint mechanism with the Russian military to coordinate their operations in Syria and avoid any accidental confrontations, a senior Israel military official said Thursday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of military regulations, said that teams headed by each of the militaries’ deputy chiefs will hold their first meeting in two weeks and will discuss coordination of aerial, naval and electromagnetic operations around Syria.

Russia has backed the Assad regime throughout the nation’s civil war, which has killed more than 250,000 people, and recently deployed forces there to help Syria in its battle against Islamic militants.

Russia has sought to cast arms supplies to Assad’s government as part of international efforts to combat the Islamic State group and other militant organizations in Syria.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-military-says-it-is-coordinating-with-russia-on-syria/2015/09/24/bb0b34b8-629e-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html

[bemildred]

32. Europe nudges US, Russia to walk the talk on Syria

The remarks to the media by the British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and the visiting US Secretary of State John Kerry following their meeting in London on Saturday conveyed the sense of an overall easing of tensions between the West and Russia. This cannot but have ‘collateral’ effect on the search for solution to the Syrian conflict.

The positive trend will take time to get faithfully reflected in the ‘East-West’ rhetoric, since injured pride needs to be overcome on both sides. But the trend as such is noticeable in the remarks by Hammond and Kerry. In a refreshing turn to the ‘East-West’ discourse, Ukraine stands practically ‘delisted’ as a theatre of conflict or confrontation between the West and Russia. Neither Hammond nor Kerry used harsh language to criticize Russia.

In fact, both avoided making any critical remarks about Russia. Neither touched on the allegations regarding Russian presence on the ground in Donbass or brought up Crimea and the western sanctions. On the other hand, Kerry made it clear to Kiev that the Minsk agreement is the only game in town and urged everyone to get cracking on the full implementation of the accord. He even commended Russia’s moderating influence on the separatists in the Donbass. Indeed, Kerry endorsed the Normandy Format and he envisaged that “the full implementation of Minsk is the way to resolve the tensions that have existed between Russia and the West”.

To be sure, the easing of tensions over Ukraine could rub on the Syrian conflict. Here, Kerry made some extremely significant remarks hinting at a flexible, pragmatic US approach stressing conflict resolution rather than regime change in Syria, and spoke of Russia (and Iran) as prospective partner in the search for solution. The following remarks made by Kerry merit special attention:

http://atimes.com/2015/09/europe-nudges-us-russia-to-walk-the-talk-on-syria/

[bemildred]

33. Angelo Codevilla responds to Spengler: Ankara is the cat that has to be belled

I did not post Spengler's piece referenced here, although it has some interesting bits, because of the petulant whining throughout.

What is Putin doing in Syria with all that military power? The answer – though it begs the question – is straightforward: whatever he wants.

Some of what he wants is obvious: securing Russia’s naval base in the Mediterranean, as well as a safe, non-troublesome ally in control of the area around it. A shrewd man, Putin probably realizes that re-constructing Syria is beyond Russia’s power, that even if Syria were put back together keeping it that way would be endless trouble, that a rump Syria is sufficient to maintain Russia’s interest in the mediterranean, and that Assad would be a liability rather than an asset at the head of such a rump Syria.

Hence one may suppose that Putin’s military deployments are all about securing his pied a terre – as big and as solid a Mediterranean Alewi-Stan as possible.

Solidifying it necessarily means chopping back the Sunni challenge thereto. That requires the diplomacy to which Goldman refers. Wisely, Goldman counts the USA out.

http://atimes.com/2015/09/angelo-codevilla-responds-to-spengler-ankara-is-the-cat-that-has-to-be-belled/

[KoKo]

35. Fascinating......

Some of what he wants is obvious: securing Russia’s naval base in the Mediterranean, as well as a safe, non-troublesome ally in control of the area around it. A shrewd man, Putin probably realizes that re-constructing Syria is beyond Russia’s power, that even if Syria were put back together keeping it that way would be endless trouble, that a rump Syria is sufficient to maintain Russia’s interest in the mediterranean, and that Assad would be a liability rather than an asset at the head of such a rump Syria.

[bemildred]

37. Except for that last bit.

He shows his slant there. Putin is not about to dump Assad any time soon, not for free anyway. But otherwise that is about right.

[bemildred]

34. Gulf Arabs oppose Russia role in Syria, still bent on Assad's ouster

Russia's military intervention in support of President Bashar al-Assad has dismayed Gulf Arab enemies of the Syrian leader who say it will prolong the war and keep Syria firmly in the orbit of their arch regional rival Iran.

Russia says it is providing arms to the Syrian leader, a longtime ally, and has sent servicemen to advise on their use in the fight against Islamic State (IS) and other jihadist groups. Moscow has also staged naval exercises off Syria.

Washington, which opposes both IS and Assad, says Moscow has also sent fighter jets, tanks and other heavy equipment to Syria. On Monday U.S. officials said Russia had started flying drone aircraft on surveillance missions in Syria. Moscow has not confirmed those reports.

Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Muslim Gulf states have this month reaffirmed their opposition to Assad, whom they see as a stooge of Shi'ite Iran, but have not said publicly how they intend to deal with the arrival of the Russian forces.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/us-mideast-crisis-gulf-russia-idUSKCN0RM1JX20150922

[KoKo]

36. Should be taken "with a grain of salt?"

LACK OF U.S. ENGAGEMENT

Some Gulf Arab officials say the Russian intervention was made possible only by what they see as a lack of U.S. engagement on Syria.

There is also grudging recognition of Putin's consistent loyalty to his ally, a quality Gulf Arabs say their U.S. friend lacks.

Sami Al-Faraj, a Kuwaiti security adviser to the GCC, told Reuters the Russian intervention in effect meant Syria would now be partitioned between a coastal strip held by Assad - who is from the Alawite minority, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam - and a Sunni Muslim majority hinterland, with Iran a major beneficiary.

"The GCC understands that a new Syrian entity carved out under Assad means preserving Iranian interests, which is to have a front in the Mediterranean," he said. "The Iranians have chosen the right great power to be with - the Russians."

He said he expected the GCC to emulate the U.S. example and seek to ensure that the armed opposition groups it backs in Syria did not engage the Russian troops in combat.

The Gulf Arab states will continue to funnel weapons to the opposition groups, he added, but would "not give them with the objective of fighting Russian forces in Syria".

[bemildred]

38. Lots of salt.

I believe that Putin intends to kick some ISIS ass, not merely defend the coast, but we will have to wait a bit to see.

[geek tragedy]

40. He's stepping in to shore up his client Assad

This is being portrayed as some kind of decisive, bold leadership, but if this were such an awesome, beneficial move for Russia, he would have taken it earlier.

This seems to qualify more as his perceived least bad option.

[bemildred]

41. I think he is being opportunistic.

But you can certainly argue that he had to do something, the consequences of Assad's fall would be pretty unpleasant to contemplate. Whether he is being opportunistic or rash remains to be seen. Much will depend at this point on the quality of Russian arms and leadership.

[geek tragedy]

42. even if Isis is squashed like a bug and Assad restored to full control

over the country, not sure he doesn't have anything he didn't have before the Arab Spring.

I think the US is more than happy to have the Iranians and the Russians beating up on ISIS.

[bemildred]

43. Every cloud has a silver lining.

(So they say.)

Yea, I'd stand back and watch. I do hope it doesn't get bigger (the ISIS war).

[bemildred]

44. Will a U.N.-backed agreement end fighting in parts of Syria?

BEIRUT — Syrian rebels said Saturday they were preparing to withdraw from a besieged town near Syria’s border with Lebanon as part of an unusual U.N.-backed cease-fire involving Iran and Islamist insurgents.

The agreement, reached last week, marks the culmination of weeks of talks held in Turkey to end a brutal siege against rebel-held Zabadani by the Syrian military and Lebanon’s Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia.

Under the deal, rebels linked to the Islamist Ahrar al-Sham group have in turn agreed to halt attacks on the pro-government villages of Foua and Kfarya in the northwestern province of Idlib.

The truce highlights the growing influence wielded over President Bashar al-Assad’s government by Iran, which negotiated the agreement on behalf of the Syrian leader, according to officials familiar with the exchanges. The agreement, they say, will be implemented over six months and involves the planned evacuation of rebels and civilians and the release of government-held prisoners.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/will-a-un-backed-agreement-end-fighting-in-parts-of-syria/2015/09/26/6e578d8a-63c8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html