Syria Civil War II

[Orm]

The following quote cut from: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pipelines

"Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. An Agence France-Presse report claimed Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas"."

----

Interesting part at the end. The article it is cut from is interesting albeit old.

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Would it be too political if I simply pasted a link to a Washington Times article from this morning? The article discusses troop levels in Afghanistan.

I personally see no objection to mentioning troop levels, but I would suggest that a new geographical area deserves a new thread.

[Jim D Burns]

I think the only chance left for the US to prevent a totally Russian dominated Middle East, is if the current administration re-engages in Iraq. Unrealistic I know, but keeping Russian land forces out of Iraq is imperative I think, since once they arrive Putin can threaten any Arab state into submission at will.

If we do re-engage it will have to be with the intent to stay long term (i.e. the US Korea commitment) since it is too vital to world peace to keep Russia out and Iraq has proven it can’t stand on its own yet. If Iraq ever stabilizes in the future then perhaps we could leave, but as long as Russian troops are in Syria and Iran is its ally, we need the wedge kept open between the two else the entire Arabian Peninsula falls under Russian influence and eventual control.

I doubt the US will re-engage, so chances are Russia will try and get into Iraq within the next year I think to make it in before the election. They’ve already shown a willingness to operate militarily inside a country alongside the US (and tried to intimidate us into standing down), so we need to get into Iraq and get it cleared of ISIS ASAP if we hope to stop Putin from eventually turning it into a puppet state as well.

Jim

[Jagdtiger14]

I think his main goal is to destroy NATO as an alliance. If he could maneuver a NATO member into attacking Russian forces (likely in Syria) and pretend to have casus beli in his response against that NATO member, it would be possible that the weak western leadership we have at the moment might flinch. FYI: NATO has been bolstered recently with the addition of Montenegro into its ranks.

I also think Iran (and shi-ite Iraq) are already willing minor powers for Russia. Some of the Persian Gulf States have Shi-ite majority populations and could be over-thrown. As for Saudi Arabia (as well as UAE and Oman), I highly doubt Russia would attack/invade, but possibly leave that to Iran if that was to become a goal. Notice, since the world signed off on the Iranian nuke deal, UAE has recently announced it will now attempt to aquire nuclear weapons...that already includes Saudi Arabia. So much for non-proliferation...the Iran nuke deal guarantees it.

I don't think shutting off the oil spigot will help Russia and its allies that much as it will hurt them as well (sales). It wont hurt the US since we have become self sufficient with fracking...in fact with Canada, we could supply Europe...not just with oil, but all of its natural gas needs. North America would make a ton of money.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
I don't think shutting off the oil spigot will help Russia and its allies that much as it will hurt them as well

Higher oil prices = Riches in Russia's coffers. Russia is in this for Russia, Putin couldn't care less about his Arab allies. Once he's destroyed the oil fields (or gains the ability to influence/control how much oil gets pumped), Russia will be awash in cash for years to come. Hell, I bet he'd even go so far as to spark off a Shia vs. Sunni nuclear exchange to make it happen.

Jim

[Jagdtiger14]

Jim - The Russians already have fly over permission, and I saw a news story last week that they were operating out of a base in Iraq:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conve ... 13356.html

Sorry about linking to the Huffington Post (conspiratorial, political, and generally unreliable), I hope it doesn't get the thread closed...but the article is in cooperation with another news source.

[Jagdtiger14]

Ok, so you are saying the Arabian Peninsula oil fields are destroyed, not invaded and taken over for the purpose of blackmailing the planet...because I don't think the latter would work. If those oil fields were destroyed, it pretty much only really hurts Europe...but they can choose who to buy oil/gas from, and it probably will not be Russia and its clients in that case. There would be a separate oil market created including only the "free world". Venezuela's "Bolivarian Revolution" would come to a quick and merciful end.

The US will not re-engage in Iraq within the next 15 months minimum...and that will make it too late. The situation has changed in Iraq since the government there is now dominated by Iranian influence. Only in the Kurdish area could the US be welcomed back, and that's if they forgive us for abandoning them.

[Josh]

It's a powder keg that's for sure. Way too complicated for me. [&:] Awhile ago I followed a similar thread over at Battlefront, lots and lots of tankbattles in Syria on youtube, didn't make things any more clear to me. With Iran, Turkey, Russia and who knows else now involved...I don't know maybe they'll have peace within a year or so, and then it blows up again 1-2 years after that. It's a mess. I mean I just read in the news today that there are thousands and thousands of russians fighting for ISIS? What the... [&:]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
Jim - The Russians already have fly over permission, and I saw a news story last week that they were operating out of a base in Iraq:

It may well already be too late, since as I said the only chance I can see to stop him is a total US re-engagement which isn’t likely. I’m just trying to imagine what the world will look like in 10 years once he has total dominance in the Middle East. How far will the world let him go before we begin to push back? Hitler had modern conventional weapons to scare the free world with, Putin has nukes. It may very well come to be that he can threaten and intimidate his way into total dominance in Europe as well once he controls the oil.

This is the beginning of a whole new strategic era in the world as power is going to rapidly shift into the hands of dictators as they grab up the resources that control the energy engines of the world. History may well look back on this as the beginning of what eventually leads to WWIII. Then again with the wrong kind of leadership the free world may simply fold and submit to slavery without a fight, who knows.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
Ok, so you are saying the Arabian Peninsula oil fields are destroyed, not invaded and taken over for the purpose of blackmailing the planet

Edited my post, sorry didn't mean to imply I thought his main goal was destruction. I just don't think he would care if they do get destroyed as control or destruction both make him rich. I assume he prefers control of course, but I don't put it past him to destroy them if it looks like he may get pushed out.

Jim

[operating]

The Keystone Pipeline from Canada to New Orleans, should it ever be built would reduce oil dependence from the ME. It's been argued as a way for Europe not to be too dependent on Russian oil and gas. This pipeline may not be enough to satisfy all of Europe's energy demands, but certainly a secure supply in Peacetime.

[rhondabrwn]

Great analysis and I think you guys have captured Putin's political fantasies perfectly.

The possibility of all this happening? Doubtful. If the US couldn't dominate after 15 years with a level of financial expenditure that the Russian economy can never match, why would anyone think that all these nations would willingly become Russian satellite states? Their first effort in Afghanistan really worked out well for them (not). How about Russian efforts to control all their breakaway Muslim states as the USSR collapsed? How many of them have rolled over and become satellites again?

Putin puts tanks and attack helicopters into Syria; the US has already started supplying rebel groups with anti-tank weaponry (probably also effective against choppers)... and so it goes, once again. Suicide bombers and IED's work just as well against any invaders, East/West, Good intentions/bad intentions, Arabs and Persians aren't going to sit back and be anyone's lapdog. Hasn't that become obvious?

I'm really not that worried about Putin, just sorry about all the innocent lives being lost in the Middle East cauldron of sectarian, religious, and geopolitical intrigues. I wish I could see a solution, but I'm afraid that the Middle East will to confront their own problems and find their own solutions, however bloody that process may be.

I readily admit to not being anywhere near as informed as the commentators on this thread. I am very respectful of your knowledge and analysis... seriously!

What I offer is more of a cultural/political overview that I have synthesized from my own life experiences and observations over many decades. Call it "feminine intuition" if you like, but I've always had a capacity to see trends and relationships that often seem to escape people's attention. My brain is wired a bit differently. So take my comments for whatever you think they are worth, or not [:)]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
why would anyone think that all these nations would willingly become Russian satellite states?

Put simply the US is a benevolent power, Russia is not. He won’t be making Satellite states, he’ll be making puppet states. Putin will assassinate any leader he needs to in order to get his man into position of higher office if need be. To reduce attacks in a region Putin will raze entire towns or tribes if he needs to, look at what was done in Chechnya. The world did little to stop what Russia did there, hell the world didn’t even bother to try and find out what was done. The same will happen in Syria and Iraq once Russia closes the borders to the outside world.

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
Their first effort in Afghanistan really worked out well for them (not).

The world and technology has changed a lot since then. Back then the Afghans could hide in the mountains. Today modern satellites and GPS guided munitions means direct confrontation with the military will only be what we faced in Iraq. IED’s and hit and run mortar attacks. These will not deter Russia from controlling a country, to do that you need to cause far more havoc and until the Arabs catch up with education and technology they are far too outclassed today on a conventional point. Don’t make the common mistake of thinking about today’s wars based on yesterday’s wars, things have changed a lot since the 80’s.

Also remember Russia doesn’t need the Arab people, it just needs to control the resources which is easy enough to do if you’re willing to carpet bomb towns and kill innocents. Russia can easily keep a radius of many miles around the oil wells clear of people if it wants to.

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
but I'm afraid that the Middle East will to confront their own problems and find their own solutions, however bloody that process may be.

Wishful thinking I’m afraid, this can’t possibly happen right now. This cannot occur until the Muslim religion goes through a period of reformation and the Muslim people take political power away from the church the way the Christians did. Until then the best we can hope for is a secular military takeover of power as happened in Egypt. If we can secularize all Islamic militaries then there is a chance the world can peacefully co-exist with their theocratic governments. But as long as there are fundamental Islamic militaries in existence like the one in Iran, there is not going to be peace in the Middle East.

Jim

[rhondabrwn]

Good points Jim, especially the last paragraph. Of course, the secular states tend towards dictatorship and brutal suppression of human rights. Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria... while the religious states seem to follow the same pattern: Iran (post revolution), Afghanistan (Taliban era). It seems that eventually you end up with some kind of revolt followed by civil war. Even separation doesn't seem to work: India vs Pakistan (Muslim vs Hinduism). I think the real answer is to eliminate all religions (ala John Lennon "Imagine") but that will never happen.

Mankind is doomed [:(]

Oh, and interesting theory that technology has developed to such an extent that rebels have no place to hide on the modern battlefield. They seem to be managing petty well by just making themselves indistinguishable from the general population and that isn't going to change, it's the essence of any guerrilla or revolutionary strategy. I don't think ruthless suppression is a permanent solution. You referenced Chechnya, resistance to Russian rule dates back to 1785. While they did lose militarily to the USSR in the 2nd Chechen War, the fight continues through terrorist attacks and an active resistance movement with bombings in Russia. Suppression isn't winning... it's like a bleeding wound that won't heal... constantly threatening to erupt. Seize the oil fields? Someone will infiltrate and blow up wellheads, pipelines, shipping facilities, and refineries. Keeping many troops on station all over the Middle East to maintain control through sheer might and ruthlessness is going to be an expensive proposition, in money, lives, and materiel. Is the state of Russia strong enough to do that?

I was more worried about how cozy Europe was getting with the new Russian state before Putin's aggressive moves began. The idea of European dependence on Russian oil and natural gas was disturbing (and still is). The steady reduction in military budgets and preparedness over this time was of concern as well. A resurgent Russian imperialist state may reverse those trends and leave Russia isolated economically and confronted by a resurgent NATO.

Just speculation... but I see Putin losing it all in the near future. Just that "intuition" running wild again [:D]

Enjoying your input [&o] Let's keep this thread going! [:)]

[KISSMEUFOOL!]

Put simply the US is a benevolent power, Russia is not.

That was partially true 25 years ago but is not the case now.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: KISSMEUFOOL!

Put simply the US is a benevolent power, Russia is not.

That was partially true 25 years ago but is not the case now.

Probably not a subject we can get away with discussing, though I agree with you.

Let's let this one drop, ok?

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
They seem to be managing petty well by just making themselves indistinguishable from the general population and that isn't going to change, it's the essence of any guerrilla or revolutionary strategy.

Russia doesn’t need to control the entire country the way the US did. The US was trying to free Iraq from fundamentalism so they could hold free and fair elections. So the US needed to go into every corner of the nation that was infected with fundamentalists and clear them out. But we did it with an eye towards saving innocent lives whenever possible, so we made sacrifices a country like Russia won’t. Russia will simply obliterate any town that they find occupied with opposition fighters, no need for troops on the ground, they’ll use pure firepower. Once 10-20 towns get destroyed like this, the people themselves will start to drive out any fighters lest they become victims of Russia’s firepower.

Russia only needs to hold government centers, its military bases, the vital strategic resources and transportation routes. The oil in Chechnya has been pumping non-stop and getting out to markets for sale even while the worst of the fighting was going on. So I doubt an insurgency can stop the oil in Iraq either. It might cause pinpricks now and again, but it won’t force Russia out.

Jim

[rhondabrwn]

Maybe, but I can't believe they could get away with this level of atrocity... there would be blowback from the rest of the world... economic sanctions, interventions by other world powers, jihadi volunteers...

Of course, look how well ruthless suppression worked for Hitler. Totally crushed all resistance movements by shooting civilians, destroying towns to make an example of them and so forth. Yea, it really worked well... not. Such tactics tend to elevate a people's will to resist. I don't think modern killing technology will change that fundamental factor... methods of resistance will adapt to the new threats.

I remain unconvinced that Russia has the key to dominating the Middle East. Still think they are making a huge mistake to get involved.

We'll see how it turns out, but I think you are overestimating Russian military power, in the same way it turns out that the West overestimated the USSR Cold War threats. Until then, it's all speculation isn't it?

[Aurelian]

Worked equally well for the Soviets in Afghanistan

[Capt. Harlock]

Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria... while the religious states seem to follow the same pattern: Iran (post revolution), Afghanistan (Taliban era). It seems that eventually you end up with some kind of revolt followed by civil war. Even separation doesn't seem to work: India vs Pakistan (Muslim vs Hinduism). I think the real answer is to eliminate all religions (ala John Lennon "Imagine") but that will never happen.

Mankind is doomed

I wouldn't take quite such a pessimistic view. Three years ago a professor of psychology named Stephen Pinker came out with a remarkable book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014312 ... oks&sr=1-1
which argued, backed by statistics, that we are in the most peaceful period in recorded history. It's possible that the breakout of violence that is the aftermath of the Arab Spring has pushed the numbers back up a bit, but when you look at percentages we are still not at the level of the Napoleonic Wars, or the Tai'Ping Rebellion and Opium Wars.

And Pinker maintained that things were going to get even better. Here I think he may overlooked a few things. He believed that Islam was going to evolve to a less dominant creed, but he underrated the difficulty of re-interpreting the Quran. (A surprising mistake for a linguist to make; he should have known that Arabic has never fallen into disuse as Hebrew and Aramaic did, so there is a lot less leeway for re-interpretation.) Nonetheless, I have a feeling that by the end of this century there will be an unspoken consensus to ignore the less savory parts of the Quran, just as almost no one pays attention to the unsettling parts of Leviticus anymore.

And the problem of revolutions resulting in chaos has been around for a long time as well. Winston Churchill did a nice passage on the issue in "The River War", his study of the re-conquest of the Sudan after the fall of Khartoum. I don't have the text ready to hand, but he pointed out that first revolutions rarely succeed, but there are generally second movements and even third ones, so that if one measures by centuries instead of decades, significant progress is usually made.