Meanwhile, In Syria
Discussion
Cobnapint said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Putin continues to surprise. 6 months and a ceasefire, which is holding. Job done, and leaves. Putin may have a talent for this peacekeeping thing.
Brains in Washington and probably Brussels and London are currently exploding at this.
It was probably the brains in London and Washington that kicked the withdrawal off.Brains in Washington and probably Brussels and London are currently exploding at this.
The ceasefire wouldn't have stuck a chance while
Putin was still pouring unguided munitions into residential areas, and he would have been told this in no uncertain terms.
He may have turned the tide a little in favour of Assad, but ISIS are still there, and so are the armed opposition militias. How you come to a peace settlement with this lot is beyond me.
Washington and or London & Brussels had zero to do with this, much like they had zero to do with the Russian entry into the war, barring being told to stay out of the way. 6 months and a ceasefire, 2 years of Washington and Co. attempt at "peace", continued war.
Applaud the success at getting the ceasefire, even if it is through gritted teeth. Putin's unguided munitions (did not know cruise missiles were unguided) did more to bring about the ceasefire in 6 months, than high-tech guide munitions did in 2 years. You might want to contrast this with the peace achieved in Afghanistan.
Russia's method was blunt but effective, sign up for the ceasefire or continue being targeted.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 15th March 09:59
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Cobnapint said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Putin continues to surprise. 6 months and a ceasefire, which is holding. Job done, and leaves. Putin may have a talent for this peacekeeping thing.
Brains in Washington and probably Brussels and London are currently exploding at this.
It was probably the brains in London and Washington that kicked the withdrawal off.Brains in Washington and probably Brussels and London are currently exploding at this.
The ceasefire wouldn't have stuck a chance while
Putin was still pouring unguided munitions into residential areas, and he would have been told this in no uncertain terms.
He may have turned the tide a little in favour of Assad, but ISIS are still there, and so are the armed opposition militias. How you come to a peace settlement with this lot is beyond me.
Washington and or London & Brussels had zero to do with this, much like they had zero to do with the Russian entry into the war, barring being told to stay out of the way. 6 months and a ceasefire, 2 years of Washington and Co. attempt at "peace", continued war.
Applaud the success at getting the ceasefire, even if it is through gritted teeth. Putin's unguided munitions (did not know cruise missiles were unguided) did more to bring about the ceasefire in 6 months, than high-tech guide munitions did in 2 years. You might want to contrast this with the peace achieved in Afghanistan.
Russia's method was blunt but effective, sign up for the ceasefire or continue being targeted.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Putin continues to surprise. 6 months and a ceasefire, which is holding. Job done, and leaves. Putin may have a talent for this peacekeeping thing.
The only thing your mate had a talent for is lying through his f
king teeth.He just staged a meeting for the press so he could announce the withdrawal his military forces....LOL....well, apart from the ones that fly and drop bombs....
Syria conflict: Russia 'to continue air strikes' after withdrawal - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-358123...
Cobnapint said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Cobnapint said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Putin continues to surprise. 6 months and a ceasefire, which is holding. Job done, and leaves. Putin may have a talent for this peacekeeping thing.
Brains in Washington and probably Brussels and London are currently exploding at this.
It was probably the brains in London and Washington that kicked the withdrawal off.Brains in Washington and probably Brussels and London are currently exploding at this.
The ceasefire wouldn't have stuck a chance while
Putin was still pouring unguided munitions into residential areas, and he would have been told this in no uncertain terms.
He may have turned the tide a little in favour of Assad, but ISIS are still there, and so are the armed opposition militias. How you come to a peace settlement with this lot is beyond me.
Washington and or London & Brussels had zero to do with this, much like they had zero to do with the Russian entry into the war, barring being told to stay out of the way. 6 months and a ceasefire, 2 years of Washington and Co. attempt at "peace", continued war.
Applaud the success at getting the ceasefire, even if it is through gritted teeth. Putin's unguided munitions (did not know cruise missiles were unguided) did more to bring about the ceasefire in 6 months, than high-tech guide munitions did in 2 years. You might want to contrast this with the peace achieved in Afghanistan.
Russia's method was blunt but effective, sign up for the ceasefire or continue being targeted.
Russia made substantial use of cruise missiles, over 100 launches, that is not insignificant.
Either way, people are not killing each other, and are talking, primarily due to Russia, Hezbollah and Iran intervention. Drone strikes achieved zero, supplying and training terrorist Islamist groups achieved substantial conflict escalation, fabricated WMD evidence achieved conflict escalation and an attempted overthrow of a legitimate government, UK bombing in Syria was close to pointless, barring some internal PR value.
Look at Libya or Iraq, for the Western powers idea of ceasefire, negotiation and peace. It is called civil war.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 15th March 14:05
Cobnapint said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Putin continues to surprise. 6 months and a ceasefire, which is holding. Job done, and leaves. Putin may have a talent for this peacekeeping thing.
The only thing your mate had a talent for is lying through his fking teeth.He just staged a meeting for the press so he could announce the withdrawal his military forces....LOL....well, apart from the ones that fly and drop bombs....
Syria conflict: Russia 'to continue air strikes' after withdrawal - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-358123...
If he fights, he is wrong, if he withdraws he is wrong, if he negotiates he is wrong, if he forces a peace, he is wrong, in your eyes.
Let us agree to disagree.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
If he fights, he is wrong, if he withdraws he is wrong, if he negotiates he is wrong, if he forces a peace, he is wrong, in your eyes.
Complete rubbish. I never said he was wrong for withdrawing, I said he was wrong for saying he's withdrawing, when he isn't.
I never said he was wrong for negotiating either.
He's wrong for fighting against those that are fighting ISIS - yes. And for dropping thousands of free fall bombs on opposition civilian areas when he swore blind he was there to destroy ISIS.
He's a lying f
ker, and the world knows it, but you think he's some kind of international peacemaker.He isn't. He's there to try and save one of his biggest customers - the murderous dictator, and fellow lying
, Bashar al-Assad.Could be that Putin was only in it to get this guy Shashani, who happens to be Georgian, he's not a fan of much that comes out of Georgia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35808738
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35808738
Cobnapint said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
If he fights, he is wrong, if he withdraws he is wrong, if he negotiates he is wrong, if he forces a peace, he is wrong, in your eyes.
Complete rubbish. I never said he was wrong for withdrawing, I said he was wrong for saying he's withdrawing, when he isn't.
I never said he was wrong for negotiating either.
He's wrong for fighting against those that are fighting ISIS - yes. And for dropping thousands of free fall bombs on opposition civilian areas when he swore blind he was there to destroy ISIS.
He's a lying f
ker, and the world knows it, but you think he's some kind of international peacemaker.He isn't. He's there to try and save one of his biggest customers - the murderous dictator, and fellow lying
, Bashar al-Assad.A liar? And this surprises you? Let's not be naive. Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, was built on lies, but Putin is a liar!
If we had leaders that were more than sound bite, wind vane media men perhaps that would not be the case.
I am surprised you do not get angry about how Al Nusra / Al Qaeda suddenly became moderate to Cameron and Obama in Syria. Oh, but they are not liars, just honorable men.
Authoritarian, murderous dictatorships being supplied with weapons.. Sorry thought you were talking about Saudi Arabia, but they are the good kind, not the bad kind.
Let us ask the Yemenis about that.
Perhaps you can see the hypocrisy.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 16th March 07:14
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Seems you are more angry at the fact he has out maneuvered the West and Co. than what has been achieved in Syria.
A liar? And this surprises you? Let's not be naive. Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, was built on lies, but Putin is a liar!
If we had leaders that were more than sound bite, wind vane media men perhaps that would not be the case.
I am surprised you do not get angry about how Al Nusra / Al Qaeda suddenly became moderate to Cameron and Obama in Syria. Oh, but they are not liars, just honorable men.
Authoritarian, murderous dictatorships being supplied with weapons.. Sorry thought you were talking about Saudi Arabia, but they are the good kind, not the bad kind.
Let us ask the Yemenis about that.
Perhaps you can see the hypocrisy.
You can't talk sense into someone with a binary view of the world that is based in fantasy.A liar? And this surprises you? Let's not be naive. Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, was built on lies, but Putin is a liar!
If we had leaders that were more than sound bite, wind vane media men perhaps that would not be the case.
I am surprised you do not get angry about how Al Nusra / Al Qaeda suddenly became moderate to Cameron and Obama in Syria. Oh, but they are not liars, just honorable men.
Authoritarian, murderous dictatorships being supplied with weapons.. Sorry thought you were talking about Saudi Arabia, but they are the good kind, not the bad kind.
Let us ask the Yemenis about that.
Perhaps you can see the hypocrisy.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 16th March 07:14
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Seems you are more angry at the fact he has out maneuvered the West and Co. than what has been achieved in Syria.
A liar? And this surprises you? Let's not be naive. Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, was built on lies, but Putin is a liar!
If we had leaders that were more than sound bite, wind vane media men perhaps that would not be the case.
I am surprised you do not get angry about how Al Nusra / Al Qaeda suddenly became moderate to Cameron and Obama in Syria. Oh, but they are not liars, just honorable men.
Authoritarian, murderous dictatorships being supplied with weapons.. Sorry thought you were talking about Saudi Arabia, but they are the good kind, not the bad kind.
Let us ask the Yemenis about that.
Perhaps you can see the hypocrisy.
Nail, head, hitA liar? And this surprises you? Let's not be naive. Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, was built on lies, but Putin is a liar!
If we had leaders that were more than sound bite, wind vane media men perhaps that would not be the case.
I am surprised you do not get angry about how Al Nusra / Al Qaeda suddenly became moderate to Cameron and Obama in Syria. Oh, but they are not liars, just honorable men.
Authoritarian, murderous dictatorships being supplied with weapons.. Sorry thought you were talking about Saudi Arabia, but they are the good kind, not the bad kind.
Let us ask the Yemenis about that.
Perhaps you can see the hypocrisy.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 16th March 07:14
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Seems you are more angry at the fact he has out maneuvered the West and Co. than what has been achieved in Syria.
A liar? And this surprises you? Let's not be naive. Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, was built on lies, but Putin is a liar!
If we had leaders that were more than sound bite, wind vane media men perhaps that would not be the case.
I am surprised you do not get angry about how Al Nusra / Al Qaeda suddenly became moderate to Cameron and Obama in Syria. Oh, but they are not liars, just honorable men.
Authoritarian, murderous dictatorships being supplied with weapons.. Sorry thought you were talking about Saudi Arabia, but they are the good kind, not the bad kind.
Let us ask the Yemenis about that.
Perhaps you can see the hypocrisy.
I know the general bandwagon consensus is that the attacks on chemical weapon using, hostage taking, UN defying Iraq was built on lies (even though he was playing hide and seek with the UN weapons inspectors right up to the bitter end) but that is yet to be proven either way.A liar? And this surprises you? Let's not be naive. Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, was built on lies, but Putin is a liar!
If we had leaders that were more than sound bite, wind vane media men perhaps that would not be the case.
I am surprised you do not get angry about how Al Nusra / Al Qaeda suddenly became moderate to Cameron and Obama in Syria. Oh, but they are not liars, just honorable men.
Authoritarian, murderous dictatorships being supplied with weapons.. Sorry thought you were talking about Saudi Arabia, but they are the good kind, not the bad kind.
Let us ask the Yemenis about that.
Perhaps you can see the hypocrisy.
And attacking the Lockerbie bombing supporting, Berlin discotheque bombing, terrorist camp funding, murdering Libyan tyrant Gaddafi was a bad thing..?
You genuinely think I'm surprised when Putin lies...? Don't insult me.
And you expect me to get angry about the 'Als' every time I want to talk about him....sorry, haven't got the time.
And Saudi Arabia (admittedly not the nicest of governments) attacked Yemen to save the incumbent government that was being overrun by Houthi militias that were backed by the 'we're not trying to build a nuclear bomb - but we'll stop trying if you lift the UN imposed sanctions' darlings in Iran.
Might agree with you on the 'sound bite, wind vane media men' bit though.
Cobnapint said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Seems you are more angry at the fact he has out maneuvered the West and Co. than what has been achieved in Syria.
A liar? And this surprises you? Let's not be naive. Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, was built on lies, but Putin is a liar!
If we had leaders that were more than sound bite, wind vane media men perhaps that would not be the case.
I am surprised you do not get angry about how Al Nusra / Al Qaeda suddenly became moderate to Cameron and Obama in Syria. Oh, but they are not liars, just honorable men.
Authoritarian, murderous dictatorships being supplied with weapons.. Sorry thought you were talking about Saudi Arabia, but they are the good kind, not the bad kind.
Let us ask the Yemenis about that.
Perhaps you can see the hypocrisy.
I know the general bandwagon consensus is that the attacks on chemical weapon using, hostage taking, UN defying Iraq was built on lies (even though he was playing hide and seek with the UN weapons inspectors right up to the bitter end) but that is yet to be proven either way.A liar? And this surprises you? Let's not be naive. Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, was built on lies, but Putin is a liar!
If we had leaders that were more than sound bite, wind vane media men perhaps that would not be the case.
I am surprised you do not get angry about how Al Nusra / Al Qaeda suddenly became moderate to Cameron and Obama in Syria. Oh, but they are not liars, just honorable men.
Authoritarian, murderous dictatorships being supplied with weapons.. Sorry thought you were talking about Saudi Arabia, but they are the good kind, not the bad kind.
Let us ask the Yemenis about that.
Perhaps you can see the hypocrisy.
And attacking the Lockerbie bombing supporting, Berlin discotheque bombing, terrorist camp funding, murdering Libyan tyrant Gaddafi was a bad thing..?
You genuinely think I'm surprised when Putin lies...? Don't insult me.
And you expect me to get angry about the 'Als' every time I want to talk about him....sorry, haven't got the time.
And Saudi Arabia (admittedly not the nicest of governments) attacked Yemen to save the incumbent government that was being overrun by Houthi militias that were backed by the 'we're not trying to build a nuclear bomb - but we'll stop trying if you lift the UN imposed sanctions' darlings in Iran.
Might agree with you on the 'sound bite, wind vane media men' bit though.
Having Dannat pontificate about how to deal with Russia, over the last few days, when he could not deal with Afghanistan or Iraq, does make me laugh then cry.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 16th March 13:05
Some points to ponder.
As reported around the world, Russia’s decision to greatly reduce its military presence in Syria, coming as it did with little warning, has left the world struggling for explanations.
After having rescued the Syrian Government’s position in Syria from certain defeat and securing a partial truce along with the onset of an imminent peace conference, the partial withdrawal is seen by many as a message to the Assad government to not take Russia’s military aid for granted, and to be more flexible in the upcoming peace negotiations.
If we assume that all wars are essentially trade wars grown large, and in the Middle East, they almost always involve energy, then the Russian gambit in Syria can be viewed from a different perspective. Russia’s economy is currently in recession, partly as a result of western sanctions, but much more seriously hurt by the crashing of energy prices.
Russia’s warming relations with Saudi Arabia has helped to bring about an OPEC-Russian sponsored freeze in oil production, with only Iran refusing to comply. With the Syrian withdrawal, Russia has tempered a major political feud with the Saudis over Russia’s support for Assad, a move that at once increases the prospects for a Russian-Saudi agreement on oil production cutbacks.
There are also many who think that Russia is also increasing pressure on its allies to be more flexible, not only in peace talks but also oil production cuts. With the withdrawal of the Russian protective air shield, Iran and Hezbollah’s ground forces in Syria are suddenly exposed to the threat of Saudi and Turkish air attacks. Will the threat of a looming military catastrophe in Syria force Iran to comply with production cuts?
Many oil insiders believe that after decades of punishing western sanctions, Iran’s oil industry is in no condition to meet its avowed quota for production, so that an agreement on cuts might cause little sacrifice.
Russia’s actions may well have staved off other threats to its business. Recall that Robert Kennedy Jr., the nephew of the slain U.S. President, recently published an article in Sputnik, claiming that the major reason for the west’s attempt to overthrow the Assad government was to build a natural gas pipeline from Qatar that traversed Syria, capturing its newly discovered offshore reserves, and continued on through Turkey to the EU, as a major competitor to Russia’s Gazprom.
By re-establishing the Assad government in Syria, and permanently placing its forces at Syrian bases, the Russian’s have placed an impenetrable obstacle to the development of the Qatar gas pipeline. Russia has also placed itself at the nexus point of other new offshore gas discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean, including Israel, Cyprus, and Greece.
It’s not hard to imagine a new Russian pipeline to Europe serving these new partners. Could easing of sanctions also lead to the implementation of the long-stalled plans of Gazprom for a second pipeline under the Baltic Sea to Germany for Russia and its partners, Royal Dutch Shell, Germany's E.ON, and Austria's OMV?
If so, we can be assured that the U.S. will be in fierce opposition to any such plans. As George Friedman, founder of Stratfor has stated, the American’s worst European nightmare is an alliance between Germany and Russia.
The timing of the Russian withdrawal could not be more fortuitous, as it occurs at the very pinnacle of the European refugee crisis, a crisis that was caused by Europe’s backing of the Saudi-Turkish attempt to overthrow Assad. For the first time in four years, the truce in Syria offers respite for Syrian refugees, fleeing from constant bombardment and attacks, and raises prospects for increasing security within their homeland.
Is this part of the Russian Syrian gambit? Is Russia gambling on receiving some modicum of European gratitude for helping to stem the flight of refugees to its borders, with the pay-off in terms of easing sanction and enabling its long stalled pipeline projects to be completed.
No, Putin could not possibly be so calculating, could he?
Rationale behind Russias withdrawal in Syria
As reported around the world, Russia’s decision to greatly reduce its military presence in Syria, coming as it did with little warning, has left the world struggling for explanations.
After having rescued the Syrian Government’s position in Syria from certain defeat and securing a partial truce along with the onset of an imminent peace conference, the partial withdrawal is seen by many as a message to the Assad government to not take Russia’s military aid for granted, and to be more flexible in the upcoming peace negotiations.
If we assume that all wars are essentially trade wars grown large, and in the Middle East, they almost always involve energy, then the Russian gambit in Syria can be viewed from a different perspective. Russia’s economy is currently in recession, partly as a result of western sanctions, but much more seriously hurt by the crashing of energy prices.
Russia’s warming relations with Saudi Arabia has helped to bring about an OPEC-Russian sponsored freeze in oil production, with only Iran refusing to comply. With the Syrian withdrawal, Russia has tempered a major political feud with the Saudis over Russia’s support for Assad, a move that at once increases the prospects for a Russian-Saudi agreement on oil production cutbacks.
There are also many who think that Russia is also increasing pressure on its allies to be more flexible, not only in peace talks but also oil production cuts. With the withdrawal of the Russian protective air shield, Iran and Hezbollah’s ground forces in Syria are suddenly exposed to the threat of Saudi and Turkish air attacks. Will the threat of a looming military catastrophe in Syria force Iran to comply with production cuts?
Many oil insiders believe that after decades of punishing western sanctions, Iran’s oil industry is in no condition to meet its avowed quota for production, so that an agreement on cuts might cause little sacrifice.
Russia’s actions may well have staved off other threats to its business. Recall that Robert Kennedy Jr., the nephew of the slain U.S. President, recently published an article in Sputnik, claiming that the major reason for the west’s attempt to overthrow the Assad government was to build a natural gas pipeline from Qatar that traversed Syria, capturing its newly discovered offshore reserves, and continued on through Turkey to the EU, as a major competitor to Russia’s Gazprom.
By re-establishing the Assad government in Syria, and permanently placing its forces at Syrian bases, the Russian’s have placed an impenetrable obstacle to the development of the Qatar gas pipeline. Russia has also placed itself at the nexus point of other new offshore gas discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean, including Israel, Cyprus, and Greece.
It’s not hard to imagine a new Russian pipeline to Europe serving these new partners. Could easing of sanctions also lead to the implementation of the long-stalled plans of Gazprom for a second pipeline under the Baltic Sea to Germany for Russia and its partners, Royal Dutch Shell, Germany's E.ON, and Austria's OMV?
If so, we can be assured that the U.S. will be in fierce opposition to any such plans. As George Friedman, founder of Stratfor has stated, the American’s worst European nightmare is an alliance between Germany and Russia.
The timing of the Russian withdrawal could not be more fortuitous, as it occurs at the very pinnacle of the European refugee crisis, a crisis that was caused by Europe’s backing of the Saudi-Turkish attempt to overthrow Assad. For the first time in four years, the truce in Syria offers respite for Syrian refugees, fleeing from constant bombardment and attacks, and raises prospects for increasing security within their homeland.
Is this part of the Russian Syrian gambit? Is Russia gambling on receiving some modicum of European gratitude for helping to stem the flight of refugees to its borders, with the pay-off in terms of easing sanction and enabling its long stalled pipeline projects to be completed.
No, Putin could not possibly be so calculating, could he?
Rationale behind Russias withdrawal in Syria
The best analysis I have seen yet, on the current situation with Russia in Syria. Well worth a watch, particularly the discussion on federalisation.
From 07:10 onwards.
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07453yv/this-week-1...
From 07:10 onwards.
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07453yv/this-week-1...
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Friday 18th March 11:43
"Recall that Robert Kennedy Jr., the nephew of the slain U.S. President, recently published an article in Sputnik, claiming that the major reason for the west’s attempt to overthrow the Assad government was to build a natural gas pipeline from Qatar that traversed Syria, capturing its newly discovered offshore reserves, and continued on through Turkey to the EU, as a major competitor to Russia’s Gazprom."
No, it was Assad's evilness! Surely nothing to do with petrochemicals ...
No, it was Assad's evilness! Surely nothing to do with petrochemicals ...
The order to begin the withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria, which occurred wholly unexpectedly and even as these forces were engaged in a successful offensive against Islamist forces naturally requires a closer look. There are several possible mutually complementary explanations as to what had happened, though some are more plausible than others.
Khamsin
As has been predicted by many analysts already in September, Russia’s window of opportunity in Syria would remain open only until April, when the sand storm season would begin. The severity of the sand storms means that military operations become far more difficult to perform, including air operations, since the fine sand particles do pose a threat to aircraft engines. Nevertheless, if this were a problem, it would have been sufficient to place the aircraft “under wraps” or in hangars, or simply limit their flight operations. Withdrawing them from Syria altogether means that any return deployment later on would suggest the original deployment was a mistake. Therefore this is unlikely to be a temporary measure brought about by the changes in the local weather.
Syria can handle it
The SAA is in a far better shape than it was only a few months ago, and can be relied upon to finish the war on its own, particularly since Syria Express material assistance and the advisory mission that was essential to rebuilding the SAA will continue as before. One has to keep in mind that the air campaign was not intended to win the war on its own. It was intended to buy the SAA some breathing time to allow it to be re-equipped and re-trained before going over to the offensive. It has been able to do so, as shown by the steady string of battlefield victories. Therefore there is no need for the Russian air presence to continue. The counter-argument here is that the Russian air support is still very helpful, both in tangible terms and in moral, psychological terms. The Islamists clearly did not like being under the rain of Russian bombs. Now that the rain is about to dry up, the Islamists will be able to view it as a moral victory of sorts, which may lead them to redouble their efforts just when everything seemed lost.
Western pressure
Here, too, there are no indications that’s what is driving the decision. NATO pressure has greatly tapered off in recent weeks, Merkel is no longer calling for a no-fly zone, Erdogan is not threatening to invade, Western media are not running breathless and unsourced stories about Russian aircraft bombing hospitals. Indeed, it was apparent for several weeks already that the West has acquiesced in Russian military campaign in Syria. Which is why the “stop order” took everyone by surprise.
Displeasure with Assad
It may be the “stop order” is intended to pressure Assad’s team to be more flexible during the negotiations, and nothing can do that better than suspending Russian support. However, that could have been more easily demonstrated by suspending air operations for a week, until Syrian government intransigence disappeared. So this possible explanation also fails to address the fact this is a permanent withdrawal following a declaration of victory.
A deal with the Sunnis
The most tangible outcome of the “stop order” is that it pretty much ends the push on to Raqqa. It is doubtful the SAA can manage it on their own, and Putin actually seemed to suggest just recently that the “honor” of taking Raqqa should fall to Obama. Does it mean that the Sunnis have managed to struck some kind of a political deal with Assad and/or the US? Considering that the objective of the Russia-led campaign was never a total defeat of all adversaries but bringing them to the negotiating table, that possibility cannot be ruled out. The fact that the end of the air campaign puts the future of the besieged Deir-ez-Zor, which Syrian and Russian forces cannot possibly abandon, no matter what, in doubt, also indicates that the garrison is no longer in danger of being overrun, which would in turn suggest a political deal of some sort. However, the Sunnis are hardly in a position to decide anything on their own, without asking their major regional sponsors, specifically the Saudis, who are discussed separately below.
A deal with the US
One almost certainly exists, though probably a fairly minimalistic one limited to “Assad can stay,” which in practical terms means allowing the ceasefire and the peace process to work without external attempts to undermine it. The Obama administration appears to have given up on that point, and even the US media grudgingly acknowledges the process is working. However, the concession on Russia’s part might be conceding the “race to Raqqa” to US allies, though that remains to be seen.
A deal with Europeans
It is entirely possible the EU, which has been operating under significant Turkish pressure exerted by means of herding refugees into Europe, has offered Russia unspecified concessions in return for Russia changing its policy in Syria. What these concessions might be is still unclear, but it seems like too much of a coincidence that the EU published its “five principles” for dealing with Russia, which affirm that the sanctions are a political, not an economic, tool, and that the two sides will pursue cooperation on matters of shared concern, on the same day as Vladimir Putin declared the Russian withdrawal from Syria. It is also noteworthy that the public barrage of criticism by European politicians has vanished in the last few weeks, indicating that the debate has shifted from the public arena into the diplomatic one.
A deal with the Saudis
Russia and the Saudis have an important matter to attend to: both want to limit global oil production in order to push the oil price back to $50/barrel and higher. Therefore a compromise on Syria that would accommodate the interests of both parties seems entirely plausible and even logical, since the value of the oil deal vastly outweighs the value of even the maximum victory in Syria for either of them. The Russian-Saudi rapprochement is also suggested by the fact that the Russia-Iran relations have suddenly hit a rough patch. Iran has withdrawn the IRGC from Syria, it is against the oil freeze plan pushed by Russia and Saudi Arabia and, most recently, it has suddenly declared that it cannot afford to pay for the S-300PMU air-defense weapons it ordered from Russia. This cooling of relations suggests that the Russia-Saudi relationship is on the mend, which leaves Iran frozen out.
The bottom line is that whatever just happened in Syria was most likely influenced by factors that are not directly related to Syria, and decided in diplomatic meetings far away from Syria. For that reason, all of these relationships need to be closely watched, and anything that looks like a quid-pro-quo for the Russian “stop order” in Syria should be evaluated as possibly being part of an actual quid-pro-quo
Khamsin
As has been predicted by many analysts already in September, Russia’s window of opportunity in Syria would remain open only until April, when the sand storm season would begin. The severity of the sand storms means that military operations become far more difficult to perform, including air operations, since the fine sand particles do pose a threat to aircraft engines. Nevertheless, if this were a problem, it would have been sufficient to place the aircraft “under wraps” or in hangars, or simply limit their flight operations. Withdrawing them from Syria altogether means that any return deployment later on would suggest the original deployment was a mistake. Therefore this is unlikely to be a temporary measure brought about by the changes in the local weather.
Syria can handle it
The SAA is in a far better shape than it was only a few months ago, and can be relied upon to finish the war on its own, particularly since Syria Express material assistance and the advisory mission that was essential to rebuilding the SAA will continue as before. One has to keep in mind that the air campaign was not intended to win the war on its own. It was intended to buy the SAA some breathing time to allow it to be re-equipped and re-trained before going over to the offensive. It has been able to do so, as shown by the steady string of battlefield victories. Therefore there is no need for the Russian air presence to continue. The counter-argument here is that the Russian air support is still very helpful, both in tangible terms and in moral, psychological terms. The Islamists clearly did not like being under the rain of Russian bombs. Now that the rain is about to dry up, the Islamists will be able to view it as a moral victory of sorts, which may lead them to redouble their efforts just when everything seemed lost.
Western pressure
Here, too, there are no indications that’s what is driving the decision. NATO pressure has greatly tapered off in recent weeks, Merkel is no longer calling for a no-fly zone, Erdogan is not threatening to invade, Western media are not running breathless and unsourced stories about Russian aircraft bombing hospitals. Indeed, it was apparent for several weeks already that the West has acquiesced in Russian military campaign in Syria. Which is why the “stop order” took everyone by surprise.
Displeasure with Assad
It may be the “stop order” is intended to pressure Assad’s team to be more flexible during the negotiations, and nothing can do that better than suspending Russian support. However, that could have been more easily demonstrated by suspending air operations for a week, until Syrian government intransigence disappeared. So this possible explanation also fails to address the fact this is a permanent withdrawal following a declaration of victory.
A deal with the Sunnis
The most tangible outcome of the “stop order” is that it pretty much ends the push on to Raqqa. It is doubtful the SAA can manage it on their own, and Putin actually seemed to suggest just recently that the “honor” of taking Raqqa should fall to Obama. Does it mean that the Sunnis have managed to struck some kind of a political deal with Assad and/or the US? Considering that the objective of the Russia-led campaign was never a total defeat of all adversaries but bringing them to the negotiating table, that possibility cannot be ruled out. The fact that the end of the air campaign puts the future of the besieged Deir-ez-Zor, which Syrian and Russian forces cannot possibly abandon, no matter what, in doubt, also indicates that the garrison is no longer in danger of being overrun, which would in turn suggest a political deal of some sort. However, the Sunnis are hardly in a position to decide anything on their own, without asking their major regional sponsors, specifically the Saudis, who are discussed separately below.
A deal with the US
One almost certainly exists, though probably a fairly minimalistic one limited to “Assad can stay,” which in practical terms means allowing the ceasefire and the peace process to work without external attempts to undermine it. The Obama administration appears to have given up on that point, and even the US media grudgingly acknowledges the process is working. However, the concession on Russia’s part might be conceding the “race to Raqqa” to US allies, though that remains to be seen.
A deal with Europeans
It is entirely possible the EU, which has been operating under significant Turkish pressure exerted by means of herding refugees into Europe, has offered Russia unspecified concessions in return for Russia changing its policy in Syria. What these concessions might be is still unclear, but it seems like too much of a coincidence that the EU published its “five principles” for dealing with Russia, which affirm that the sanctions are a political, not an economic, tool, and that the two sides will pursue cooperation on matters of shared concern, on the same day as Vladimir Putin declared the Russian withdrawal from Syria. It is also noteworthy that the public barrage of criticism by European politicians has vanished in the last few weeks, indicating that the debate has shifted from the public arena into the diplomatic one.
A deal with the Saudis
Russia and the Saudis have an important matter to attend to: both want to limit global oil production in order to push the oil price back to $50/barrel and higher. Therefore a compromise on Syria that would accommodate the interests of both parties seems entirely plausible and even logical, since the value of the oil deal vastly outweighs the value of even the maximum victory in Syria for either of them. The Russian-Saudi rapprochement is also suggested by the fact that the Russia-Iran relations have suddenly hit a rough patch. Iran has withdrawn the IRGC from Syria, it is against the oil freeze plan pushed by Russia and Saudi Arabia and, most recently, it has suddenly declared that it cannot afford to pay for the S-300PMU air-defense weapons it ordered from Russia. This cooling of relations suggests that the Russia-Saudi relationship is on the mend, which leaves Iran frozen out.
The bottom line is that whatever just happened in Syria was most likely influenced by factors that are not directly related to Syria, and decided in diplomatic meetings far away from Syria. For that reason, all of these relationships need to be closely watched, and anything that looks like a quid-pro-quo for the Russian “stop order” in Syria should be evaluated as possibly being part of an actual quid-pro-quo
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff