PapaDragon wrote: ATLASCUB wrote:............................
I'm sure Russia will respond in some manner. We'll see what that response is. Russia is getting boxed-in however and that trend looks to be on the move, where-as, say, November of last year indications were otherwise.
Any response by Russia will be to protect interests of one participant: Russia.
If there is one side that should start dragging it's ass it would be Iran. It is Iran whose Shia Crescent project and existence overall are threatened here.
Russia has secured whatever it was after. And Iran would be smart to remember that People's Republic of Latakia is always a possibility, especially in light of the fact how many sides want to see Syria partitioned.
Iran should have flooded the place with troops and materiel but instead they were dragging their asses and phoning it in for years. They have population of 70 million people. That is more than plenty to spare, especially when their entire existence is on the line like they claim it is.
And what they were doing instead? They expected Russia to do all the work for them while they order hundreds of airliners from Airbus and Boeing, sign billions of dollars worth of contracts with USA/EU and build T-90 knockoffs? Waste time and cause hassle for Russia with their constant idiotic attempts to smuggle weapons to Lebanon via Syria? Play power politics in Syrian government to undermine Russian influence there?
Only side getting boxed-in here is Iran. And rightfully so.
They assumed that they will be able to play Russia like their Saudi cousins are playing USA to do their dirty work. They were dead wrong.
So please stop equating Russian objectives and interests with Iranian ones. Iran would be first to tell you that you have zero clue.
I'm not sure Russia has fully secured anything yet. Unless of course, the rationale being that; in the possible scenario that Russia gives-in to regime change (no Assad) that the U.S/Israeli's/Saudi's would agree (in exchange), to act on Russian behalf and protect Russian interest (or at least not interfere) in Syria with the naval base and the airbase? Does anyone actually believe these people will keep their word (in a deal) after what they're trying to pull IF they get their puppet in? Please. Far more important things like the ABM treaty and Ukraine are being trashed around with little regard for Russia's interest - not only that; they're waging economic warfare if Russia rebels and turning Russia into a pariah state in world media. I mean the list of transgressions is endless - literally endless - and their modus operandi is the same. I think your claim needs more clarification (about Russia securing something). I don't see Russians having secured anything yet - not in Syria, not in Ukraine. Victory and/or political settlement (achieving an end to the conflict) is far from being achieved on both counts. Russia has won battles (Crimea, the rebelling East, shoring up Assad and avoiding his fall), that is true.
I think it's pretty much consensus that Iran isn't pulling its weight militarily but that's not without valid reasons. Whether those reasons satisfy every single observer of this conflict that's another debate. Iran a year or so ago was a pariah state, number #1 most wanted on the Western list of enemies (still is, but the heat has died down). The heat on them (threat of war) and the sanctions did have a significant effect on their development; just as the sanctions did in Russia when they hit, but it disproportionally affects Iran more. The threat of economic warfare is real and don't you doubt for a moment the West won't use it.
Moreover, Iran does not want the conflict to feed into the sectarian lines the Saudi's (and by default the Americans) are baiting them into - it's a losing proposition. Why? Because Syria is disproportionally Sunni, and the region is disproportionally Sunni. In the case of Syria, their diminished presence makes for a political solution a greater possibility whereas their involvement (with a massive deployment of troops) will lead to escalation, more bloodshed, and more bad blood between the opposition and the regime (by de-facto feeding into the sectarianism propaganda). It's not so much a problem if done for Syria alone in a sort of one off - the problem is that Syria doesn't exist in a vacuum. Other Gulf States will use the Iranian intervention as propaganda to shore up their grip on power and move against their political enemies and anyone sympathetic to the "resistance axis".
So, whenever possible, soft power and soft coups (like in Iraq) are the preferable method for Iran to operate - this makes less enemies, draws less attention - it's just as good (and Russians benefit from this). Lastly, the Russian's aren't putting boots on the ground decisively either. So the slack goes both ways.
Cuba is a similar example although it was forgotten by the Russians for many years but then again Gorbachev is a traitor - and Russia was a mess for many years. When Cubans work up a nationalist, leftist-aligned, independent government in Latin America, Russia usually follows in some way or another. That's is true in Venezuela, true in Nicaragua etc etc etc. That's how it works. The attitude of bunkering down in the near abroad for Russia has paid beautifully. So beautifully that they've had to deal with Chechnya, Georgia and now Ukraine while getting encircled by an ABM shield. Mind you, some things are inevitable after such a huge a collapse like with the USSR. But I think the point is clear....there's no peace, no deal that hegemony will entertain.
What's happening in Syria is big power politics at its finest. It's a geopolitical chess game for the future of the region, or at the very least, the diminishing strength of the american grip in the region (and by default their lackies - the Gulf States and Israel). A multipolar world order depends on a more balanced share of influence among big world powers. Americans with their lackies are doing everything within their power to prevent that - pretty clear. The Middle East is ground zero due to the wealth of oil and gas resources. If Americans are uncontested in the region (as they're working so hard to achieve), they'll move to Russia's underbelly next (Central Asian Soviet Republics).
So in this sense Russian and Iranian interest are aligned. Wherein Iranian strength in the region = weakened grip of Americans and their allies in the region and thus it opens up doors for Russia to assert influence (economic, political, ideological, cultural etc) - in short, acquire client states with mutually beneficial relationships. Ultimately, the goal is to fill the BIG Power vacuum as Americans lose ground. That's why Russia is in Syria today MAINLY. Russian interest like the Tartus base or the humanitarian disaster are much lower in the pecking order and not worth the confrontation with the West.
So the idea that Russia is not gonna get played into "fighting" Iran's little game with the Saudi's...please... those lenses are a distorted view of the conflict. Russia's in it because interest are aligned and everyone loses if Syria falls (even if some have more to lose than others). It's the long game that's being played.
You think for a second that the Americans wouldn't intervene and blow shit up if the Saudi's were to be in danger of flipping? We're talking about one of the biggest creditors of the U.S, the biggest MIC client state for the U.S. A state that does american bidding and brings aboard smaller gulf states by force/politics etc into american's sphere of influence. You bet the Americans would fight teeth and nail to protect their dictators - inventing any pretext to do so. Same for apartheid state Israel. I mean, what is the Syrian civil war if not another piece in the chessboard for the americans?
Power has its cost. Lets see what Russians cook up with Tillerson.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
