Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bets on Syria?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    I hear Jaws music...

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    I hear Jaws music...

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Obama says Gaddafi's departure from Libya inevitable | Reuters

    Resemblance?

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    "US: Assad's fall from power in Syria 'inevitable'" BBC News - US: Assad's fall from power in Syria 'inevitable'

    Leave a comment:


  • cyppok
    replied
    This may sound odd but I look at it like a big game.

    Say a poker game with 3 players Russia/Turkey/Iran. Each is holding some cards say One card is providing arms support to a different countries militant group Chechens/PKK/Arabs, another card is foreign interventionist impact (financial/economic sanctions/aid on trade), yet another card is simply support card among the three players vis a vis another. Players change like Putin/Medvedev etc. strategy could stay the same (stasis) and strategies change (neutrality to intervention) like Turkey going from nationalist to religious backing externally.

    The winner can win/loose land and influence and the economic incentive that might go with it. If the Assad regime is seen as too weak and Turkey thinks its' intervention will be beneficial it will happen, with Iran thinking that it might do it as well in Iraq to protect pilgrims etc... I totally see Iran looking at Iraq as a sort of Ukraine (granted different ethnic groups in Iran/Iraqs' case) but the religious capital is sort of there. My guess is if there was no external pressure in the form of sanctions and the deep international isolation hole Iran played itself into they would have intervened in Iraq after that last U.S. pullout.

    Syria Developments
    Syria Comment

    FSA membership appears to consist largely of experienced military personnel a cadre of officers and noncommissioned officers with, in some cases, social connections to local families and clans, towns and neighborhoods. In other words, they know how to use weapons and are fighting on terrain they know.

    I basically think that the internationalists with fake support the Syrian council which was picked people from international arena and the Free Syrian Army are opposing forces. I can definitely see some Turkish intervention and even covert support in taking one of the northern Syrian strong point cities (under the guise of FSA) and then pushing it through financial/military support, while gauging down the council that is in essence a foreign puppet as well just different players. This isn't happening because Syria has Kurds as a card to play but once they are given autonomy and are armed Turkey will play theirs. The reason this has to happen is because Turkey is already arming and providing money. My feeling is there is a negotiation between Assad/Kurds on who gets what for doing what.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dreadnought
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Where do those navies put in for support & maintenance ?

    This is the only port the Russians have in the mediterannean. Here are a couple of articles that explain Russia's interest in Tartus.

    Russia set to build up its naval facilities in Syria | Ria Novosti | Jul 20 2009


    Russian Navy to base warships at Syrian port after 2012 | Ria Novosti | Aug 02 2010


    However, cypok & you make me rethink this rationale for Russia to support the Syrian regime. As a secondary reason maybe but no more.


    You already have done so to a certain extent with Romania & Bulgaria (shared).

    Tartus has been very low key for the Russians until recently.
    IMO, A check and balance since the US plans of US Navy ship basing in both Austraila with US Marines and now in Spain. Spain is the one that really bothers them though because those ships are part of the ABM umbrella.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by cyppok View Post
    Syria is important because it keeps the balance of power between Turkey and Iran in the region. Syria and Iraq if they fall and are partitioned will shift the balance of power. Basically imagine if both states are less independent and are de-facto under 'guidence' of Turkey and Iran respectively, both countries could project power further and have more leverage with countries beyond their borders.

    The shift from Syria being pro Iran and Iraq semi-pro Turkey (out of their own self interests to keep their leverage as independent nations up) to Syria becoming pro Turkey and Iraq pro Iran (in essence client states) changes dynamics in the region. Think about possible future bases in the region on Syrian soil for Nato or even Turkey and the power projection capabilities.

    Russia cares because the more religious regimes in Iraq and Syria would fund more groups in the Caucases/Central Asia while making it appealing for Turkey to do the same. To some degree the shift in Iraq and Syria(if it happens) would go from more secular nationalists to religious forces whom would be less pragmatic externally.
    This guardian op-ed agrees with you

    Why Russia is backing Syria | Guardian | Dec 02 2011

    Russia's fears about a civil war developing in Syria are geostrategic and may not be too dissimilar to some of the more cautious western foreign policy analysts, war-gaming the effects it would have on the region. Russian middle eastern experts compare Syria to Russia's own province of Dagestan in the North Caucasus.

    Unlike its neighbouring Chechnya, Dagestan is patchwork of competing tribes, religions, ethnicities and loyalties, more than 150 of them. If a breakaway Muslim insurgency took hold there, Dagestan would explode like a grenade, sending hot shards of metal and people across southern Russia.

    Russian fears of a Lebanese-style civil war breaking out in Syria, with the country fissuring on sectarian lines, may not be as far fetched in three months' time as they currently seem. Keeping Syria together while getting rid of a vile dictatorship may conversely be a harder task than western leaders pressing for more sanctions realise. Turkey for one is talking big, but acting on the ground more cautiously.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Dec 11,, 00:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    People looking strictly at the naval base are missing the point, imho. What are Russia's strategic aims in the Middle East? Therein lay the clue to why they do not want Assad to fall.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
    Base for what though. Many worlds Navy's travel the Med and patrol it. Its not like they could possibly move in and take over.
    Where do those navies put in for support & maintenance ?

    This is the only port the Russians have in the mediterannean. Here are a couple of articles that explain Russia's interest in Tartus.

    Russia set to build up its naval facilities in Syria | Ria Novosti | Jul 20 2009
    According to the Russian Navy, the naval base in Syria significantly boosts Russia's operational capability in the region because the warships based there are capable of reaching the Red Sea through the Suez Canal and the Atlantic through the Strait of Gibraltar in a matter of days.
    Russian Navy to base warships at Syrian port after 2012 | Ria Novosti | Aug 02 2010
    "Tartus will be developed as a naval base. The first stage of development and modernization will be completed in 2012," Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said, adding it could then serve as a base for guided-missile cruisers and even aircraft carriers.

    According to Navy experts, the facility is being renovated to serve as a foothold for a permanent Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean.
    However, cypok & you make me rethink this rationale for Russia to support the Syrian regime. As a secondary reason maybe but no more.

    Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
    Not going to happen. If it did then someone could court Turkey and base nearby the Black Sea.
    You already have done so to a certain extent with Romania & Bulgaria (shared).

    Tartus has been very low key for the Russians until recently.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Dec 11,, 00:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dreadnought
    replied
    Originally posted by Mihais View Post
    Iranian nuke can cause a problem for Israel by MAD .Iranian terror networks are just a nuisance.Arabs surrounding Israel reverting to pre-Camp David is in the long run as dangerous as Iranian nukes,perhaps even more so.
    Israel and Iran aren't allies by any means.They just happen to have a common interest in Assad's survival.

    Keep in mind that at Herat in 2001,your own people coordinated with Al-Quds .So yeah,this things can happen.
    The only problem with that is Israeli is 100x more powerful then Iran in a nuclear sense and they have been for years. They dont have to test, Iran must hide their testing. A big differnce between being nuclear "capable" and armed and nuclear "compatable" in a wishing sense. One sends the codes to the launchers, the other knows the game is over and they are about to get a really bad sunburn.

    If Israel believes for a moment they can kill the terrorist proxies by helping Assad fall IMO they wont even blink and will take that chance. By doing that chances are Hamas will also fall upon hard times and perhaps collapse. That "could" bring a peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Its all in the crosshairs and alot of possibilities exist right now I definately agree.

    *Mind you I am no expert, just raising some credible points of contension here in the thread.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 02 Dec 11,, 23:07.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
    And no one thought that Libya, Egypt or the others could hold out long enough to force a change. They did. So Russia's intrests will doubtfully stop them if they want it bad enough. It looks like it just may go that direction too.

    S-300's are the old system. Russia barely employs them anymore. They have the S-400 series now.

    Israel will in no way shape or form ally with the Iranians. That is set in stone. If anything Iran will assist in beating down the resistance trying to win a spot in Syria. If Assad's regime falls then Iran will find it diffacult arming their terror factions and having influence. Thats their interest.
    Iranian nuke can cause a problem for Israel by MAD .Iranian terror networks are just a nuisance.Arabs surrounding Israel reverting to pre-Camp David is in the long run as dangerous as Iranian nukes,perhaps even more so.
    Israel and Iran aren't allies by any means.They just happen to have a common interest in Assad's survival.

    Keep in mind that at Herat in 2001,your own people coordinated with Al-Quds .So yeah,this things can happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Because there is no guarantee that the next Syrian adminstration will not want the Golan back ?
    Because otherwise they're back in 1973,given how the MB fared in Egyptian election.Even if he survives,Assad won't be in the mood for adventures and he won't have the means anyway.
    An Islamic Syria will probably receive support from Iran against Israel even if otherwise it will enter the Sunni bloc.Assad won't be however too willing to shake hands with those that want him dead right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dreadnought
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Because there is no guarantee that the next Syrian adminstration will not want the Golan back ?
    There pretty much is a guarentee they wont get it though. The most strategic ground around Israel. The Israeli's already know what would happen if they gave back the Golan and whatever regime or government took over in Syria decided to revert back to the past.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dreadnought
    replied
    Originally posted by Mihais View Post
    Libya wasn't that important to Russia.

    I'll be very curious to see how this goes on.Israel and Iran are allies of convenience here.,both in league with the Russians.The Iranians already sent men to help Assad.Now the Russians made their move.There is no way in hell NATO will attack Assad,because we might see how S300's with Russian crews in Syrian uniform can fight.
    And no one thought that Libya, Egypt or the others could hold out long enough to force a change. They did. So Russia's intrests will doubtfully stop them if they want it bad enough. It looks like it just may go that direction too.

    S-300's are the old system. Russia barely employs them anymore. They have the S-400 series now.

    Israel will in no way shape or form ally with the Iranians. That is set in stone. If anything Iran will assist in beating down the resistance trying to win a spot in Syria. If Assad's regime falls then Iran will find it diffacult arming their terror factions and having influence. Thats their interest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dreadnought
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    A base in the mediteranean sea ;)

    The relationship dates back to the soviet era.
    Base for what though. Many worlds Navy's travel the Med and patrol it. Its not like they could possibly move in and take over. Not going to happen. If it did then someone could court Turkey and base nearby the Black Sea.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X