Putin’s Syrian folly

Well Putins campaign in Syria is not looking as good as he and his supporters predicted. It just goes to show the cost of military intervention in the Middle East, even if we're talking no-fly zones, light ground forces.... the costs go up... the results are never that great:

When Russia decided to intervene in Syria, the hard-working staff at Spoiler Alerts wrote the following: “Great powers always look the most powerful when they announce expanded activity in a region. It’s what happens next that matters.”

That was more than two months ago. How do things look now for Putin’s Syrian adventure? On the surface, the answer would seem to be “not well.” The facts on the ground are:

Syrian government forces haven’t made any appreciable territorial gains;
A Russian civilian airliner was destroyed in Egypt in retaliation;
A Russian fighter was shot down by Turkey and Russian-Turkish relations have deteriorated badly;
A Russian helicopter was shot down trying to rescue a Russian pilot shot down by Turkey.

Now the costs of this intervention to Russia is what really got my attention. Russia is not in the greatest of state economically, and their Syrian campaign isn't helping all that much at all:

Russia initially earmarked just $1.2 billion for the war for all of 2016, an official familiar with the matter said. Outlays were running at about $4 million a day before Putin’s mid-November surge in troops and hardware, which doubled the cost to $8 million, or almost $3 billion on an annualized basis, according to the Royal United Services Institute, or RUSI, a military research group based in London….

While Syrian forces backed by Russian firepower have had some successes, such as breaking Islamic State’s two-year siege of a strategic air base near Aleppo, Putin is only now starting to realize that he can’t defeat the group through air power alone, said Anton Lavrov, a Russian military analyst.

www.washingtonpost.com...

In order for there to be an effective campaign against ISIS, large ground forces will have to be deployed, and Russia does not have the economic capacity to do so on their own (I doubt they'd be willing to risk Russian lives by themselves as well). So we're talking an all out ground invasio launched by multiple nations. This is, I'm afraid, the only way ISIS can be dealt with in that region (whether it will end extremism as a whole is highly questionable, but ISIS as a group on it's own, yes). But we have a problem when it comes to launching an all out ground invasion in Syria:

1. It's unpopular. Most people do not favor another Iraq styled ground invasion.
2.Costs. Costs will be run up through the roof.
3. Risk to lives. Most politicians, whether in Russia, the US, the UK etc would be reluctant to authorize and put at risk the lives of their military men and women.

Personally I think we have no choice but to launch a united ground offensive against ISIS and then once done, we get the hell out and stay out. ISIS will not go away with just bombings and light scattered special forces.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Personally I think we have no choice but to launch a united ground offensive against ISIS and then once done, we get the hell out and stay out.

You forgot air support. If you want to Libyaize Syria, then you're going to need air support.

If you want to end the Syrian war.

Sanction the US,Russia,China,UK,France,Saudi Arabia,Turkey,Kuwait,Qatar,UAE, and Pakistan.

Freeze their assets. Boycott the lot of them or just ban middle east oil like African blood diamonds were.

That's never going to happen, and neither will a 'united' ground force.

Syria is just the latest chess board.

a reply to: neo96

Sanction the US,Russia,China,UK,France,Saudi Arabia,Turkey,Kuwait,Qatar,UAE, and Pakistan.

Freeze their assets. Boycott the lot of them or

I'm speechless. Neo is this your solution?? And how do we cope economically and diplomatically in sanctioning our closest allies??? China as well?? Why on earth China let alone the idiotic idea of sanctioning them?? Come on buddy you've got to come up with real world solutions now to fight real world issues.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
I'm speechless. Neo is this your solution?? And how do we cope economically and diplomatically in sanctioning our closest allies???

You mean to tell us, that you rely on stealing oil from the middle east and without it society can't function normally?

Oh my ... that is revelation for the books.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

He is absolutely right. This is the only way to a "real world solution".

Every other approach would be merely combating symptoms... until the next conflict for energycarriers (and the currency they are sold in) flares up. All just so we can continue our bloated culture of artificial abundance.

But we are not even talking about the core-reasons... we're talking about Muslims instead (LOL). So I agree: not going to happen.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Personally I think we have no choice but to launch a united ground offensive against ISIS and then once done, we get the hell out and stay out. ISIS will not go away with just bombings and light scattered special forces.

You can't just stroll in, kill them all and then pull out. That's what caused this mess in the first place.