Thursday, March 28, 2024
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Get the Daily
Briefing by Email

Subscribe

RUSSIA RESPONDS TO U.S. FECKLESSNESS BY EXPANDING MILITARY PRESENCE IN SYRIA

 

 

Putin’s Jets in Syria Are a Threat to the U.S.: David Axe, Daily Beast,  Sept. 30, 2015 — On September 30, Russian lawmakers unanimously approved President Vladimir Putin's plan to begin combat operations in Syria—and hours later Moscow's warplanes in the region began attacking what the Russians said were ISIS militants.

What Putin's Syrian Strategy Means For Israel: Ron Ben-Yishai, Ynet, Sept. 29, 2015 — Monday's speeches at the UN General Assembly meeting revealed the true desires of Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama.

The Russia-Iran link: Jerusalem Post, Sept. 30, 2015— Syria’s territory – which until recently domiciled a purportedly bona fide nation – has now been reduced to a proverbial chessboard upon which foreign powers are playing a cynical realpolitik game.

Syria is Made up of Many Nationalities With a Complex and Violent History: Geoffrey Clarfield & Salim Mansur, National Post, Sept. 23, 2015 — As Canadians are about to vote in an upcoming federal election, the Syrian refugee crisis looms large in the electoral platforms of the three major parties.

 

On Topic Links

 

CIJR Video Briefing – 01:  On the Iran Nuclear Deal: Implications for Israel, the U.S., and the Middle East: Prof. Frederick Krantz, CIJR, Sept. 30, 2015

Why is Russia Expected to Further Increase its Presence in Syria? Four Experts Parse the Geopolitics: National Post,  Sept. 25, 2015

Report: Russia Demands that American Planes Stay Out of Syrian Skies: Jerusalem Post, Sept. 30, 2015

Thousands Enter Syria to Join ISIS Despite Global Efforts: Eric Schmitt & Somini Sengupta, New York Times, Sept. 26, 2015

 

                  

PUTIN’S JETS IN SYRIA ARE A THREAT TO THE U.S.                                                                                     

David Axe

Daily Beast, Sept. 30, 2015

 

On September 30, Russian lawmakers unanimously approved President Vladimir Putin's plan to begin combat operations in Syria—and hours later Moscow's warplanes in the region began attacking what the Russians said were ISIS militants. Right before the bombs rained down, a Russian general arrived in Baghdad warned the U.S. military planners to keep America's own warplanes out of the way. U.S. officials said they would not alter their flight plans.

 

This is the beginning of a dangerous new phase of the international intervention in the Syrian civil war. Not only has Russia tried to order U.S. forces to step aside, it actually has the firepower to back up its demands. Some of the 35 warplanes Russia has deployed to Syria are specifically designed for fighting foes like the United States, not ISIS. Seemingly out of nowhere on September 21, they appeared at an air base in Latakia, a regime stronghold in western Syria—28 of the Russian air force’s best warplanes, including four Su-30 fighters and a number of Su-25 attack planes and Su-24 bombers. Soon six more Su-34 bombers and at least one Il-20 spy plane followed, part of a contingent of Russia forces reportedly including some 500 troops plus armored vehicles and SA-15 and SA-22 surface-to-air missiles.

 

For U.S. and allied officials observing the deployment, there has been plenty of cause for confusion…and alarm. It’s not just that, more than four years into Syria’s bloody civil war, Russia has decided to jump in and make things more complicated. No, it’s what kinds of weapons—planes and missiles, especially—Moscow decided to send, and what those weapons say about the Kremlin’s ultimate plan in Syria. Many of them don’t seem to be well-suited to fighting ISIS. They’re built to battle adversaries like the United States.

 

To be clear, 35 warplanes and a few surface-to-air missiles aren’t a lot in the grand scheme of things. There’s no shortage of military aircraft flying over Syria five years into the country’s bloody civil war. Every day some of Syria’s aging Soviet-made planes—from the 300 or so that have survived four years of combat—take off from regime airfields to bomb ISIS militants and secular rebels slowly advancing on Syria’s main population centers.

 

Meanwhile hundreds of jets from the American-led international coalition have been waging, since the fall of 2014, an intensive air campaign against ISIS and al Qaeda targeting just the militants.  What’s weird and alarming about the Russian contingent is that it’s not really optimal for attacking lightly armed insurgent fighters. Surface-to-air missiles are only good for destroying enemy aircraft, which Syrian rebels do not possess. And the Su-30s are best suited for tangling with other high-tech forces.

 

Who in region possesses these high-tech forces? The United States, for one. Israel, too. Why, the United States, of course.  Officially, Russia has deployed its forces to Syria to reinforce embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and help defeat the self-proclaimed Islamic State. “There is no other way to settle the Syrian conflict other than by strengthening the existing legitimate government agencies, support them in their fight against terrorism,” President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with American news networks ahead of his September 28 meeting with President Obama at the United Nations in New York City. “There are more than 2,000 militants in Syria from the former Soviet Union,” Putin said. “Instead of waiting for them to return home we should help President al-Assad fight them there, in Syria.”

 

Sure enough, Su-25s, Su-24s, and Su-34s are capable ground-attack planes, roughly equivalent to U.S. Air Force A-10 attack jets and F-15E fighter-bombers. But that’s only a portion of the Russian air arsenal. The problem is, the Su-30s are next to useless for fighting ISIS. The Sukhoi fighters are primarily air-to-air fighters—and some of the best in the world. Besides Russia, China also flies versions of the twin-engine, supersonic Su-30 and has even begun outfitting them with new air-to-air missiles that U.S. Air Force Gen. Herbert Carlisle has repeatedly described as one of his biggest worries. In a series of aerial war games in the last decade, India’s own Su-30s have tangled with—and reportedly defeated—American and British fighters in mock combat, sparking minor controversies in both countries as their respective air forces scrambled to explain why the Russian-made planes weren’t necessarily superior to U.S. F-15s and British Typhoon jets.

 

It’s obvious why Russia, China, and India, among other countries, would deploy Su-30s to counter heavily armed enemies possessing high-tech fighters of their own. But that doesn’t explain the Russian Su-30s in Syria. “I have not seen [ISIS] flying any airplanes that require sophisticated air-to-air capabilities,” U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, the military head of NATO, told an audience in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 28. Moreover, Breedlove said Russia didn’t need to deploy the SA-15 and SA-22 surface-to-air missiles to Syria if its mission is to help Assad beat ISIS. “I have not seen ISIL flying any airplanes that require SA-15s or SA-22s,” he said, using one of several acronyms for the militant group.

 

Breedlove said he suspects Russia is trying to set up what the military calls a “anti-access, area-denial,” or A2AD, zone in western Syria. Moscow has recently established these zones in the Baltic region and in the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014. “We are a little worried about another A2AD bubble being created in the eastern Mediterranean,” Breedlove said. The point of these zones is to give Russia exclusive access to strategic regions, Breedlove claimed. In the case of western Syria, an A2AD zone helps to ensure that Moscow can send forces into the eastern Mediterranean, which NATO has dominated since the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

                       

                                                                       

Contents                                                                                                

   

WHAT PUTIN'S SYRIAN STRATEGY MEANS FOR ISRAEL                                                                     

Ron Ben-Yishai                                                                                                             

Ynet, Sept. 29, 2015

 

Monday's speeches at the UN General Assembly meeting revealed the true desires of Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama. The US president wants to end his time in office without another war and without having to send more US troops to fight on foreign land. He doesn't want to resolve conflicts but to prevent them by diplomatic means, and if he can't prevent them – he'd like to handle them in a way that minimizes the damage. He sees the US as a world leader and its number one superpower – for one, because it's military is the largest and most advanced in the world, but mostly because its recovering economically, while rivals Russia and China are slowly deteriorating.

 

Putin has totally different goals. Besides his known ambition to return Russia to its tsar-glory days, an ambition held by communist leaders in their time, he also wants to gerrymander the world into spheres of influence. For instance, eastern Ukraine is mine – western Ukraine is yours, Syria is mine – Saudi Arabia is yours, and so on.

 

In order to realize this idea, Putin has recently increased his involvement in Syria. Bashar Assad gave the Russians what his father Hafez refused to his last breath. The Russians used to have one dock in the port of Tartus in Syria's Alawite enclave, and now they have the entire port, as well as an air base north of Latakia. Now the Russians have a permanent strategic anchor in the eastern Mediterranean – just like the US and NATO have their presence in Turkey. Moreover, Putin has exploited Assad's and the Iranians' distress to make himself a major player in the Middle East, just as the United States' influence in the region is waning.

 

Meanwhile, Iran is working to turn Hezbollah into an independent producer of weapons and munitions. This is so that they may prevent Israeli bombings of weapons convoys making their way through Syria, thus escalating tensions. It's reasonable to assume that the Iranians are doing this with approval from the Russians, who do not currently want any regional conflicts with Israel. Putin is creating an axis in which Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Russia are up against the pro-Western axis of the Gulf states and Egypt, and he has yet to say his last word on the matter. He made an intelligence-based alliance with Iraq, supposedly to combat ISIS, but the Islamic State isn't the main story here. Russia, as a global superpower with crucial influence in the Middle East, that's the story…

 

Putin is currently doing for Assad what Nixon's US did for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, 42 years ago. The Syrian military's equipment was outdated and ineffective even before the civil war started. Now, after four years of war, half of it is gone and significant percents aren't usable. These include fighter planes, armored troop carriers, and tanks.  In the past few weeks, Russia has given the Syrian military sophisticated and accurate arms, which will help it target rebel forces. These are replacing the inaccurate artillery batteries Assad is still using, as well as the surface missiles that only sporadically hit their targets (much like when the US gave Israel anti-tank missiles in 1973, so that the Egyptian advancement towards Be'er Sheva could be halted).

 

Assad currently controls less than a quarter of Syria's original territory, but that's enough for the Russians. They can implement everything they want to in the confines of Shi'ite-Alawite "little Syria", which spans from the Latakia coastline to Damascus. That gives Russia a corridor to southern Lebanon. They don't need more than that to maintain a large military base, which could be used for all types of purposes, most of all to stick a finger in the Americans' eye. They could also use this as a bargaining chip to achieve their goals in Ukraine.

 

The Russians are smart. They aren't going to send Russian soldiers to fight ISIS, but they'll make sure Assad can do it. If they expand structures and storage spaces in two Syrian military logistics facilities near Latakia, it's not in order to bring in Russian tank brigades, but in order to facilitate new tanks, airplanes, and arms for use by Assad's forces. Israel should understand this and try to use it to its advantage. We have to remember: Just as the Americans remember their failed interventions in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, so the Russians remember their humiliating retreat from Afghanistan in March 1989. Putin won't repeat the same mistake, so he won't be sending Russian troops to fight ISIS on the ground. He'll only be supplying Assad with weapons, and the Iranians will pay him for it (after the economic sanctions are removed). The Iranians will also probably soon become the Russian arms industry's number one client, perhaps compensating Russia somewhat for the financial damages it has suffered due to the Ukraine-related sanctions imposed on it by the Europeans and the Americans.

 

In his UN speech, Putin gave a determined, aggressive, and even bold and creative appearance, which caused many in the media and diplomatic worlds to start heaping praise onto him. But we need to keep in mind that the Russian involvement in the Middle East, as well as the strategic game Putin is playing (in which he's currently gaining small victories) isn't over yet. Russia's economy is declining, and the Middle East, as we know, is a place where unpredictability is one of very few constants. Putin might go back home with his tail between his legs, just like the Americans did with Iraq and Afghanistan, and like Israel did after the First Lebanon War.

 

What does all of that mean for us? It seems that the new situation, with Russia being more and more intertwined with Syria, is more of an opportunity for Israel than it is a risk. Putin also made this clear when he said – and this is a far-reaching statement – that Israel had legitimate interests in Syria. It means that Putin sees us as a legitimate partner for determining the future of the region, which Russia aspires to lead. Russia sees us as a partner even though Putin quickly condemned Israel's airstrikes in Syria. That condemnation was meant to send the message: You Israelis are partners, but there are rules to this game, and you'll have to respect them.

 

It's likely that as a result, and as a result of the agreement between Putin and Netanyahu, Israel will try to avoid future airstrikes against Assad's weapon convoys to Hezbollah. After all, Russia is the one giving Assad those weapons, and it has a clear interest in drawing Israel, a local power, to its side, distancing it from the Americans. It's likely that as a result, and as a result of the agreement between Putin and Netanyahu, Israel will try to avoid future airstrikes against Assad's weapon convoys to Hezbollah. One can also expect Russia to avoid permitting the transfer of Assad's weapons to Hezbollah. After all, Russia is the one giving Assad those weapons, and it has a clear interest in pulling Israel, a local power, to its side, distancing it from the Americans…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

                                                                       

Contents                                                                                      

   

THE RUSSIA-IRAN LINK                                                                                                                          

Jerusalem Post, Sept. 30, 2015

 

Syria’s territory – which until recently domiciled a purportedly bona fide nation – has now been reduced to a proverbial chessboard upon which foreign powers are playing a cynical realpolitik game. On Wednesday, Russia launched its first air strikes against rebel targets near the Syrian city of Homs, apparently after informing the US and Israel.

 

So far the superior maneuvering is indisputably that of Russian President Vladimir Putin. It’s far from clear what long-term strategy is being pursued by his American counterpart, Barack Obama. In New York this week, Obama indicated that defeating Islamic State in Syria would only be possible if President Bashar Assad were forced to step down, but did not hint at American involvement. Again, after an extended absence, Russia looms as the Middle East’s imposing hegemon – one whose self-interests determine who will prevail and who will fail. Historically the now-defunct Soviet Union used to describe this region as “adjacent to our southern borders.” This contention presumably facilitated the claim that the Middle East was essential for the USSR’s security and thus could be annexed to Moscow’s sphere of pseudo-legitimate influence. It’s still the same.

 

Concomitantly, Obama is doing his utmost to disengage from the very spheres that Russia covets, and Putin helped push Obama in that direction when they met in New York this week. In 2013, Putin swayed Obama not to react militarily to Assad’s use of gas against his own people, but to allow the Syrian leader to relinquish his chemical stockpiles. Obama was only too eager to be offered a way out, even if Assad continued butchering Syria’s civilians by other means.

 

Then came the deal on Iran’s nukes in which Moscow again coaxed Washington into an ultra-conciliatory stance to avoid confrontation. The Russian foothold in Syria’s port of Latakia is tangible fallout from Obama’s miscalculation. Iran was propelled to the forefront as a regional power, operating in chummy collusion with Russia to prop up Assad in an ostensible anti-terrorist alliance. Its details were finalized last July, hot on the heels of the deal to lift sanctions off the ayatollah regime in return for a supposed shutdown of Tehran’s nuclear program. Qassem Soleimani, chief of Iran’s elite Quds Force, flew twice to Moscow for consultations with Putin in flagrant violation of an international travel ban for masterminding terrorism. Shortly thereafter, Putin began shipping tanks, armored personnel carriers, and more to Syria. That was followed by fighter jets and an emergent Russian-manned air base.

 

The White House criticized the Russian moves, but has most recently given Putin leeway. Right before Obama’s eyes, a three-way military axis – comprising Russia, Iran, and Assad’s Hezbollah proxy – audaciously manifested itself. The fact that Iran is finally off the American/Western nuclear hook and is flushed with cash made this unabashed partnership with Moscow possible. Russia, let’s not forget, is Iran’s primary weapons purveyor and builder of its nuclear facilities. It made sure that Iran would be treated indulgently during the recent nuclear negotiations.

 

In all, Iran is emboldened as never before and Putin is heartened by Obama’s phlegmatic response. One superpower – America – appears in retreat, whereas a reawakening Russia regains prominence. The itineraries of a significant number of Middle Eastern leaders include Moscow – Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu is only one. Also traveling to Moscow are potentates from such unlikely ally countries as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Morocco, Jordan, and of course Egypt, which was unaccountably jilted by Obama. Putin even plans a visit to Riyadh. All this speaks volumes.

 

The danger to Israel isn’t only that Iran can now openly become a key player in Syria, but that aggression will be indirectly funded by the resources the US has consented to release and by the vast business opportunities it steers to Tehran. Those funds, combined with unimpeded Russian ambition will thus not only help ensure Assad’s survival, but will also allow the further arming of Hezbollah and Hamas. Netanyahu’s conversation with Putin last week dealt not only with military coordination regarding Russia’s actions in Syria, but also with Israel’s warning that it cannot allow a massively reinforced Hezbollah menace on its doorstep in Lebanon.             

 

Contents                                                                                     

   

SYRIA IS MADE UP OF MANY NATIONALITIES

WITH A COMPLEX AND VIOLENT HISTORY                                                               

Geoffrey Clarfield & Salim Mansur

National Post, Sept. 23, 2015

 

As Canadians are about to vote in an upcoming federal election, the Syrian refugee crisis looms large in the electoral platforms of the three major parties. Yet none of the parties has stopped for a moment to ask a fundamental and historic question, one that should inform all or any policy towards Syria and its explosion of refugees trying to reach our shores: what is Syria and what is a Syrian?

 

Until 1917, there never was a Syrian state, nor was there an ethnic group that was called Syrians. Yet students of history have always been justly confused when they read about “ancient” Syria, “medieval” Syria or “modern Syria,” as if it had a clear historical or ethnic identity. That is because these are academic and political labels invented by academics and politicians and then projected backwards across time. Syria always, however, referred to a territory, not to a people, and certainly not to a Muslim people.

 

Until the end of the First World War, only a tiny number of Arabic-speaking people in the eastern Mediterranean called themselves Syrians. This was a new thing, and in those days most of them were Christian. In Old Testament Hebrew, the word “Siryon” is the name for Mount Hermon, a snowy mountain in the Golan Heights. Syria is itself a Greek word. Its first occurrence is in a play by the ancient Greek playwright, Aeschylus. In 440 BC, the Greek writer Herodotus (and the first anthropologist) used the word to describe what is now central Turkey. The Greek-speaking Seleucids, who ruled the east after Alexander the Great, used the word to refer to their territories in southwest Asia.

 

The Romans used the word to describe their territories between Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and Roman Egypt. The Christian Byzantines then adopted the Roman usage. The Muslim Arabs, with their fixation on Mecca and Medina, called the same area “Bilad as Sham,” the Land of the North (north of Mecca), as they say in Arabic.

 

It was American and European Protestant missionaries who, in the 19th century, introduced the word into the area that now bears it name. First, Arabic-speaking Christians adopted the name and only then did local Muslims use the term in their writings. From there, it entered the local historical lexicon in a book called the History of Syria, written by Yurji Janni in 1881. But at that time, what later became the state of Syria was a group of disparate and separately administered districts under the authority of the Ottoman Sultans, who ruled the area from Istanbul.

 

Interestingly, those who brought the word back into common usage in the late 19th century often used it to refer to what are now Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, mirroring the Greek usage after the break-up of Alexander’s empire. Some enthusiasts, both foreign and local, argued that “Greater Syria” even included a territory that extended as far west as the coastal city of El Arish on the Mediterranean coast of the Sinai desert in Egypt. Simply put, there has never been any agreement as to the geographical nature of Syria or its boundaries.

 

So it is no surprise that in 1976, the late president of Syria, Hafiz el Assad (the current dictator’s father) said to a delegation from the PLO, “You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Do not forget one thing: there is no Palestinian people, no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria! You are an integral part of the Syrian people and Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the real representatives of the Palestinian people.”…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

Contents                                                                                                                                              

 

On Topic

                                                                                                        

CIJR Video Briefing – 01:  On the Iran Nuclear Deal: Implications for Israel, the U.S., and the Middle East: Prof. Frederick Krantz, CIJR, Sept. 30, 2015

Why is Russia Expected to Further Increase its Presence in Syria? Four Experts Parse the Geopolitics: National Post,  Sept. 25, 2015—In the past few weeks, Russia has expanded its military presence in Syria, sending troops, weapons, battle tanks, air missile systems and planes — including 28 jets and 14 helicopter gunships — to support the Bashar Al-Assad’s regime.

Report: Russia Demands that American Planes Stay Out of Syrian Skies: Jerusalem Post, Sept. 30, 2015 —Russia has demanded that American warplanes exit Syrian airspace immediately, a US official told Fox News on Wednesday.  

Thousands Enter Syria to Join ISIS Despite Global Efforts: Eric Schmitt & Somini Sengupta, New York Times, Sept. 26, 2015—Nearly 30,000 foreign recruits have now poured into Syria, many to join the Islamic State, a doubling of volunteers in just the past 12 months and stark evidence that an international effort to tighten borders, share intelligence and enforce antiterrorism laws is not diminishing the ranks of new militant fighters.

 

                                                                      

 

              

Donate CIJR

Become a CIJR Supporting Member!

Most Recent Articles

Day 5 of the War: Israel Internalizes the Horrors, and Knows Its Survival Is...

0
David Horovitz Times of Israel, Oct. 11, 2023 “The more credible assessments are that the regime in Iran, avowedly bent on Israel’s elimination, did not work...

Sukkah in the Skies with Diamonds

0
  Gershon Winkler Isranet.org, Oct. 14, 2022 “But my father, he was unconcerned that he and his sukkah could conceivably - at any moment - break loose...

Open Letter to the Students of Concordia re: CUTV

0
Abigail Hirsch AskAbigail Productions, Dec. 6, 2014 My name is Abigail Hirsch. I have been an active volunteer at CUTV (Concordia University Television) prior to its...

« Nous voulons faire de l’Ukraine un Israël européen »

0
12 juillet 2022 971 vues 3 https://www.jforum.fr/nous-voulons-faire-de-lukraine-un-israel-europeen.html La reconstruction de l’Ukraine doit également porter sur la numérisation des institutions étatiques. C’est ce qu’a déclaré le ministre...

Subscribe Now!

Subscribe now to receive the
free Daily Briefing by email

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

  • Subscribe to the Daily Briefing

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.