Game Changer -- Russia has deployed troops, tanks and drones inside Syria

[GreatGazoo]

Satellite imagery provided by AllSourceAnalysis confirms the recent arrival of Russian main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, helicopters, and other military equipment at an airbase in Syria’s coastal Latakia province, indicating that Russia has deployed troops inside Syria. Concurrent military exercises inside Russia with the stated mission of training for long-range deployments of airborne troops suggest that Russia may intend to deploy additional forces, possibly further inside Syria.

AllSource Analysis imagery of Taganrog Central airbase just east of the Ukrainian border from September 12 shows airborne troops rolling parachutes along a runway along with vehicles and tents more likely configured for sustained operations than for exercises or snap inspections. Russian President Vladimir Putin is seeking ways to support the Assad regime, to thwart a possible buffer zone established by the United States and Turkey, and to embarrass the United States by positioning Russia as the leader of a new international anti-ISIS coalition. Russian mobilization may protect the Assad regime from rapid collapse, but it may also cause greater radicalization among the Syrian opposition.

The Russian deployment to Syria is game-changing. It will alter the nature of international negotiations, compromise and weaken the cohesion and efforts of the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition, strengthen the Assad regime, and initiate direct Russo-Iranian military operations (suggesting the creation of a de facto Russo-Iranian military coalition, at least in Syria) for the first time. The U.S. and its partners must fundamentally reassess their approach to the Syrian conflict in light of this critical inflection.

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-deployment-syria-putin%E2%80%99s-middle-east-game-changer#sthash.FBu6kAir.dpuf

Full satellite analysis in PDF at link.

The analyst notes that this deployment of Russian troops in Syria is the first pairing of Russian and Iranian troops in the region and seems to be timed and coordinated for maximum effect. For the US, the conclusion is that this deployment staves off the collapse of the Assad regime and de-incentivizes the regime to negotiate with the US and allies. Obviously this devolpment will force a rethinking of the US approach in Syria. (See page 7 and 8 for the conclusions)

[Shandris]

1. And their embassy has already been hit by a missile, if reports are to be believed.

Should be interesting.

Edit to add: UPDATE: link: http://news.yahoo.com/russia-calls-action-shell-hits-damascus-embassy-compound-154747126.html

[GreatGazoo]

7. a shell that did not explode, curious

"A shell fell on the territory of the Russian embassy in Damascus on September 20 around 9:00am, going deep into the ground without causing damage," the ministry said in a statement

Apparently it just damaged the concrete because at it says there "Russia's foreign ministry on Monday called for "concrete action..."

[Shandris]

8. LOL nice! I guess they best get to repaving. Erm...relaying? Re-laying?

Whatever it is they'd do to concrete, they best get on it.

I missed that part about it not exploding, good catch. I wonder...any military kinds know if that's actually common or a real doozy-of-a-chance type deal?

[GreatGazoo]

9. Get the QuikCrete! and I had the same question: is it common for shell to not explode?

The cynic in me thinks this non exploding shell seems a too convenient way of Russia getting their Gulf of Tonkin moment to enter this war more directly -- eg 'we were attacked'

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Bet that puts a dent in M.I.C. hubris.

Neo Cons must be popping a blood pressure cuff over this.

[DavidDvorkin]

3. No, I think they're drinking champagne

And toasting the coming bit uptick in profits.

[grasswire]

4. what is ALLSOURCE ANALYSIS?

A CIA front? Or what?

How do we trust anyone not to cook the books?

[jwirr]

25. That is what I was thinking. Do not trust this. But then they

were dropping bombs on Iraq and I did not trust them then either.

[LittleBlue]

5. Good

Someone has to take responsibility for this disaster if we won't. Take the gloves off and kill these slaver barbarians

[leveymg]

6. Nothing changes. Russia has been in Syria longer than it was in Poland

Syria is its last base in the Mediterranean in a region adjacent to its southern border from which the Saudis have been launching attacks for three decades. With our blessings and assistance.

The only wonder is it took this long for them to pull their shit back together again and to draw this line.

[pampango]

10. As Assad's military shrinks, foreign military power may make up the difference.

Perhaps Assad can stay in power another decade or two with enough foreign military support. It's a nice gig if you can get it - or in this case, if you inherit it from your father.

[jamzrockz]

12. Even nicer would

be for the sponsors of the terrorists coming to Syria to kill civilians to stop financing these people. That way, the many religious sects in Syria can all live in peace under one roof in a secular state. Except for the salafists, those guys just have to be purged or sent back to Saudi.

Please don't reply with anything coming from Juan Cole, don't care if it starts with "the sky is blue". I would disregard anything he says as complete fabrication and western propaganda.

[pampango]

14. It would indeed be "even nicer" if the sponsors and suppliers of all sides stopped supporting the

slaughter.

When Assad choose continued repression as his response to the public protests of 2011, I imagine he did not envision a civil war resulting. His father had crushed an outbreak of resistance in 1982 with the loss of a 'mere' 40,000 dead. Bashar probably thought the same would happen in 2011.

Please don't reply with anything coming from Juan Cole, don't care if it starts with "the sky is blue". I would disregard anything he says as complete fabrication and western propaganda.

Informed Comment blog

Since 2002, Cole has published the blog Informed Comment, covering "History, Middle East, South Asia, Religious Studies, and the War on Terror". Blog entries include comments on widely reported articles in Western media, summaries of important articles from Arabic and Israeli news sources, and letters and discussions with both critics and supporters.

The blog has won various awards; as of April 2006 the most prominent is the 2005 James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism from Hunter College. It has also received two 2004 Koufax Awards: the "Best Expert Blog" and the "Best Blog Post". It has since dropped off the list, but Informed Comment has been ranked as the 99th most popular blog on the Internet by Technorati on October 21, 2006. Cole was a strong critic of the George W. Bush administration and is one of the most respected foreign policy commentators amongst left-wing bloggers.

Views

Generally speaking, Cole approaches the Middle East and West Asia from the point of view of anti-colonialism. Viewing the USA as a colonialist power, he sees it as defending the post-World War I "Sykes-Picot/Balfour architecture" (described as "a colossal failure&quot against Arab nationalist or pan-Islamic challengers. These foundered for various reasons, especially "particularism". The U.S., like previous empires, seeks to take advantage of such internal rivalries in order to "divide and rule". Terrorism, he explains (after comparing several countries in the region), is the result of foreign occupation in combination with weak states.

Cole tends to value multinational (and especially UN) initiatives over unilateral military ones. He favors multi-ethnic states over separatist movements. Given his background in the 1960s and 1970s religious counter-culture, he views Islam (along with other religions) as essentially good, but distorted by certain of its political appropriators (and critics).

CIA harassment allegations

In 2011, James Risen reported in The New York Times that, "Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information" on Cole "in order to discredit him". "In an interview, Mr. Carle said his supervisor at the National Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted 'to get' Professor Cole, and made clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to collect information about him, an effort Mr. Carle rebuffed. Months later, Mr. Carle said, he confronted a C.I.A. official after learning of another attempt to collect information about Professor Cole. Mr. Carle said he contended at the time that such actions would have been unlawful."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole#Views

You and I are entitled to disagree with "left-wing", "anti-colonialist" bloggers all we want. That does not make them "Western propagandists". And, yes, the sky is blue in Syria; just like it is here.

[jamzrockz]

18. Agian with this false equivalency BS

If local and foreign fighters in league with despotic and theocratic dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Jordan etc etc attacks the legitimate govt in a secular peaceful state because they somehow want to participate in an ill thought out Arab spring. It is incumbent on that govt's that are allies to support said govt with weapons.

The invaders should be stopped and the people defending their lands should be assisted. I would have a different opinion if the sunni radical jihadists spearheading this fight were just fighting for a small enclave in the corner of Syria, but no, these guys want to take over the whole country and I don't blame the Syrian govt for responding with brutal force. Imagine if Jr. Assad had been as successful as his dad in killing the rebels. There wouldn't be a destroyed Syria, there wouldn't be thousands of dead and millions of displaced people.

That would be a much better situation than what we have today.

[pampango]

20. The "legitimate government" of Syria is also a "despotic dictatorship".

Perhaps the protesters in 2011 were indeed participating in an "ill thought out Arab spring". It is funny what 40 years of repression will make a person feel about his "secular peaceful state".

Imagine if Jr. Assad had been as successful as his dad in killing the rebels. There wouldn't be a destroyed Syria, there wouldn't be thousands of dead and millions of displaced people.

Well, there would be 'thousands of dead'. 40,000 died at the hands of Assad's father in 1982. But you are right, the number of dead would be much less. And Syria (and the family dictatorship that rules it) would not have been destroyed. Of course, in 2011 no one knew that Assad would push the country all the way to civil war to preserve his hold on power and deny the majority any say in who governs the country.

Thankfully, liberals did not go down the route of supporting the minority apartheid government in South Africa when it refused to give its majority a say in who governs their country. The white government professed that the Black majority (like the Sunni majority in Syria) would run the country into the ground with reprisals and repression. Reagan and conservatives supported the apartheid government. Liberals opposed it.

If you are saying that, in hindsight, a second Hama massacre would have been preferable to the current chaos and destruction, you have a good point.

I trust this is not an argument that liberals should instinctively support dictators against protesters the next time thousands take to the street to protest repression. There is always the possibility that protests will result in something worse than the repression they are resisting. I don't see liberals taking the position that more law-and-order is necessary when protesters take to the street. We should not be expected to support a crackdown on protests and support the local dictator because the boogeyman 'terrorists' are out there.

Advice to future dictators: The "Assad strategy" for dealing with the opposition

1: When massive peaceful protests occur, repress them as them as violently as you can get away with - snipers, arrests, torture, etc.
2. This may work to quell the protests. If so, reward your military and security services and go back to being a dictator.
3. If #1 doesn't work right away and massive peaceful protests continue, keep up the repression. (You have to come up with a strategy to keep the international community at bay. A friend on the Security Council is useful for this.) Start talking about the presence of "criminal gangs" or "terrorists" among the protestors. There may not be any yet, but it's good to get the talking point out there for future use.
4. If your military and security forces continue to prove to be ineffective in suppressing dissent, don't worry. Keep up the armed repression. Eventually frustration will build up among factions of the protesters and some will become willing to resort to violence given the apparent futility of peaceful protest. Or outside groups will begin to take advantage of these frustrations.
5. At this point you can unleash your military and security forces to the full extent and hope you don't lose the civil war you have created.
6. If your military seems to be losing the civil war you have created, appeal to appeal to the international community to help you fight the terrorists - who weren't there in step #1 but are now.

I think this is a strategy that is workable in many repressive countries when populations get fed up with living with no rights.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=378947

[jamzrockz]

21. You just don't get it

You would be surprised how many people would take freedom of religion, peace, safety, relative prosperity with a dictator in charge over the unknown the west promises to offer. But you sitting in the west away from all the bombs and destruction wouldn't know any of that. Instead you propose that they risk everything for a chance to have democracy.

How did that work out for them in Libya? You bring up the South African situation as a comparison, the South Africans would have also been in a far worse situation if they went about destroying the whole country and displacing/killing half the population because they a religious sect couldn't mold the whole country in the way they desired.

I suggest you stop reading Juan Cole. I don't care if he is to the left of Bernie sander, he just off his rockers when it comes to foreign policy.

[pampango]

22. I did not take to the streets of Syria. The Syrian people did.

You would be surprised how many people would take freedom of religion, peace, safety, relative prosperity with a dictator in charge over the unknown the west promises to offer.

You might be surprised at the desire of all people to have a voice in how they are governed. It is not a "western" concept. You may consider Arabs or Muslims as inherently different from you and me. We disagree.


http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/07/10/most-muslims-want-democracy-personal-freedoms-and-islam-in-political-life/
http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/18/on-eve-of-foreign-debate-growing-pessimism-about-arab-spring-aftermath

The first poll is of people in the region. The second is of Americans. You could make the case that it is Americans who prefer 'stability' and 'law-and-order' in Middle Eastern governments while the people who live there actually believe in 'democracy' more than we do - at least as it applies to their own countries.

Instead you propose that they risk everything for a chance to have democracy.

I support the efforts of Syrian people who, like me, would prefer to live without a repressive government run by a hereditary right-to-rule father-son dictators which is implemented with secret police, torture and executions. I did not take to the streets of Syria. Syrians did that. I support them. Perhaps you support Assad and his "father knows best" repression.

... the South Africans would have also been in a far worse situation if they went about destroying the whole country and displacing/killing half the population because they a religious sect couldn't mold the whole country in the way they desired.

So all Sunni Muslims do not deserve a say in how they are governed because they "mold the whole country in the way they desired". You impression of Sunnis is quite the same as the white apartheid governments view of the Black majority.

Who decides which countries deserve a government run by an enlightened minority and which countries have governments that reflect the will of their citizens?

I suggest you stop reading Juan Cole. I don't care if he is to the left of Bernie sander, he just off his rockers when it comes to foreign policy.

No thanks. I will decide whom I read even if some of them say things you don't like. Most on the left do not share your disdain for Cole. Many on the right do feel as you do about him since he is "to the left of Bernie Sanders" and anti-colonial, anti-American.

[alarimer]

26. You don't get freedom of anything with a dictator

And Assad is a particularly nasty one.

[Comrade Grumpy]

23. Syria could have been like Iran in 2009.

Except there were foreign powers chomping at the bit to gin up an armed rebellion. And pay for it. That really is a crucial bit. Civil wars happen when there's somebody, somewhere willing to pay to make them happen.

If you look back to the beginning of this, you see that the shift from protest movement to armed rebellion happened very, very quickly. A matter of a couple weeks, and then it was a matter of a few months before the protest movement was marginalized and the armed jihadis took over.

The Assad regime is not nice, but I really blame the Gulf Arabs and the Turks for turning Syria into a hellhole. Those Gulf Arabs, the guys who made the civil war possible, apparently don't give a shit about actual Syrians. Better the country be destroyed than an ally of Iran stay in power.

[pampango]

24. The peaceful protest movement was, indeed, never going to succeed under Assad's rule, but

a civil war could only happen if funding and arms came from elsewhere.

I think it is fair to blame Assad for militarizing the response to peaceful protests dooming them to failure and leaving 'armed rebellion' as the only option other than surrender for those willing to openly oppose continued dictatorship.

It is also fair to say that the armed rebellion would not have lasted long (as in the case of the rebellion against Assad's father in 1982) if all the weapons they had were the rifles of defecting soldiers. That would not have lasted any longer than it did in 1982.

Assad is a smart man. I think he believed that he was going to win, one way or another, if he used the military to repress the protests. Either 1) it worked quickly which is probably what he expected, 2) a limited armed rebellion largely of defecting soldiers and untrained civilians lasted a short while (as in 1982) but were defeated by a large and well trained army and 3) (probably not considered likely by Assad in 2011) a longer term civil war actually did come to pass in which case really "bad" guys (no ISIS back then but plenty of other 'bad guys') would show up (given the neighborhood Syria is in) and he would then become the 'lesser of two evils', the international community would back off and Assad family rule would continue unbroken.

The Assad regime is not nice, but I really blame the Gulf Arabs and the Turks for turning Syria into a hellhole. Those Gulf Arabs, the guys who made the civil war possible, apparently don't give a shit about actual Syrians.

Agreed. Though I think many, many Syrians would not go a bit further than "the Assad regime is not nice" and given the number of Syrians Assad's forces have killed over the years and since 2011, I have not seen much evidence that he 'gives a shit about actual Syrians' either. As with most dictators, he 'gives a shit' about one guy - himself.

[Comrade Grumpy]

28. I think there is a danger in personalizing this conflict too much.

It's not Assad vs. the Syrian people.

It's the secular, authoritarian, minority regime vs. first Sunni protesters, then Sunni rebels.

I recall seeing at the very beginning of this conflict polling that showed about 30% supported the status quo, about 30% wanted to overthrow Assad by any means necessary, and about 40% wanted political change, but not at the price of civil war.

The regime had significant internal support. I don't know if that has decreased or increased. When you look at the other options, the regime may not look so bad, no matter how murderous it is.

[pampango]

30. It's hard not to personalize the opposition to a dictator but I get your point.

It's the secular, authoritarian, minority regime vs. first Sunni protesters, then Sunni rebels.

If one substitutes "Black" for "Sunni", the same could be said for South Africa in the 1980's - although the apartheid government caved before the "protesters" turned into "rebels". Thankfully, South Africa never had to deal with full-scale civil war.

I recall seeing at the very beginning of this conflict polling that showed about 30% supported the status quo, about 30% wanted to overthrow Assad by any means necessary, and about 40% wanted political change, but not at the price of civil war.

I remember the poll you are referring to.

With 70% (30% at all costs and 40% if it could be done peacefully) wanting political change in 2011, any elections would have been a big risk for Mr. Assad. But with 70% (30% supporting the status quo and 40% willing to accept it to avoid a civil war) Mr. Assad was smart (in terms of preserving his rule) to avoid elections and make it instead a choice between him and civil war.

When you look at the other options, the regime may not look so bad, no matter how murderous it is.

Agreed. The regime may have looked pretty bad to 70% or so of its people in 2011 but it certainly looks like "the lesser of two evils now".

I am tempted now to admit that Assad has handled the opposition to his rule more effectively than Ben Ali, Gaddafi and Mubarak did. By pushing his country into civil war, something the others could not or would not do, he has won. For the sake of the Syrian people, others should admit as much, support him as the best alternative to ISIS, bring the civil war to a close, allow him to remain as dictator indefinitely and hope the next generation of Syrians can do better.

[kelliekat44]

11. remember this was AFTER Bibi met with Putin. Now think about it. nt

[840high]

13. Good point.

[GreatGazoo]

16. Yes. The story breaking 9/21 is: Israel, Russia to coordinate military action on Syria: Netanyahu

Iran, Israel's arch-foe, is Assad's other foreign backer and patron of Hezbollah, which fought Israel to a standstill in the 2006 Lebanon war. Israel worries that top-of-the-line Russian military hardware being deployed in Syria could end up in Hezbollah's arsenal.

"Our policy is to do everything to stop weapons from being sent to Hezbollah," Netanyahu told Putin at their photo-op. He also set out Israel's policy of striking at guerrillas suspected of preparing to attack it from the Syrian Golan, on the northern frontier - an apparent signal to Russia to steer clear there.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/21/us-mideast-crisis-russia-israel-idUSKCN0RL10K20150921

Looks like the "3D chess" is well underway.

[malaise]

15. It's actually good news

The only thing to stop the Western onslaught on the Middle East is a strong Russia. Enough with the fugging one super power domination.

[davidn3600]

27. Russia doesnt have the money for a full-blown protracted war

They are not likely to stick with it if it gets bloody. The last thing Putin wants is to get drawn into another Afghanistan.

The reason they are giving some support is they want to protect their port in Syria, they want to back up an old ally (Syria and Russia have been allies for 50+ years), and they want to crush ISIS.

[odd_duck]

17. The only reason....

Russia is inside Syria, is because Assad wants them there.
The US is also there flying jets and bombing, yet they were NOT invited by the US to do that.....

[GreatGazoo]

19. Russia, Syria and Iran have a mutual defense treaty.

Also Russia has a naval base in Syria which they expect to keep even if Assad falls, somewhat like the US base at Guantanamo Cuba.

And now Russia has a deal to coordinate military actions with Israel.

[davidn3600]

29. They are worried about terrorism

The last thing Moscow wants to see happen is Assad fall and Syria become a base of operations for radical Islamic terrorists like ISIS to operate from. That could become a threat to support terrorist attacks on Russian soil. And they believe it could cause instability in the entire region.

Russia is an ally of Syria for many decades. So this isn't that unusual. Syria has always been in Russia's sphere of influence in the mideast, along with Iran. Russia has a huge interest in keeping Syria and Iran intact.

The US, Israel, and Russia could coordinate a rather massive alliance against ISIS. However, Assad is the factor standing in the way of that right now.