OT? A New Cold War

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm kind of curious as to exactly what you guys- Nowhere and CDAT- think the U.S./NATO should be doing to counter Russia, that they currently "lack the political will" to do.

In Europe, various measures are being taken to address Russian militarism/aggression. New basing agreements, more armor and combat air power oriented eastward, and even the possibility of new additions to NATO.

In Syria, what could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed class between Western and Russian forces?

What could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed clash between Western and Russian forces should have been done a year ago Raellus. Western troops on the ground in Syria with air support to hammer ISIL and kick the remnants back into Iraq and the mountains. Instead what has been done? Cyber and electronic eavesdropping, drone strikes and a few morale boosting air strikes to look good, while Obama goes and signs a nuclear deal with Iran. And all the good it has done. ISIL are still there slaughtering innocent people. The Russians have moved into Syria who borders a NATO country (Turkey) and Israel right under the nose of the West and are attacking anti-Assad rebels. Iran is also sitting back and now laughing at the West, Israel and the Sunni Arab world.

Russia's motives are not driven by helping Assad, but are driven by their own agenda to undermine Western influence in the region. And while doing so they now strategically threaten the entire Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. If as I suspect Russia has S-400 SAM systems in Syria then they can threaten very effectively the entire air space as far as 400 kilometres east and west of Syria, and can hit aerodynamic targets up to 56 kilometres high depending on the missile variant. They also have anti-ballistic missile capabilities, and if Russia places anti-ship missiles and conventional ballistic missiles in Syria they can hit NATO warships and land targets in Europe. And they moved all of this into Syria via Iranian and Iraqi airspace right under the noses of NATO just after Obama signs a nuclear deal with Iran. What Putin thinks of Obama must be choice!

[LT. Ox]

I am not, repeat not, attacking you. I strongly disagree with your statements.
I cannot fault nor will I infer they are not sincere and heart felt. I have had my share of Esperance with the type of experience you relate, I took the offer of an all-expense paid trip to Africa for which I had to resign my commission for similar reasons you express, remember I was in from ’66 to’70.
The politicals ran the war or more to the point the media who run the politicians directed the conduct of the war.
After a lot of time, and I cannot tell you how many hours of group and individual counseling, it sort of came to me (smile I am Irish and bit slow) I was blaming people that had no control over events and I was further condemning them without having all the facts they have to deal with.

I believe you may be in that boat.
I also know that I have heard your argument from Vets of WWII and Korea and Viet Nam and Gulf and I think…. you get my meaning.
We have perhaps the Best Military in the world it got that way by having some pretty good leadership.
Ah hell this is my last post on it.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

What could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed clash between Western and Russian forces should have been done a year ago Raellus. Western troops on the ground in Syria with air support to hammer ISIL and kick the remnants back into Iraq and the mountains. Instead what has been done? Cyber and electronic eavesdropping, drone strikes and a few morale boosting air strikes to look good, while Obama goes and signs a nuclear deal with Iran. And all the good it has done. ISIL are still there slaughtering innocent people. The Russians have moved into Syria who borders a NATO country (Turkey) and Israel right under the nose of the West and are attacking anti-Assad rebels. Iran is also sitting back and now laughing at the West, Israel and the Sunni Arab world.

Russia's motives are not driven by helping Assad, but are driven by their own agenda to undermine Western influence in the region. And while doing so they now strategically threaten the entire Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. If as I suspect Russia has S-400 SAM systems in Syria then they can threaten very effectively the entire air space as far as 400 kilometres east and west of Syria, and can hit aerodynamic targets up to 56 kilometres high depending on the missile variant. They also have anti-ballistic missile capabilities, and if Russia places anti-ship missiles and conventional ballistic missiles in Syria they can hit NATO warships and land targets in Europe. And they moved all of this into Syria via Iranian and Iraqi airspace right under the noses of NATO just after Obama signs a nuclear deal with Iran. What Putin thinks of Obama must be choice!

Utterly destroying ISIL is a very worthy goal, but western ground forces rolling into Syria? There's no legal basis, just as there wasn't any legal basis for rolling into Iraq in 2003. And rolling into Iraq in 2003 (and the subsequent really, really stupid decisions by the US governing administration in Iraq such as totally dismantling all Baathist institutions, the police and the Iraqi military) are what created ISIL in the first place. Like it or not, invading sovereign states without legal basis is a very slippery slope.

Russia's motives are more complicated than just to undermine Western influence in the region. Supporting Assad's regime is an entirely reasonable goal for Russia, if for no other reason that Russia's only Mediterranean naval base for its Black Sea Fleet is located in the Syrian port of Tartus.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Targan

Utterly destroying ISIL is a very worthy goal, but western ground forces rolling into Syria? There's no legal basis, just as there wasn't any legal basis for rolling into Iraq in 2003. And rolling into Iraq in 2003 (and the subsequent really, really stupid decisions by the US governing administration in Iraq such as totally dismantling all Baathist institutions, the police and the Iraqi military) are what created ISIL in the first place. Like it or not, invading sovereign states without legal basis is a very slippery slope.

ISIL originated in Iraq and invaded Syria. Assad's government is also Baathist, and Russian and Iranian forces have been sent to Syria. And the West worries about a legal basis for intervention!

Originally Posted by Targan

Russia's motives are more complicated than just to undermine Western influence in the region. Supporting Assad's regime is an entirely reasonable goal for Russia, if for no other reason that Russia's only Mediterranean naval base for its Black Sea Fleet is located in the Syrian port of Tartus.

Russia's naval base in Tartus is a small refuelling and maintenance facility. It cannot support any major Russian warship or nuclear submarine, and it would be completely indefensible in a conflict with NATO or Israel. Its lack of strategic importance was actually stated by the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs on 26th June 2013. However Russia is using it as a basis for intervention in Syria, and Russian intervention is part of a larger strategy to undermine Western influence in the region and reinforce the divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East, with Russia being the main backers of the Shia faction. Iran and Assad's regime in Syria is Shia.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

ISIL originated in Iraq and invaded Syria. Assad's government is also Baathist, and Russian and Iranian forces have been sent to Syria. And the West worries about a legal basis for intervention!

So the West should send in ground troops as well? Forget political will, there's very little popular support for that sort of thing in the West. The West has been in Afghanistan for 14 years, with no positive endgame in sight. Aside from supporting the troops, there is very little desire among the American public for another long, drawn out counter-insurgency in the Middle East. Is sending ground forces into yet another majority Muslim country going to help the West win "The War on Terror"? How's that strategy been working out for us? It's all fine and good to talk about going in there with our full firepower and kicking ass, but it's too simplistic and short-sighted. It's another quagmire just waiting for a major power to get stuck in.

Originally Posted by RN7

Russia's naval base in Tartus is a small refuelling and maintenance facility. It cannot support any major Russian warship or nuclear submarine, and it would be completely indefensible in a conflict with NATO or Israel. Its lack of strategic importance was actually stated by the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs on 26th June 2013. However Russia is using it as a basis for intervention in Syria, and Russian intervention is part of a larger strategy to undermine Western influence in the region and reinforce the divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East, with Russia being the main backers of the Shia faction. Iran and Assad's regime in Syria is Shia.

I agree with your strategic assessment here (although I think that the Tartus' important in terms of Russian national/military prestige is understated). I'd kind of like to see the West cede responsibility for fighting ISIS to the Russians. Yeah, the Assad regime will survive, but Russia will become the primary target of the jihadists. Let them spend 14 years trying to clean up Syria, with every international Islamist terror/insurgent sending its best and brightest there to fight the Russian invaders.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

So the West should send in ground troops as well? Forget political will, there's very little popular support for that sort of thing in the West. The West has been in Afghanistan for 14 years, with no positive endgame in sight. Aside from supporting the troops, there is very little desire among the American public for another long, drawn out counter-insurgency in the Middle East. Is sending ground forces into yet another majority Muslim country going to help the West win "The War on Terror"? How's that strategy been working out for us? It's all fine and good to talk about going in there with our full firepower and kicking ass, but it's too simplistic and short-sighted. It's another quagmire just waiting for a major power to get stuck in.

This regime of terror has publically murdered how many innocent Western journalists and aid workers (actually filmed their beheading)? Has burned a Jordanian air man in a cage live on film. Has thrown how many homosexuals off buildings and filmed it? Has brutalised, murdered, raped and enslaved how many thousands of Syrian Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslim? And then they brag about it! Saddam Hussein and the Taleban did not even do this. I think every decent person in the world would like to see them shot, blown to atoms, or crushed under the tracks of a tank. They are worse than the Nazis, far worse.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I agree with your strategic assessment here (although I think that the Tartus' important in terms of Russian national/military prestige is understated). I'd kind of like to see the West cede responsibility for fighting ISIS to the Russians. Yeah, the Assad regime will survive, but Russia will become the primary target of the jihadists. Let them spend 14 years trying to clean up Syria, with every international Islamist terror/insurgent sending its best and brightest there to fight the Russian invaders.

The Russian airbase at Latakia is far more important to them. The Russians are not sending ground troops to fight ISIL in Syria, just enough to secure their toehold in Syria plus some Spetznaz to scare ISIL away. And Russia has been a target for Jihadists for years and their well used to them, they have practically wiped Chechnya off the face of the Earth.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

This regime of terror has publically murdered how many innocent Western journalists and aid workers (actually filmed their beheading)? Has burned a Jordanian air man in a cage live on film. Has thrown how many homosexuals off buildings and filmed it? Has brutalised, murdered, raped and enslaved how many thousands of Syrian Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslim? And then they brag about it! Saddam Hussein and the Taleban did not even do this. I think every decent person in the world would like to see them shot, blown to atoms, or crushed under the tracks of a tank. They are worse than the Nazis, far worse.

I agree. They're scumbags and should be eradicated. Sure pretty much every sane Westerner would like to see that happen. But put Western boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, enough to do the job and do it right? I think you overestimate the public's will to send their sons and daughters to that godforsaken corner of the earth to do that.

Originally Posted by RN7

The Russian airbase at Latakia is far more important to them. The Russians are not sending ground troops to fight ISIL in Syria, just enough to secure their toehold in Syria plus some Spetznaz to scare ISIL away. And Russia has been a target for Jihadists for years and their well used to them, they have practically wiped Chechnya off the face of the Earth.

So you're suggesting that the West use Russian scorched earth tactics against Syria and Iraq?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I agree. They're scumbags and should be eradicated. Sure pretty much every sane Westerner would like to see that happen. But put Western boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, enough to do the job and do it right? I think you overestimate the public's will to send their sons and daughters to that godforsaken corner of the earth to do that.

Yup.

[Webstral]

I think we can all agree that ISIS are bad people. Their badness does not lend itself to any solutions. However impassioned our pleas for intervention, the American people do not support another war in the Middle East. I’m not going back. I’m not going to support a plan to send American troops in with yet another quarter-baked scheme with “Hope for the best” underlined twice and highlighted in the mission statement. The American public cares about the victims of ISIS about as much as we care about any bloodletting in the media, which is to say that we care just enough to cry, “That’s awful” before getting back to the business of life. It’s shameful, but it underscores the absolute futility of getting involved without real commitment.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I agree. They're scumbags and should be eradicated. Sure pretty much every sane Westerner would like to see that happen. But put Western boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, enough to do the job and do it right? I think you overestimate the public's will to send their sons and daughters to that godforsaken corner of the earth to do that.

Well if we won't do it then we can't complain about the Russians being there.

Originally Posted by Raellus

So you're suggesting that the West use Russian scorched earth tactics against Syria and Iraq?

No I'm telling you that they have had to deal with Islamic fundamentalists (mainly Chechen) on their doorstep and within their country for decades, and their answer to eradicating it has been to raise Chechnya to the ground. We can't judge Russia as we have only had to deal with still isolated terrorist incidents compared with Russia who has entire nations of hostile Islamists within their borders who have terrorised them, and they have retaliated by using brutal force against them in ways that no Western state would ever do.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I think we can all agree that ISIS are bad people. Their badness does not lend itself to any solutions. However impassioned our pleas for intervention, the American people do not support another war in the Middle East. I’m not going back. I’m not going to support a plan to send American troops in with yet another quarter-baked scheme with “Hope for the best” underlined twice and highlighted in the mission statement. The American public cares about the victims of ISIS about as much as we care about any bloodletting in the media, which is to say that we care just enough to cry, “That’s awful” before getting back to the business of life. It’s shameful, but it underscores the absolute futility of getting involved without real commitment.

Well lets applaud the Russians for being there no matter what their real motives are.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

Well lets applaud the Russians for being there no matter what their real motives are.

I'd be more inclined to applaud the Russians if they were going after ISIS and not just the US-backed rebel factions in Syria.

[LT. Ox]

Originally Posted by Targan

I'd be more inclined to applaud the Russians if they were going after ISIS and not just the US-backed rebel factions in Syria.

O Yes!

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Targan

I'd be more inclined to applaud the Russians if they were going after ISIS and not just the US-backed rebel factions in Syria.

Well they are according to themselves!

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by RN7

Well lets applaud the Russians for being there no matter what their real motives are.

We don't need to do that, either. We simply need to be honest with ourselves about the relationship between our rhetoric and our commitment.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Webstral

We don't need to do that, either. We simply need to be honest with ourselves about the relationship between our rhetoric and our commitment.

Well to be honest with ourselves we are (in Europe) reaping the effect of our lack of commitment. Our southern borders are now being besieged by refugees escaping the crisis in Syria and Iraq, plus many more from elsewhere taking advantage of this crisis. Most are also able bodied men and soon we will have at least one million more refugees living among us with millions more on the way. And there is no other way in saying this but Europe will face all sorts of problems stemming from this.

[kato13]

Unless Russia can can do something with its economy (like force up oil prices) I feel this adventure will be short lived.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...rty-looms.html

The most interesting quote IMO

The chief effect has been to shrink the Russian economy in global terms. “GDP was $2.3 trillion at the peak. It is now $1.2 trillion, and I fear we are going back to the level of 1998 when it was $700bn,” he said.

This would be smaller than Holland ($850bn) or half the size of Texas ($1.4 trillion), a remarkable state of affairs for a country vying for superpower military status in Europe and the Middle East.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by RN7

Well to be honest with ourselves we are (in Europe) reaping the effect of our lack of commitment. Our southern borders are now being besieged by refugees escaping the crisis in Syria and Iraq, plus many more from elsewhere taking advantage of this crisis. Most are also able bodied men and soon we will have at least one million more refugees living among us with millions more on the way. And there is no other way in saying this but Europe will face all sorts of problems stemming from this.

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. It’s hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. I’m not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

Unless Russia can can do something with its economy (like force up oil prices) I feel this adventure will be short lived.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...rty-looms.html

The most interesting quote IMO

Russian intervention in Syria has as a lot more to do with unsettling Saudi Arabia and the West as it has with aiding Assad. Saudi Arabia is the prime instigator in devaluing oil prices and its targeted as much against Iran and Russia as it is against US shale producers. Iran and OPEC (outside of the Gulf states) would be the main supporters of Russian intervention in Syria, and their hope would be that it will force oil prices back to pre-2014 levels.

It is quite obvious that Russia is supporting the Iran/Shia faction in the Middle East, and the fact that Iran is also intervening in Iraq, Syria (Assad regime is Shia) and supporting the Shia rebel faction in Yemen is targeted against Saudi Arabia who is now the leading Sunni Muslim state in the region.

If Russia fails to unsettle Saudi Arabia and force oil prices up then it could be in trouble. It hasn't got the finances to sustain a military build up without oil and gas prices rising to levels they were two years ago, and its economy is neither large enough or diverse enough to cushion the impact of falling revenues from oil exports. Russia could go the self-reliance route but unlike Germany in the 1930's it does not have the level of science and engineering excellence that existed in the German economy. However there is no trade ban with Russia. The Russians can still import what they need and try and produce the rest themselves which will be difficult. The role of China in all of this could be very relevant to Putin's scheming. China does have the financial reserves to support Russia, although with the trouble they are also having with their finances and economy it may not be as much as Putin hopes. But China can aid the Russian economy be exporting excess manufactured products. China produces many of the same products that Russia imports from Western countries such as Germany, just the quality and reliability of these products is not as good. But they are cheap, and Russia can also barter its military technology for most of what its needs from China or agricultural products from a whole range of countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. It’s hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. I’m not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

No refugees from Iraq and Syria will be heading to America unless America allows them. Its Europe where the problem is. Thousands of refugees are walking through Turkey towards the Balkans or are being smuggled across the Mediterranean every day. Its a disaster on the scale of WW2 and nearly all are Muslim. All sorts of social, economic and political problems will come of this.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. It’s hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. I’m not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

We're not talking about the US / Mexico border, we're talking about the southern European borders here. Specifically the borders of certain EU member States as most migrants have no desire to stay any length of time in a non EU State.

[Bullet Magnet]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I agree. They're scumbags and should be eradicated. Sure pretty much every sane Westerner would like to see that happen. But put Western boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, enough to do the job and do it right? I think you overestimate the public's will to send their sons and daughters to that godforsaken corner of the earth to do that.

No matter how vile they may be, no matter how vile they demonstrate themselves to be, western nations have a plentiful supply of people who will cry that they (ISIS) are human beings, etc., and scream that the US and other western nations are the "bad guys" for acting against them.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Bullet Magnet

No matter how vile they may be, no matter how vile they demonstrate themselves to be, western nations have a plentiful supply of people who will cry that they (ISIS) are human beings, etc., and scream that the US and other western nations are the "bad guys" for acting against them.

I don't think that's it. I think that it's this: In order to root these vile scumbags out and make sure they don't come back (from Iraq and, perhaps, Syria) means putting boots on the ground- lots of them. That's what the general public in the West isn't willing to do- put its young men and women on the ground in another hostile, Middle Eastern hell-hole, to fight a nationless state with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of its own young men more than willing to kill Westerners or die trying.

[RN7]

OK so most of our American members hold the view that America doesn't want to send its soldiers into another Middle Eastern quagmire such as Syria.

So we still have the issue of Russia in Syria, and as Russia knows that it is there to stay as long as it wants it can also place whatever it likes in Syria. The more I think about it the more it strikes me that Putin as pulled off a masterstroke here. He can if he wants to help Assad or Iran target the entire Middle East and Europe from Syria. Russia already has Su-34 strike bombers at Latakia Airbase which has a combat range of 1,000 km. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Turkey and Greece are easily in range. So if Russia decides to place anti-ballistic missiles, a squadron of Tu-22M bombers with a combat range of 2,400 km, or enlarges their naval dock at Tartus to support nuclear submarines, and then decides to bomb anti-Assad forces outside of Syria what can be done about it?

[aspqrz]

Well, we could wait until they're foraging in local dumpsters for food when neither Putin nor Assad can afford to either feed them or pay them any more - then offer them economy class airfare to somewhere in Eastern Europe where they can walk across the border home.



Phil

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I understand that you are unhappy about the way things are going on a much larger scale than events in Syria. I rather doubt that Syrians and Iraqis are trying to get into the US across the US-Mexican border. They'd have to get into Mexico first. Mexico is unfriendly to Central American migrants attempting to reach the US. It’s hard to imagine that significant numbers of Arab refugees could get to Mexico, get off the ships unnoticed, and then make their way across the US border in the same fashion as Mexican migrants do.

Perhaps the unfolding situation in Syria will improve the level of commitment of the American electorate to decisive action. I’m not going to put the mortgage money down on that idea.

It's been done. Both Middle East and Chinese have been found among the Mexicans scooped up. Those Chinese better off have children here, then return home. When the Hong Kong special status expires, these people have an "out". Most people only see "anchor babies" without remembering in the 1995-7 transition Hong Kong had 50 years to keep it's institutions as a special region. Terrorists have tried to sneak in through Mexico and found out they needed Mexican Spanish lessions.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Well, we could wait until they're foraging in local dumpsters for food when neither Putin nor Assad can afford to either feed them or pay them any more - then offer them economy class airfare to somewhere in Eastern Europe where they can walk across the border home.



Phil

The question becomes...how many Eastern European countries would take them? Just give them airfare back to Russia and cut out a level of expense (the bribes we'd have to give to the Eastern Europeans to get involved).

[unkated]

Originally Posted by RN7

The Russians have moved into Syria who borders a NATO country (Turkey) and Israel right under the nose of the West and are attacking anti-Assad rebels.

Moved in? No, same small Russian base and airfield have been there all along since the 1970s. The only recent difference has been an increase in ground troops as security raised from company to battalion sized, since the civil war, and the more recent ground attack air units.

Originally Posted by RN7

Russia's motives are not driven by helping Assad, but are driven by their own agenda to undermine Western influence in the region. And while doing so they now strategically threaten the entire Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Strategically? I don't buy it. The base is not large enough to hold many strategic assets.

Originally Posted by RN7

If as I suspect Russia has S-400 SAM systems

Have you access to intelligence and satellite resources? Again, it is not a large base, and has neither the deployment area, storage area or barracks area for enough weapons to amount to a strategic threat.

And if there are small numbers of the system in place, they or the previous S-300 have been emplaced for a while - say 30 years.

My point is this is not a change, and the Russians have not seized new 10 sq miles of land on which they have been building missile (SAM or SSM) emplacements.

Putin is trying to help his friend in the region who lets him keep the air navy bases. Yes, this friend runs a fairly vicious regime that has used nerve gas on his own people (before the civil war broke out and since) - I'm certainly not defending Assad or Putin.

But I don't believe this is a new strategic development.

Uncle Ted

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

So we still have the issue of Russia in Syria, and as Russia knows that it is there to stay as long as it wants it can also place whatever it likes in Syria. The more I think about it the more it strikes me that Putin as pulled off a masterstroke here. He can if he wants to help Assad or Iran target the entire Middle East and Europe from Syria. Russia already has Su-34 strike bombers at Latakia Airbase which has a combat range of 1,000 km. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Turkey and Greece are easily in range. So if Russia decides to place anti-ballistic missiles, a squadron of Tu-22M bombers with a combat range of 2,400 km, or enlarges their naval dock at Tartus to support nuclear submarines, and then decides to bomb anti-Assad forces outside of Syria what can be done about it?

That is possible, but Russia will have to all of that while fighting jihadists/rebels/freedom fighters. That is much easier said than done.

If Russia wants to take its place as greatest of all the "great satans", why try to stop them? Let them deal with what Western Coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been dealing with for the last 14 years- a seemingly unstoppable stream of very persistent local and foreign insurgents/jihadis dedicated to their destruction.

Also, any Russian strategic assets based in Syria will be fairly isolated and nearly surrounded by unfriendly parties- Turkey to the north, Israel to the South, NATO's Mediterranean assets to the west. I see that as more of a strategic liability than a strategic asset.

The alternative to Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War is what? More NATO muscle-flexing? Ultimatums? More sanctions? Then what? A tussle between NATO and Russian combat aircraft in Syrian airspace? The place is a tinderbox under a powder keg. You've got Iranian interests at play there, which the Saudis will no doubt act to counterbalance, you've got NATO, you've got ISIS, you've got Kurdish rebels, you've got Hezbollah, you've got a very nervous, very jumpy Israel watching from next door...

There's no easy solution, especially a military one.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by unkated

Moved in? No, same small Russian base and airfield have been there all along since the 1970s. The only recent difference has been an increase in ground troops as security raised from company to battalion sized, since the civil war, and the more recent ground attack air units.

Russia is estimated to have 34 fixed-wing aircraft based at Latakia. A mixture of types comprising 12 Su-25s, 12 Su-24M2s, four Su-30SMs and six Su-34s. Basically an entire air wing. I don't recall Russia ever basing that many aircraft in Syria or deploying advanced aircraft such as the Su-30SMs and Su-34's to Syria.

Also if Russia has no intention of increasing its military capability in Syria why did it launch 26 Kalibr-Nk naval cruise missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea at targets in Syria before/while they were established an air strike capability at Latakia.

Originally Posted by unkated

Strategically? I don't buy it. The base is not large enough to hold many strategic assets.

Look at the length of Latakia's runway unkated. It is 9,175 feet. Large commercial cargo planes (Boeing-747F) need about 9,000 feet to safely land or take off fully loaded. Big military cargo planes like the C-5 and An-124 can probably do it a bit shorter, but not that much when loaded up. Latakia is precisely the right length for the Russian An-124 to use. Yes it is very strategic for the Russians.

Originally Posted by unkated

Have you access to intelligence and satellite resources? Again, it is not a large base, and has neither the deployment area, storage area or barracks area for enough weapons to amount to a strategic threat.

And if there are small numbers of the system in place, they or the previous S-300 have been emplaced for a while - say 30 years.

No do you unkated. But it would make perfect sense for Russia to do so and it would not exactly be hard for them to do so.either. An-124s can transport tanks, helicopter gunships or a S-400 battery with ease. And the Russians when sending their An-124 cargo planes to Latakia would be mindful of exactly when the US ISR satellite in orbit is passing overhead, and will be unloading their cargo well before they are seen.

Originally Posted by unkated

My point is this is not a change, and the Russians have not seized new 10 sq miles of land on which they have been building missile (SAM or SSM) emplacements.

I don't think the Russians are interested in expanding their base just increasing their capabilities. Does anyone know for certain that some of the S-300 batteries have not been upgraded with S-400 systems?