I understand the deal was signed a year ago. What was the point of delaying ratification so long? Is this a reaction to the change in attitude of Washington?
ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
it's all over in Twitter now: Rebels fought each today somewhere around
(I recalled I had heard about Saraqib before
Jura The idiot
General
"Cassad"
repeat, "Cassad" basically says it was just a formal thing today (and nothing new)
Good.
Jura The idiot
General
Oct 1, 2016
... and Government has counterattacked, ironically in "C" where the above map was wrong about Junaynah: it had been Rebels-held, now Government is thereas an armchair general, I use Sectors now
"A" (from the top-left corner down in the above map):
- Kurnaz G (as in 'Government held')
- Al Hamamiyat R (as in 'hold by Rebels')
- Jubbayn G
- Halfaya R
- Muhradah G
- Al Majdal G; "A" ends
"B" (the bottom part):
- Khattab G
- Qimhanah G
- (not shown, but important) "Mount Zayn al-Abdeen" () G
- Iskandariyah R
- Kafr Ra G; "B" ends
"C" (where most of the fights have been going on recently):
- Mubattan G
- Kawkab R
- Tayyibat al Ism G
- Qarah R
- Junaynah G
- Zugbah G; "C" ends
"D" (I don't know almost anything here):
- Duma R
"D" ends somewhere where ISIL is to the east (and out of this map) ...
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Most likely because of Russian domestic sensitivities and also risk hedging.
Think of the Russian involvement in Syria thus far as akin to the probation/cooling off period when someone first start a new job or make a major purchase.
The Afghan war would still be foremost in the minds of many, if not most Russians, who would be very reluctant to commit to another such foreign military (mis)adventure. As such, announcing an indefinite military commitment from the too early would have been a very politically risky commitment to make.
In addition, I would be amazed if the Russian military itself did not have reservations about their capacity to wage such a war so far from home.
NATO reaction would also have had been hard to gauge and predict going in.
Finally, when Russia first intervened, Assad was on the ropes, and there would have been on cast iron assurances that he could have turned the tide even with Russian air power.
All of that meant that it wasn't a wise move tactically or strategically for Russia to make a firm long-term commitment early on.
Had the US and NATO mounted a far more intelligent, United and forceful resistance to Russian involvement; had the Russian military found the burden of engagement too great, especially if they started taking significant losses; had Assad's forces continue to crumble even with Russian help; had Russia internal public opinion turned decisively against intervention; or any number of other things happened, the Russians may well have decided that their position in Syria was untenable and decided to pull out.
By not commiting itself too early, Russia was hedging its bets against possible failure by leaving itself a way out that would not have looked like they totally failed.
In addition, by starting small and demonstrating success after success, Putin was able to mitigate the fears and reservations many ordinary Russians would have had about the whole affair. Now that the Russian public is used to the war in Syria; Russia is confident they have the measure of the US and NATO; and it looks like Assad's forces could do the business without needing Russia to send ground combat troops, such announcements amounts to little more than stating the obvious.
However, Putin could have afforded to count on none of that going in, you also need to remember the recent Russian elections.
I think it's no accident that this announcement came after that vote.
We must remember to wind back the clock back to only consider information people would have had at the time the decisions were first made to accurately assess the reasons of their original choices.
If we judge those decisions based on events that happened afterwards, we are applying hindsight, which will almost always skew our understanding of the original thinking.
Jura The idiot
General
now I looked more closely there and it seems Government is back at the Airstrip fromOct 1, 2016
... and Government has counterattacked, ironically in "C" where the above map was wrong about Junaynah: it had been Rebels-held, now Government is there
Sep 28, 2016
... anyway here's another recent map:... "Airstrip" marked in the top in the map below ...
...
Jura The idiot
General
Oct 1, 2016
EDIT
the gains shown by "de Syracuse":
(should be "clickable"; it's )
... animation of recent Government gains:
the gains shown by "de Syracuse":
(should be "clickable"; it's )
Last edited: