Syrian Crisis...2013

If Assad gives up his chemical weapons as originally proposed by the Russians, Obama gets to save face and will take credit for being the good guy on the world stage.

I am not sure Assad can safely move out his chemical stockpile without the rebels intercepting any more of it though.

SampanViking said:

But Syria would be under the protection of major powers and not alone or isolated.
This would also be the perfect pretext for Russia (possibly even China) to disembark all the Marines it has bobbing about of the Coast to help secure the weapons stockpiles.
All of which means that next time there was a provocation, Russia could easily rebut any accusations and point a very credible finger at the culprits.

Altogether a very clever move that makes it ever more difficult to paint Assad as a cartoon baddie and which makes the justification of military action (to defend life) all the more ridiculous.

Click to expand...

If Russians wanted to establish firm military presence in Syria , they would have done it long ago . In reality , Russia doesn't want , doesn't need and cannot afford permanent military bases in foreign countries . Especially with civil war going on , which would definitely mean they would have to get involved and to suffer casualties and costs . Best what could Russia offer to Assad is some weapons and training , with possible Russian experts manning some of the more complex equipment .

As for China , Syria is far from its sphere of influence . China may support Russia diplomatically but it would avoid at all costs to get involved physically .

thunderchief said:

Considering recent history , any country that gave up its WMDs was attacked (Iraq , Libya ) . Those who didn't were not ( North Korea , Iran even Syria so far ) . You make your own conclusions

Click to expand...

WMD is only a deterrent if you can deliver it to cause maximum damage. Syria has no viable delivery system to use its WMD on western population centres, hell, there aren't even any western military bases in range to threaten, so if the US attacks Syria, what exactly can they do with their WMD to retaliate against the US?

Even if the US decides to invade Syria and put boots on the ground, those troops are all going to be packing NBC protective gear, so even if you dropped gas rounds right into their midst, it won't cause much in the way of casualties. On top of that, any use of chemical weapons on American troops would inflame US public opinion and effectively silence any kind of opposition against military action against Syria.

Right now, the need to secure or neutralise chemical weapons is the only excuse the US can dredge up to try and justify military action against Syria. If Assad turns his chemical weapons over to the UN, he kneecaps the US diplomatic cover, and the US would either have to back right off, or dispense with any pretence that military action is in any way shape or form justified and engage in naked aggression.

It is a good bet Obama is not willing to be so blatantly imperialist, and even if he is, Syria would have been attacked in any case, and as i have pointed out already, those chem rounds Syria has have no targets to hit, and even if there were, using them would only make things worse for Assad in any case. But if Syria disarms and America still attacks, Syria would find a hell of a lot more international sympathy and support than if the US attacked under the pretext of taking of chemical weapons. If Syria was attacked under such circumstances, Assad may even find willing allies in the form of the Russians and Iranians, who could send in personnel and equipment via backdoor means, just like the old Cold War proxy war days.

thunderchief said:

If Russians wanted to establish firm military presence in Syria , they would have done it long ago . In reality , Russia doesn't want , doesn't need and cannot afford permanent military bases in foreign countries . Especially with civil war going on , which would definitely mean they would have to get involved and to suffer casualties and costs . Best what could Russia offer to Assad is some weapons and training , with possible Russian experts manning some of the more complex equipment .

As for China , Syria is far from its sphere of influence . China may support Russia diplomatically but it would avoid at all costs to get involved physically .

Click to expand...

Wait a minute...I thought Russia has a Naval base in Syria?

thunderchief said:

If Russians wanted to establish firm military presence in Syria , they would have done it long ago . In reality , Russia doesn't want , doesn't need and cannot afford permanent military bases in foreign countries . Especially with civil war going on , which would definitely mean they would have to get involved and to suffer casualties and costs . Best what could Russia offer to Assad is some weapons and training , with possible Russian experts manning some of the more complex equipment .

As for China , Syria is far from its sphere of influence . China may support Russia diplomatically but it would avoid at all costs to get involved physically .

Click to expand...

Minor point re China - this is a ref to the unconfirmed earlier report about the 15th Aden Patrol entering the Med. There is no point sending a LPD unless you intend landing your Marines for some reason.

Main point - Russia. The Saudi Foreign Minister; Prince Bandar Sultan - aka Bandar Bush, made a very stupid move when he threatened the Sochi games when they met last month.
Remember there are many Chechen terrorists already in Syria and given such a threat, Putin would want to take seriously any course of action that could help remove them from the equation.
Given also the propensity of these affiliated terrorists to use Chemical Weapons, Putin would have to consider the risk to Sochi of such an attack and from where the Chemical Agents would be most likely to come from. Given that both terrorists and chemical agents are currently in the same place, its really a no brainer.

This is Russian foreign policy dovetailing with its Internal Security requirements.
It can by its deployment pull the (Tomahawk) sting of the USN, thus
Leaving the Terrorists it is after, badly exposed in the face of a (assisted) Syrian counter offensive
Secure the Chemicals enhancing its diplomatic prestige and secure its own borders against terror
Enhance its position for paying back those that sought to threaten Russia with terror in the first place.

I did warn about playing Poker with Putin. I think more people are starting to see exactly what I meant.

SampanViking said:

Minor point re China - this is a ref to the unconfirmed earlier report about the 15th Aden Patrol entering the Med. There is no point sending a LPD unless you intend landing your Marines for some reason.

Click to expand...

This. I think we are starting to see Russia and China finally reveal their hand.

plawolf said:

WMD is only a deterrent if you can deliver it to cause maximum damage. Syria has no viable delivery system to use its WMD on western population centres, hell, there aren't even any western military bases in range to threaten, so if the US attacks Syria, what exactly can they do with their WMD to retaliate against the US?

Even if the US decides to invade Syria and put boots on the ground, those troops are all going to be packing NBC protective gear, so even if you dropped gas rounds right into their midst, it won't cause much in the way of casualties. On top of that, any use of chemical weapons on American troops would inflame US public opinion and effectively silence any kind of opposition against military action against Syria.

Click to expand...

You forgot one tiny detail - Syrian missiles , even artillery shells , could reach Israeli population centers and that is maybe bigger priority for current US planers then US cities . According to reports , Syria had hundreds of SRBMs before the war , each capable of delivering deadly chemical payload .

As for NBC gear , to defend yourself against nerve agents you would have to wear completely enclosed NBC suit - very unpractical especially in desert climate .

cn_habs said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Here is what I expect to happen next week. The US is going to accuse Syria of failure to comply to justify an attack on Syria.

Equation said:

Wait a minute...I thought Russia has a Naval base in Syria?

Click to expand...

Not really a naval base , more of refueling point at this time . No troops stationed there since breakup of Soviet Union . Wikipedia has good article on the subject :

And Clinton is on board.
[video=youtube_share;33NpmtljhiQ]http://youtu.be/33NpmtljhiQ[/video]
oh man this has disaster writen all over it.