Brian, you omitted the last sentence of Keith's post -Brian Towers wrote:No, not really.Keith Arkell wrote:Putin saw an opportunity to increase his influence in the area by paying lip service to the concept of fighting terrorism, and particularly ISIS, and this caught the US and the West completely off their guard.
Russia has a port in Syria - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartus. They are not so much trying to increase their influence in the area as protecting their interests as they did in Crimea, albeit on a smaller scale.
I think that implies Keith already knows that the limited Russian attacks on IS targets, such as Palmyra, are a sideshow and a cover for their current main aim - to halt the inroads made by non-IS opposition forces into Alawite areas of NW Syria.The Americans know exactly what he is up to, but are not sure yet how to deal with it...
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syrian-army-la ... es-1522914
Due to attrition Assad no longer has the (Syrian) manpower to hold those areas without the Russian air and Iranian ground support that Peter Williams has sketched out, above.
And, I don't see this as a "smaller scale" protection of Russian interests than the annexation of Crimea. No direct military consequences against Russian forces followed from that - in fact they even increased their covert military activities in SE Ukraine.
The Saudis have already said that they are going to supply the anti-Assad forces they support with heavier weapons.
On the BBC yesterday a US general said that the US should have cratered the Syrian runways used by the Russians to attack the Syrian opposition that were being supported by the US. Obama is, of course, not going to do that and the Americans, as Keith wrote, "are not sure yet how to deal with it".
Any suggestions?
It somehow seems to be impossible to resist but all you ever get out of it is (a long list of) smashed countries.
