Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Oct 4, 2015 in Breaking News, Featured, International, Russia, Terrorism, War | 4 comments

Syria – Part 1: Russia’s motives are more alarming than Obama’s deductions

shutterstock_275383010The Obama administration seems to be misreading Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intentions in his new bombing campaign in Syria.

President Barack Obama seems to think that Putin wants to reconquer Syria for Bashar al Assad and then install his protégé securely to weaken US influence in the Middle East. He also deduces that Putin is trying to obtain a Mideast bargaining chip in Moscow’s struggle with Washington over his predations in Ukraine.

Obama concludes that these are lost causes and Putin will land face down in mud. Alas, things are not so simple. These suppositions contain truth but may misread Putin’s primary aims.

Putin has determined that Syria is too broken to again be glued together as an inclusive and peaceful state. He thinks that the partitioning of Syria is inevitable and is positioning Moscow for a permanent and secure military presence in one of the rump territories.

Moscow has watched the fragmentation of Iraq with intense interest and has noted along with most other countries that Washington is incapable of installing inclusive governments in countries destabilized by US and Western military interventions.

It has also watched with dismay the burgeoning growth and military effectiveness of Islamist jihadists, whether Daesh, al Qaeda or others, following Washington’s and NATO’s “war on terror” since 2001.

The justification for each American intervention contained a strong dose of good intentions designed to prevent humanitarian catastrophes. But each has exacerbated the catastrophes, as in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria.

Now the people from those catastrophes have reached Europe’s doors and present unprecedented menace to social and religious stability in almost all European Union member countries. Distant tribal wars are now internal security issues for the core of America’s staunchest allies in Europe. So Syria can no longer be left to burn.

In Putin’s view, a new system of states and borders is inevitable in the national territories of Iraq and Syria, which were cobbled together by hegemonic European powers after World War I.

In the likely new dispensation, he sees with alarm that the US has already positioned itself to have a loyal, grateful and militarist client state, probably called “Kurdistan” in northern Iraq.

There is strong political support in Washington, London, Berlin and Paris for such an outcome for the valiant Kurds who have demonstrated that they are the only warriors capable of pushing back Islamic State fighters.

Washington would have a new small, battle-tested fortress state at its disposal in Iraqi Kurdistan.

That would rile Turkey, a long-standing American ally, since Ankara is determined to prevent Iraqi Kurds from using the Syrian chaos to expand their territories into Kurdish Syria or in Kurdish Turkey.

Both Turkey and Iran will use whatever bloody tactics necessary to prevent a new Kurdistan in Iraq from destabilizing the territories along their borders that are home to Turkish and Iranian Kurds.

It is possible that the new Kurdistan acquires some slivers of Syrian Kurdish territory but the vengeful Islamic State and al Qaeda groups operating nearby will try to prevent that from happening.

In effect, the new Kurdistan in Iraq will be an embattled state that could not survive without American economic and military support.

It will have a wary Iran and Turkey to the east and north, and very violent Islamic jihadists affiliated with the Islamic State and al Qaeda to the West.

In the best scenario, the Islamic State will be ousted from Iraq but the Iraqi Sunni tribal fiefs that replace it could be implacably hostile towards the new Kurdistan. Those tribes have long disdained and even hated the Kurds, who are a different ethnic origin and follow a version of Sunni Islam that Arabs scorn.

Thus, Kurdistan will be surrounded from all sides by hostile powers. Its existence will depend like Israel on its own military prowess bolstered by American aid, which usually comes at the price of compliance with Washington’s foreign policy imperatives.

graphic via shutterstock.com

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The Moderate Voice
  • JSpencer

    Then too there is the possibility Russia could get bogged down and create a quagmire of their own. It wouldn’t be the first time.

    • Slamfu

      Russia is going in with full support of the ruling regime, there will not be a quagmire. The rebels and Daesh will not be able to stand up to that. Sadly, the rebels are likely the first to go down. I really hope they can negotiate some sort of cease fire and amnesty before they no longer have a choice in the matter.

  • dduck12

    Good and I think accurate article, BK.

  • Slamfu

    President Barack Obama seems to think that Putin wants to reconquer
    Syria for Bashar al Assad and then install his protégé securely to
    weaken US influence in the Middle East. He also deduces that Putin is
    trying to obtain a Mideast bargaining chip in Moscow’s struggle with
    Washington over his predations in Ukraine.

    Both of those are big assumptions and I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about that. His “protege” and his family has ruled there for decades. What Russia wants is stability regarding their only naval base in a critical region, I think it might be their only naval base outside the country. Ukraine is a done deal. Russia annexed Crimea, then tried to take some land routes so they could supply it, lost 2000 soldiers in a very short time, shot down an international airline, and got it’s economy taken to the woodshed over it. Also the EU is undertaking the monumental endeavor of looking elsewhere for gas supplies now. Well done Putin.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com