Dimitri Rogozin, the official Russian top envoy to NATO (and who is also one of the most interesting Russian public figures), has just declared that Russia is considering revising its support for NATO operations in Afghanistan. This is a direct consequence of the US decision to deploy an anti-missile system along the Russian border in Europe.
And since Pakistan has decided to close down (probably for a limited time) the NATO supplies through Pakistan following the murder of 24 Pakistani soldiers by NATO, it sure looks like NATO infinite arrogance has landed it into some painful circumstances.
Why is NATO determined to provoke Russia? I thought that the reset in Western Russian relations meant we had put all that behind us. Very depressing.
Hello Saker,
More news from Russia
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/russia-sends-warships-aircraft-carrier-to-syria-izvestia-says.html
I have the feeling this time Nato will not bomb Siria
Also, it seems that Russia is planning to send some warships, including its only aircraft carrier, to visit Syria next year:
http://www.militaryparitet.com/teletype/data/ic_teletype/12829/
This was planned since 2010, but the fact that they didn’t cancel the visit, and even “remind” other countries about it, is surely sending a message.
Saker, I read your discussion with another reader in other post, if Russia was or not going to send military support to Syria. While I agree with you that Russia is in no condition to intervene militaryly in Syria, I think it is also sending a message that the Lybian scenario is not going to be repeated. And do you know if the Yakhont antiship missiles were already delivered to Syria?
@Anonymous1:Why is NATO determined to provoke Russia Because the West has *always* hated Russia for not being part of the Western “sphere of influence” and for being Orthodox
@Anonymous2:I have the feeling this time Nato will not bomb Siria Don’t be so sure, there is nothing that Russia can do to protect Syria, and NATO knows that.
@Carlo: I very strongly feel that Russia is not going to take any military action to defend Syria. In fact, even though I oppose the US/Israeli Empire’s current subversion of Syria, I also don’t believe that the Assad regime is worthy of any support. I very much doubt Bloomberg’s spin anyway. It’s not next month, but next SPRING that the Kuznetsov might visit Syria, and I bet you that it will not do so while any violence (whether internal or external) takes place.
As for the Yahonts, some are reportedly in Syria, but that does not mean that they are operational or even fully under Syrian command.
Last thing: I got your key, it works fine. I will try it out tomorrow.
Cheers :-)
Saker,
Isn’t there a lot Russia could do to make a Syrian intervention too costly to consider?
for example,
1) slow down NATO supplies in Afghanistan. Don’t even have to cut it off completely, just enough to make it uncomfortable.
2) Provide Anti-aircraft systems to Syria right now. If training is an issue, Russians can unofficially operate them. They don’t have to defeat an air attack. Just loosing some aircraft would be a big blow to NATO prestige.
3) since the actual intervening will be done by Turkey, I’m thinking Russia has some sort of leverage point they can use against them.
I agree Assad is not worth saving. But Syria is. And a NATO intervention could turn Syria into a Mega Lebanon of the 70’s and 80’s.
I’m suggesting that Russia has the means to prevent an intervention without risking a war. Failing that, they can make it hard for NATO to profit from its crimes.
Russia is not without interests here. Drawing the line against another war enhances Russia’s international standing and it’s influence. It will also force the west to take it more seriously.
@Lysander: let’s look at your suggestions one by one, ok?
slow down NATO supplies in Afghanistan. Don’t even have to cut it off completely, just enough to make it uncomfortable.
That is most definitely an option, which has been threatened yesterday by Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dimitry Rogozin (keep an eye on this guy, he is very much an insider, top player, and very smart; I definitely see him as a possible Minister of Defense, if not more, in the future). And yes, that would really hurt NATO. The issue is whether Russia should do that to influence the situation in Syria or not. I am confident to say that this “big stick” will only be used by Russia in case its own vital and strategic interests are directly threatened by the US/Israeli Empire.
Provide Anti-aircraft systems to Syria right now Very hard to do covertly and you can imagine the kind of hysterical anti-Russian propaganda such a move would trigger. The Syrians, by the way, are excellent soldiers and many have trained in Soviet and Russian military academies. I am confident that they could skillfully operate such systems as the Tor M1 9M330 or any other. And yes, NATO would loose aircraft to such a system, but the political costs to Russia would be huge. Why would Russia do that?
since the actual intervening will be done by Turkey, I’m thinking Russia has some sort of leverage point they can use against them
Yes, plenty. But so does Turkey against Russia (think Chechens here). Russia and Turkey have a complex, delicate, relationship. Both sides have some very real leverage on each other (tourism, construction business, security cooperation, commerce, etc.), and both sides know that they cannot afford a frontal conflict against each other and they will not do so unless something really important is at stake (Russia did – quietly but firmly – threaten Turkey during the war in Ossetia, and the Turks got the message and backed down).
As always, you make excellent points, and your list of possible measures Russia could take is a good one. But when you write I agree Assad is not worth saving. But Syria is you are assuming that a) either somehow the two can be de-coupled or b) that saving Assad is compatible with the idea of saving Syria. I am not so sure.
I think that we both agree that saving Syria – unlike saving Assad – would be highly desirable. But could it be that Assad himself is destroying Syria in the first place?
Also, Russia is not the USA, it is not the self-appointed worldwide “righter or wrongs”. Morally, WHY should Russia get involved in the first place? Because we would like it?
See, Russia used to be a global empire, and so was the Soviet Union. But I strongly believe that Russia now strongly wants to be a *country*, not an empire, and that it does not want to meddle in every conflict out there. Would you not agree that this is fundamentally sound? Yes, the USSR used to be a global opponent of the USA, but Russia does not want to take on that burden any more. Sure, it wants the US empire to crumble and for the USA to also become a ‘normal’ country (which, I believe, is also in the USA’s national interest!), but Russia will not pro-actively oppose the USA unless it is directly threatened.
Do you believe that it is in the Russian national interest to get involved in the Syrian conflict and to support the Assad regime under the heading of “saving Syria”?
Kind regards,
The Saker
@Lysander: let me ask you two small questions:
a) do you believe that a majority of Syrians would welcome a Russian intervention?
b) Iran and Hezbollah could intervene in Syria, I think. Yet, and contrary to some propaganda put out by the anti-Assad forces, they have not done so (or, at least, there is no evidence of it having done so).
How do you explain the fact that neither Iran nor Hezbollah are intervening?
Why should Russia taken on a burden which even Iran and Hezbollah seem to have no inclination to take upon themselves even though they are DIRECTLY impacted by the events in Syria?
Cheers!
Hi Saker,
A Russian cruiser’s air defense radar in a Syrian port surely would cover Israeli airspace, and possibly provide Iran with warning about an air strike leaving?
@FkDahl: well, Russia could send cruisers, AWACs planes, air-defense systems, and even an airborne division. The question is whether it would be wise for Russia to do so and I frankly think that it would not. Do you disagree?
Cheers!
Hi Saker,
Some good points you make. As to your questions.
A) I don’t know about a majority of Syrians, but a very substantial proportion would be happy if Russia prevented a NATO backed invasion. I don’t think anyone in Syria would want to see massive sanctions, etc. It would be catastrophic for ordinary Syrians, just as it is for Cubans and Iraqis.
B) When I say intervene, I mean intervene against foreign invasion. They are not, and must not, intervene to stop Syrians from demonstrating or even armed resistance. Those are things Syrians have to solve for themselves.
But if Syria is actually invaded, I suspect both Iran and Hizbullah will do whatever they can to make the invasion as painful as possible for the invaders. I don’t know if that will amount to much, but I don’t think they will sit idly by.
Lastly, regarding Russian interests, neutrality is the best policy for almost any country almost all the time. But by now Russians should have figured out that NATO and the west do not have benevolent intent towards them. And so, in my view, it is in Russia’s interests to keep the west as distracted as possible elsewhere and to do so with the least expense and risk to Russia. I still believe the suggestions I made in my first comment would accomplish those goals.
@Lysander:But by now Russians should have figured out that NATO and the west do not have benevolent intent towards them. And so, in my view, it is in Russia’s interests to keep the west as distracted as possible elsewhere and to do so with the least expense and risk to Russia.
Yes.
I was about to write a reply to you, but then realized that this is too interesting and important a topic, so I will write a full piece on it. Hang on, I will have it ready later today.
Cheers!