Turkey escalates tension between NATO and Russia with the destruction of Russian Su-24 bomber.

Link:  Erdogan stands firm in crisis with Russia.

The crisis in Syria continues to make strange bedfellows, with antagonists being forced to put away grudges to accommodate more pressing matters.  When Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan's party won elections earlier this month, there was real concern that Turkey would move further away from NATO and Europe, and possibly adopt a more friendly approach to Islamist parties and organizations.  Those of us who feared just such a development should be thankful, in our own way, to Russian President Vladimir Putin, for Russia's timely intrusion into the Syrian conflict.  The Russian military has a history of not respecting international borders, and Wednesday's development involving Turkish accusations of an airspace violation, came as no surprise. In fact, since the arrival of the Russian Air Force in the region, there have been complaints from just about every direction regarding Russian lack of respect for international boundaries.  Turkey has been  complaining of Russian border violations almost every day over the past week, and not surprisingly, the Russians continued to use the sky as their personal domain.  Now that the Turks have taken down a Russian bomber that allegedly crossed the Syrian-Turkish border, the Russians are indignantly ratcheting up defensive measures, starting with the deployment of the S-400 air defense system at the Russian Air Base in Latakia.  Russia also announced that a Russian missile cruiser sitting off the Syrian coast wouldn't hesitate to destroy any threat to Russian aircraft. 

Interestingly enough, Erdogan has to tone down his recent anti-Europe, anti-U.S. and anti-NATO rhetoric.  With the Russian military force that is just across the border in Syria growing all the time, Erdogan has no choice but to call upon his NATO allies in this dangerous time.  Although Turkey has a very capable armed forces, and the Russians would have to move night-and-day to transport adequate military personnel and equipment to the region, Erdogan has no intention of standing up to Russia alone.  Putin has already demonstrated his willingness to push the envelope, in Georgia, Crimea, and now in Syria.  Actually, the onset of this mini-crisis provides the United States and Turkey with an important opportunity to mend fences, although Turkey has been the bellicose trouble-maker in the relationship lately.  Even though Erdogan was able to solidify his domestic position with the recent election victory, he has been given a reminder that Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire and the year is not 1560 AD.  Turkey not only needs allies in the west, but Turkey needs its membership in NATO to remain healthy and in good-standing.  Everyday it becomes more obvious that Russia is following through on some grand scheme to increase her influence internationally and to rebuild Russia's relationships around the world, in order to isolate and diminish the United States.  Russia continues to aggressively champion Iran's acceptance as a regional super-power, and leaves no stone unturned in its effort to coax away long-time U.S. allies like Egypt and Jordan.

This conflict is beginning to take on so many different dimensions, that it will become more and more difficult to separate the good guys from the bad guys.  Right now, the world is focused on eliminating ISIS, or at least its pretending to be focused; Russia is still the only major military power who has committed itself to the destruction of this monstrous group (as opposed to "containment").  But I'm beginning to wonder if Russia might actually be the more dangerous of the two.  ISIS invaded two countries: Syria and Iraq.  Russia has invaded three countries: Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, and formerly annexed a province of Ukraine.  If the United States had taken the lead and built a coalition that included ground forces, ISIS would have been defeated by now.  But rethinking past decisions is really a waste of time.  We have to come up with a strategy for what we face today.

Update: Russian plans for an offensive in Syria using Iranian and militia troops and Russian air support.

Link: Russian airstrikes in Syria continue to target anti-Assad forces, not ISIS.

Everyday we get a better idea exactly what Vladimir Putin intends to do in Syria.  Normally, the Russians would attempt to be a bit discreet, but Putin realizes that he is experiencing a rare moment of complete freedom to do as he pleases.  The Russians are moving quickly, before someone in the international community decides to object and attempt to slow things down.  One would have thought that Putin would have been a bit more subtle with his intention to destroy the anti-Assad indigenous movement first, but he has decided it is more prudent to act quickly, before any real opposition can manifest itself.  During three days of bombing sorties, the Russians exclusively targeted anti-Assad forces, as the disinformation campaign went into gear, identifying the locations bombed as the "ISIS command center at Raqqah City".  Satellite imagery identifies the town of Al Latamneh in Hama Province as being the actual target.  The Russians will continue to spin a web of disinformation at every opportunity, as they have learned from the Ukraine crisis that disseminating false information is effective.  The worst tragedy is that it appears the majority of the casualties in three days of Russian airstrikes haven't even been anti-Assad combatants, but civilians.  Not that the Russians mind.  Killing civilians is a very useful motivational tool.  And to think just a few weeks ago, Europe and the United States were up in arms over the photograph of one drowned Syrian child.

For years, we have wondered what location on the relatively meager Syrian coastline would the Russians chose for their Mediterranean Naval Base.  I thought that Putin would want to build a shiny, new base in Latakia, but it appears from construction that has already started, that the base will be at Tartus instead.  Tartus, which is south of Latakia and a few kilometers north of the Lebanese border, has some existing port facilities, which are proving useful to the Russians, who are conducting naval and amphibious exercises just offshore.  It is believed that Putin will soon grant "combatant status" to the Russian troops already in Syria, and evidence strongly suggests that Russia is preparing for a broader military intervention than repeatedly claimed by Moscow.  With the announcement of the Iran/Iraq/Russia joint combat coordination center in Baghdad, we considered the possibility that the Iranian government would order full military intervention in Iraq, on the grounds of self defense, as ISIS attacks in Diyala Province are having an impact on neighboring Iran.  The persistent presence of ISIS in Diyala gives the Iranians the justification for greater involvement.  It seemed the ideal scenario for Iran, fighting alongside the militias and the Iraqi Security Forces, to pressure ISIS from the east, while Russian forces attacked from the west in Syria.  At this point, Putin no longer sees the battlefield as being separated by national boundaries, and he is prudent in his assessment.  ISIS must be dealt with on all available fronts, with as much pressure as can be applied.  Since Iranian troops, along with some militia units, have arrived in Syria, the fear that Iran will directly intervene in Iraq, although still a likely possibility, has lessened somewhat.

At the moment, the goal for Russia is to successfully re-introduce Bashar al-Assad to the international community as the legitimate president of Syria.  It is believed that the Russians are planning an operation to retake the ancient city of Palmyra, which will provide Assad with a tremendous publicity opportunity.  Ideally, the recapture of Palmyra (by Syrian regime forces, no doubt) will remind the Syrian people that Assad is a great warrior who will eventually outlast his enemies.  Why Putin insists on propping up Assad is still a bit of a mystery.  He could remove Assad, which would please the Turks and the Gulf Arabs immensely, and install another pro-Russian government.  But for the moment, Assad is experiencing a rejuvenation, as his forces are re-equipped and greatly assisted by the Russian air campaign.  The West must be very careful, that the anti-Assad groups that we have been supporting, don't turn to Al-Qaeda surrogate Jabhat al-Nusra for assistance.  Its a real possibility, as all they have seen since Russia's arrival on the scene, is typical diplomatic hyperbole.  U.S. Secretary of State has threatened that the U.S.-led air coalition might very well increase its anti-ISIS bombing sorties in Syria, as opposed to ending them altogether, as Russia has demanded.  If it is possible to increase the bombing sorties against ISIS, why weren't we doing so before the Russians arrived?

Russians wasting no time building up military presence in Syria, and at the same time expanding diplomatic activities in Iraq.

Links: A. Russian military hardware increasingly present on Satellite Imagery.
           B. Russians coordinating militarily in Baghdad with Iranians and militias.

Vladimir Putin has wasted no time in committing Russia militarily to the conflict in Syria.  Northeastern Syria, including Hama Province, the strategically important al-Ghab Valley, and the large port city of Latakia.  In the last year, ISIS made inroads in this part of Syria, which is home to the politically influential Alawite community, and the Assad family home.  These successes came at the expense of regime forces, and increased pressure on Assad to act.  Within the last six months, Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), the armed militia that is aligned with Al-Qaeda, has complicated the issue by repeatedly defeating ISIS in Hama Province, and occupying towns that were formerly under ISIS control.  As for Assad and the pressure exerted by the Alawite community, regime forces have been increased and air sorties have become much more frequent.  The question is, who are they bombing, JN or ISIS?  I assume at this point it doesn't matter, since both groups are opposed to the Ba'ath Party and Bashar al-Assad.  As if the scenario wasn't crowded enough, the Russians appear to have chosen northeastern Syria as the location for their initial military foothold.  Besides the troops and supplies that have already arrived in Latakia, new satellite imagery identifies a number of Russian jets on the tarmac at Bassel al-Assad Airport/Airbase in Latakia (the Airport was named after the late brother of de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad).  Visible on the imagery are a number of SU-30SM (multi-role fighter), SU-24 (all-weather attack/interdictor), SU-25 (close air support), HIND-24 (attack helicopter, and an IL-76 (strategic airlift).  It would appear that the Russians almost have enough air power present in Latakia to kick the shit out of both JN and ISIS, at least in northeast Syria.  But we can expect to see many more air elements before the Russian military takes the offensive.

As an indication that Putin is determined to go after ISIS in Iraq as well, Russian and Iranian military officials have set up a military coordination cell in Baghdad.  This development is the best news to hit the capital in some time, as a Russian military presence almost totally discounts the possibility of Baghdad falling to ISIS.  But this depends on the Russians making a firm military commitment in Iraq as they are doing in Syria.  Working with the Iranian military and Shi'a militias in Baghdad are a clear indication that Putin sees Russia's conflict with ISIS to be international and not limited to Syria.  This makes sense; for Putin to be declared the hero who vanquished ISIS and saved the lives of all the Syrian migrants who would have drowned, it is necessary to defeat ISIS in its entirety.  We have evidence of Putin's determination and long-term strategic thinking, which leads us to believe that Russia will commit itself completely to this campaign.  The media in Moscow is already onboard, with news stories about their international hero-President, again being thrust into the danger zone, to tackle an enemy that has totally emasculated Barack Obama and the west.  In recent weeks, state-sponsored media in Russia has made repeated references to the absolute determination of the United States to avoid American "boots on the ground."  No doubt the brave Russian soldier isn't frightened of ISIS. 

At the end of the day, Putin and Russia are filling a hugely important role.  Every second of every day, the Islamic State (ISIS) becomes stronger, and expands its global footprint.  Billions of dollars in funds continue to fill their coffers, with the identity of the originators always unknown.  Actually, intelligence organizations across the globe have had little difficulty tracing much of the funding for ISIS to Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait, and Bahrain.  Its not politically correct to make any public accusations, but the host governments are aware of the problem.  The dilemma is, exactly how do ancient Arab royal families govern themselves?  How does a multi-millionaire nephew instruct his older, more influential multi-millionaire uncle how to spend his money?  If the Russian military begins to make short-work of ISIS, which is what we expect, the funding will dry up on its own, and ISIS will have to go to ground, mirroring Al-Qaida.

The Obama Administration continues to fail in all areas of diplomacy and foreign policy, and Putin works to build an anti-ISIS coalition.

Links: A. U.S. begins training anti-ISIS fighters in Syria.
           B. Obama spends 500 million to train 5 anti-ISIS operatives.
           C. Putin intentions in Syria.

It was only last May, that President Obama announced that the United States would begin training an "anti-ISIS" force to act as "boots on the ground" and supplement the U.S.-led allied air coalition.  Since then, there has been a remarkable dearth of information on the training program, although a few titles were tossed to the media, including "Free Syrian Army" and "New Syrian Army".  During the summer, while ISIS expanded its operations in Iraq, and increased its hold over Syrian territory, we wondered what had become of this expensive initiative.  Certainly someone needed to stand up to ISIS besides Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), who, aside from their direct affiliation with Al-Qaeda, at least had a decent record in combat with the Islamic State.  This week we learned that up-to-now, the first part of the training program was complete, and after spending $500 million, the U.S. had a grand total of five operatives ready to stand up to ISIS in Syria.  Granted, the Pentagon is quick to point out that over the next three faces of the program, another one-hundred twenty operatives will complete their training, but that leaves us with one-hundred twenty five, to take on roughly thirty thousand rugged, experienced ISIS members.  This Administration knows how to spend money like nobody's business; at least it gives us some idea how the United States went from $3 trillion in debt, to almost $20 trillion, in less than seven years.  But that is a subject for another day.

From a foreign policy perspective, this Administration hangs its hat on three accomplishments: the killing of bin-Laden, the signing of the New Start Treaty, and this new nuclear treaty with Iran that has yet to be ratified by Congress.  I would have added a fourth accomplishment, but the Obama Administration doesn't talk much anymore about the quick withdrawal of troops of Iraq, probably because ISIS dived right into the vacuum left behind.  The disaster known as the New Start Treaty has already been dissected on this blog, as has the nuclear treaty with Iran.  So how does the Obama Administration stack up, as diplomatic accomplishments go?  Obama began his term in office with what is affectionately known as "the apology tour" through the Middle East.  When the Arab Spring blossomed, we were nowhere to be seen.  We were in no position to respond effectively to any of the developments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.  We become totally reactive, trying to jump quickly as soon as something happened.  When Russia invaded Georgia, we had little response, and when Putin charged into Ukraine and swallowed up Crimea, Obama looked in someone else's ancient playbook and decided to lead our brave European allies in a new sanctions regime.  As the Russians increased their aggression, the sanctions grew, and we were told that the Russian economy would eventually crack.  I had to ask myself if ANYONE in this administration knew the slightest thing about the Russians.  If you want to intimidate or persuade the Russians to change their policy, don't waste your time on an economic approach.  The Russian people are insulted when someone tries to starve them into acquiescence; they understand what it means to cut back and do without, and if it means giving the finger to the U.S. and Europe, they will tell you to bring on your sanctions!  I understood this simple cultural quirk when the crisis began, here we are, over a year later, and those mighty sanctions have still not managed to bring the Russian bear to its knees.  In fact, I think the Russians are actually expanding their footprint internationally, sending troops and tanks to fight ISIS in Syria.  I guess they figured someone had to do it, and unless it can be wrapped up in a sanctions regime or dropped from a jet fighter high up in the sky, Obama and the United States are not going to step up to the plate.

For every international crisis that has occurred since 2008, the United States has failed miserably in its response.  It truly resembles amateur hour at Foggy Bottom.  All the while, the Russians have truly started stretching their wings.  No doubt Putin chose the Syrian city of Latakia as the arrival location of the first wave of Russian troops and equipment for a number of reasons.  Latakia is on the coast, and would make an ideal location for a Russian naval base to access the Mediterranean.  Also, NW Syria is home to Syria's influential Alawite minority, not to mention a number of other ethnic minorities including Christians.  Putin, as he embraces the mantle of "International Leader", will guise himself as the protector of all the various religious and ethnic minorities in Syria.  And what makes Putin's position so enviable, is that he is ready to back up his new role by putting Russian troops and tanks on the ground to confront ISIS.  The United States could have made the same choice, and would probably have been better equipped and experienced to wipe out ISIS in record-time.  But Obama doesn't appear to care much for the U.S. military, and makes use of our Armed Forces only in specific scenarios.  First and foremost, we must not put a soldier or pilot or sailor in harms way.  Military deaths do not translate well into Democratic votes.  Given how the leaders of Europe snivel at his feet whenever there is a joint appearance, there is no question that they would have directed their military to join an Obama coalition to destroy ISIS.  But Obama was not up to the task, regardless of how quickly the job could have been accomplished and how few casualties would have resulted.  So Putin has moved into the vacuum, and so far, is doing an admirable job.  Cheers to you, Vlad.  Take out a couple of those ISIS bastards for me, will ya?  

Russia steps up aid to Syria's Assad.

Links: A.  Russia providing military aid to Syrian regime forces.
           B.  Russia delivers military aid to Syria's Assad.


Last Spring, when ISIS started to become a household word in Europe and the United States, the Obama Administration made clear its feelings by announcing the formation of the Allied Air Coalition.  This coalition, which included warplanes from Kuwait, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Kingdom, allows European nations and the United States the opportunity to militarily strike against ISIS, without risking the lives of one soldier.  Russia chose not to be a coalition member, probably because it would have impacted in some way Russia's close relationship with de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  How did Syria and Russia become so close?  Decades ago, when Israel was being threatened by its neighbors with the Six-Day War, the War of Attrition, and the Yom Kippur War, the United States aggressively supported Israel, both diplomatically and with military aid.  At the time, Russia was still the biggest part of the Soviet Union, and played the part of America's foil on the Cold War game board.  When the Arab states would begin to plan attacks on Israel, the Russians were always nearby with T-54/55 and T-62 tanks, Artillery, and Mig warplanes.  I always assumed that the Russians supported the enemies of Israel solely because the United States supported Israel so strongly.  I'm sure the issue is a bit more complicated, but the close relationship between Damascus and Moscow survived the death of the Soviet Union (1991) and of Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez (2000).  In earlier posts we commented on Vladimir Putin's often stated goal of having a port on the Mediterranean Sea for the Russian Navy.  Long before ISIS appeared on the scene, the idea of Russia building a naval port on the Syrian coast near Latakia or Tartus was something considered by NATO intelligence experts and the Pentagon.  Over the years, the Russians certainly built up enough good will.  The issue probably didn't become a serious topic for the Russians until Putin took office.  Given the invasion of Crimea and the support for separatists in Ukraine, he obviously pictures Russia as a nation with expanding national boundaries.  Giving the Russian navy (and submarines in particular) a base from which to repair, refuel, rearm, etc. on the Mediterranean Sea would be a coup for Putin.

Most of the summer, when the media provided the world with daily stories from Syria of regime defeats, Putin seemed to be purposely keeping a low profile.  Granted, the Russian invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, not to mention the destruction of a civilian airliner by a Russian-made Buk surface-to-air missile, must have kept Putin quite busy.  We began to wonder if maybe Assad's plight had become so precarious that even the Russians had jumped ship.  I was half-expecting to see loads of family members boarding flights to exile in Russia, with their suitcases filled with money and antiquities.  But no such luck.  Assad has shown a willingness to see this thing through.  I think Gadhafi expressed the same willingness, though, and look where it got him.  Basically, Assad's regime forces are limited to defending everything west of the Anti-Lebanon mountain range.  Two-thirds of Syria are presently occupied by either ISIS or Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and its allies (give a few towns in the north to the Kurds, who as always, have fought with tremendous courage and determination).  Putin may have arrived just in the nick of time, as JN has been expanding its attacks in the northwestern province of Hama, and onto the strategic al-Ghab plain.  The Alawites of northwest Syria, always so loyal to the Assad's, are coming under great pressure from JN, and they are making their feelings known in Damascus. 

Last week saw the arrival of  Russian T-90 tanks to Latakia (the number of tanks is still being debated), and enough living pods for 1,500 persons.  One can assume that the Russians will also be sending in intelligence officers and humanitarian aid personnel, so it can't be assumed that all 1,500 are earmarked for use by soldiers.  Russia has also delivered artillery and loads of smaller arms, ammunition, and military equipment.  Putin obviously believes that Assad can yet win the day.  That cannot be accomplished with the military forces at Assad's disposal today.  For ISIS to be defeated, the Russians either have to join a coalition with Europe and the United States to destroy ISIS for good, or move in enough Russian forces to combine with the remaining regime units, and finish off ISIS on the battlefield.  ISIS is strong, but ISIS cannot defeat the Russian Army.  In fact, ISIS would be hard-pressed to last more than a month against the military of France, the UK, Germany, Israel, China, even Iran.  Putin doesn't scare easily, and he doesn't blink very often either.  We believe he still has intentions for building a Russian Naval Base in Syria, and in order to accomplish this, he must keep his puppet as head of state.  If the Russians lead a military offensive that sends ISIS packing, and Assad is hailed as a hero, how will Erdogan in Turkey take the news?  Many of Syria's neighbors are anxious to see Assad deposed, but not at the risk of creating the ISIS Caliphate.  What would be in the best interest of all, is if a western leader would emerge, who would lead a military coalition including the United States and Europe, and destroy ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.  Where can we find such a leader?  Lets hope one shows up soon, because ISIS is only getting stronger.

Anti-regime forces target northwest Syria, Alawite community, and Assad's hometown of Qardaha.

Link: A. Anti-regime elements put pressure on Assad stronghold.
         B. Wikipedia definition of Alawite.


For the third time in three years, anti-regime forces are putting pressure on pro-Assad strongholds in northwest Syria, including the port city of Latakia and Assad's ancestral home at the base of the Coastal Mountain Range, Qardaha.  Regime forces, who have heavily fortified local communities and strategic passes and transportation avenues, have seen a marked increase in free-fire and missile attacks from Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).  The former two groups do not make use of SVBIEDs and similar weapons, at least not to the extent that has been demonstrated by ISIS.  Be that as it may, these groups currently share a common enemy, and have no compunction to piggy-back on one-another's successful military encounters.  On many occasions, regime forces have little identifiable knowledge regarding their adversaries, until after the encounter has concluded.  Both previous operations by anti-regime elements in northwest Syria did not succeed in dislodging Assad's forces, but ISIS units were present long enough to go about their usual agenda, de-populating communities of anyone seen as an infidel or an enemy to the cause.  In some instances, entire towns disappeared.  Northwest Syria is home to a number of Shi'a communities, most prominently the Alawites, who practice a highly controversial vein of Shi'a Islam (see Link B).  No doubt, the Alawites do not fit into the demographic plans of the ISIS Caliphate, which promises to be an extremist singularly Sunni affair.

The Alawites, like the Druze community, have found a relatively safe country in Syria to practice their faith without pogroms, that is until the arrival of ISIS.  Both the Alawites and the Druze support de-facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, as they supported his father Hafez before him.  The Assad regimes have allowed the two unique communities to more-or-less flourish, without any targeting by the established religious community.  In fact, Syria is also home to numerous Christian communities, especially in and around Damascus.  These groups and their leaders consider Assad to be their protector.  Unfortunately, the Alawites may be forced to re-assess that designation, if this third attempt by anti-regime forces to reach the Mediterranean Sea is successful.  Understandably, the Alawites have been very vocal regarding the need for an increased military presence in the northwest, especially around the strategic al-Ghab plain of Hama Province.  In the past few weeks heavy fighting has moved onto the al-Ghab plain, threatening the command and control node of both the Syrian Arab Army and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), located in the town of Joureen.  Obviously Assad and his military commanders recognize the importance of Hama Province and the northwest, especially in light of the overall negative direction of the war to date.  Regime forces have suffered one defeat after another, usually east of the Anti-Lebanon Mountain Range and in the more isolated communities of Syria.  The loss of Latakia and the al-Ghab plain might bring a split with the Alawite community, and leave Assad with one less dependable ally.

Forget Crimea And The Black Sea...What About Russian Naval Bases In The Mediterranean?

Link: A. Russian Naval Plans In The Mediterranean
          B. Yes Virginia, There Is A Syrian Navy

I spend so much time reading and thinking about the conflict in Syria, I have allowed myself to fall into a two-dimensional trap.  The United States and allies are conducting an air campaign in Syria in an attempt to diminish the fighting capacity of certain Islamic terrorist groups.  Concurrently, efforts are underway to train and equip the "Free Syrian Army", which will serve as the closest thing to a ground element that the United States and her allies have.  I have heard rumors that we've already trained non-U.S. ground units who are now already in combat.  This would make sense, given that the Free Syrian Army has orders to only engage the enemy from a defensive posture.  Another rumor is making the rounds of various U.S. military bases and facilities around the world, and this one dwarfs anything we have heard to date (no, they are not bringing back Little House On the Prairie).  Allegedly, the Administration has accepted the need for U.S. ground forces in Iraq in order to prevent the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL or IS) from eventually occupying

both Baghdad and the vital oil refinery at Baiji.  I have been hearing this rumor for some time, and it is evolving into a whispered roar.  As far as I am concerned, there is not a shred of truth to the rumor.  However, the small person I had hired to hide up Biden's ass and take discreet notes during Cabinet meetings, was discovered and promoted to the new Ebola Czar.  So your guess is as good as mine.  To be honest, I can't imagine the Administration engaging in such an obvious about-face.  But hey, politics is bizarre.  President Obama may get kudos for allowing his policy to evolve.  With regard to the Syrian campaign, I believed that the conflict was permanently limited to a ground and air conflict.  I realize Syria has a small coast (193 kilometers) which includes two decent sized cities, Tartus and Latakia.  It's my

understanding that the area around Tartus and Latakia is littered with ruins from the days of ancient Sparta, Athens and Troy.  Soon the tourists may hear a new language be spoken among the sightseers: Russian.



Let me clarify an important point: I do not expect the Syrian conflict to become a three-dimensional with an attack on Tartus by the three pedalos that make up the IS Navy.

But I needed a smooth avenue on which to introduce the subject of Russian interest in Mediterranean ports.  We have spent some time commenting on the Russian desire to turn the Black Sea into Lake Putin, but the specter of Russian warships with a home on the Mediterranean is much closer to reality.    In fact, the Russians have already started to use the reasonably modern facilities at Tartus.  I have opined that one of the handful of reasons why Putin will not allow Bashir al-Assad to fall from power is the Russian's need for an ally with a port large enough for expansion.  Tartus certainly fits the bill, although other locations have been mentioned as well.  Occasionally someone will mention the possibility of a Russian naval facility in Libya, but who knows when the camel traders, with AK-47s under one arm and Qurans under the other, will grow tired of creating martyrs.  Alexandria, in Egypt, was looking like a promising destination before Mohamed Morsi was whisked away to jail.  For many years I waited, expecting the Algerian military (Algeria's true boss) to fall totally into the lap of Russia (the Algerians have traditionally purchased Russian-made military equipment).  I was being very naïve.  The Algerian government has contracts with half the oil companies in Europe and the United States, and lately has actually started purchasing more U.S. military equipment.  Malta might as well be a Channel Island, alongside Jersey and the Isle of Man, and the rest are non-starters: Spain, Morocco, Tunisia, France, Italy, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia & Hercegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel.  Most of the countries on the preceding

list have very little love for Russia, and the others do not have the right harbor for what the Russian Navy requires.  Cyprus though, is a bit of a mystery.  Until recently Cypriot banks were awash with laundered Russian cash, and the Russians really seem to enjoy the little island full of Greeks and Turks who really, REALLY hate each other.  Cyprus has a number of locations that would suit the Russian navy to a tee, but it is unlikely that the UK, who for some reason continues to act as stepfather to the Cypriots, would allow Russian submarines in Larnaka.

I never second-guess Putin's ingenuity (or his ability to blackmail and bribe), and he very well might negotiate himself into a naval port facility in one of the above-named locations.  But for the moment, it isn't necessary.  Assad has given the Russians the keys to the port of Tartus.  The modest, but well-maintained, Syrian Navy keeps its few Russian-made frigates, missile craft and patrol boats at Tartus, which provide an invaluable opportunity for the Syrian naval personnel to work together with the Russians (watch out, Syrian naval commanders: the last time the Russians showed up wearing smiles, the entire Ukrainian navy was swallowed up overnight).  If Assad manages to keep his job (or another Ba'athist butthole takes it), the Russian Navy should have a free hand to construct a modern naval port facility at Tartus, complete with both Marines and a land-based naval air detachment.  Although the Russians have had friends all over the middle east for more than the past half-century, this is the first time that I can recall the Russians openly stating their intention to make full naval use of Tartus.  The presence of all those Russian nuclear submarines does not sit well with me, and you can only imagine the hissy fit being thrown by the Green Party political representatives throughout EU countries.  However, a full-blown Russian fleet in the Levant will accomplish something positive for us over here in the West:  Whoever takes the White House in 2016 won't be able to ignore the reconstituting of the Russian war machine.