Putin continues to keep the West unbalanced with the announcement that Russia would be pulling out of Syria.agenda.

I have no problem admitting my suprise at Russia's announcement earlier this week that it's military goals had been met and the time had come to leave Syria.  At first blush, I took Putin literally, and gave great consideration to a full-scale military withdrawal from the Syrian theater, even while Jabhat al-Nusra and other anti-Assad elements were still in a position to strike at Russian targets.  In reality, Putin has announced the withdrawal of some units, including certain air elements that had to to actually play a part in the conflict.  Frankly, it is inconceivable that Russia would enact a full withdrawal at this stage.  A review of the current battlefield will bring the entire development into perspective.

Russia has been very aggressive in pursuing its military strategy in Syria.  I have concluded that this strategy, in typical Russian fashion, is to pursue one goal while inundating the media with reports of military successes in an entirely different direction.  Its a bit of the ol' "bait amd switch game".  When the Russians began their campaign, the was cloaked in the description of a war "to destroy ISIS".  At the time of the Russian entry into the conflict, the media were reporting disturbing daily military advances on behalf of extremist groups, in particular in northeast Syria, in the homeland of the Druze and the Assad family.  With the absolute vassilation of the Obama Administration, and Europe's unwillingness to fart without a U.S. lead, many concerned leaders welcomed Russia's entry as part of the bulwark to stem the ISIS advance. Almost immediately, though, Putin betrayed his real motivation.  Russia intervened in Syria not to destroy ISIS, but to prop-up Russia's long-time puppet in Damascus, de facto President Bashar al-Assad.  Russian jets targeted anti-Assad forces from the beginning with a nasty vengeance, showing a complete disregard to the potential for civilian casualties.  Only after the Western media began to point out the peculiar singular direction of Russia's military targeting did the Russians begin to conduct the odd strike against ISIS locations.  As for the overall results of the Russian campaign to date, efforts to restore regime authority in an around Aleppo have been tremendously successful.  Also, Russian targeting has caused important strategic reverses to both al-Nusra and ISIS.  The most important question of the hour, is whether the rejuvenated and resupplied regime forces loyal to Assad can consolidate and hold these gains, especially as the negotiating season appears to be upon us.  Can we conclude for certain that this Russian intervention in Syria was primarly intended to solidify Assad's bargaining position?  It's very possible.  But Putin is flexible when it suits his agenda.  Its also possible that Putin had another goal in mind, something more long-term, but developments and the nature of the campaign convinced him that it was best to slow things down a bit and allow Assad the opportunity to negotiate from a position of increased strength.  Keeping all of these factors in mind, do not expect the Russians to really evacuate Syria.  No doubt Putin will leave enough airpower in place to continue his reactive support of Assad's forces, especially in the Aleppo theater.

Another issue that should be of concern to the American people, is the fate of the Obama Adminstration's policy in Syria, given last year's announced effort to set-up a "free Syria" military force, to be heavily trained (in Jordan, one can surmise) and supplied by the United States, to confront ISIS on the battlefield and provide the west with a certain "Boots on the Ground" representation.  Obama's unwillingness to pay the political pricetag of involving U.S. troops on-the-ground and incuring casualties, is the. motivation for the decision hire others to do our fighting for us.  A good question is, how much money has been spent by the United States vis-a-vis its policy in Iraq and Syria.  I am curious what we accomplished, dollar versus rouble, in comparison to the Russians, in their very short time on the battlefield.  I suspect the picture would not be pretty.

Obama Administration changes backtracks in Syria, stating that regime change is not imperative.

Link:  U.S. accepts Russia's stance regarding Bashar al-Assad.


In a move which reflects the complete collapse of coherent policy in the latter days of the Obama Administration, United States Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the U.S. no longer believed that "regime change" was necessary in Iraq.  Until now, the U.S. policy had been squarely behind the conviction that a future, peaceful Syria would not have Bashar al-Assad as it's Chief of State.  In fact, U.S. policy (and money) had been focused on various indigenous Syrian groups who were opposing both the Assad regime and ISIS.  Over the years, Syria has been a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy in the Levant, basically because of the Syrian Ba'ath Party and two men, Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar.  Both men ruled Syria as Presidential strongmen, tolerating no opposition, playing any internal opposition of against each other, and declaring "death to Israel" at just about every opportunity.  Syria and the Assad-led Ba'athists had no reason to expect generosity from the United States.  In fact, a good argument can be made that Syria has on more than a few occasions has supported terrorist actions against U.S. civilians and property.  But for some reason, the U.S. State Department chose this week to make up with Assad.  No need to ask why.  The reason the Obama Administration removed its previous insistence that Assad had to go is because the United States Department of State has become unwilling to oppose Russia on any terms.

Earlier this year, the conflict in Ukraine was headline news.  Watching the drama unfold was fascinating, as Russia openly manipulated an emasculated Europe and United States, to solidify its annexation of Crimea and set the stage for further dismemberment of Ukraine down the road.  The only action the Obama Administration was willing to take to confront Russia was the threat of more sanctions.  No doubt the sanctions regime that eventually took hold caused some disruption in the Russian economy, but the Russian people are used to sacrifice, and over the years they have shown their disdain for the use of economics as a weapon; the Germans tried to starve Russia in both the first and second World Wars, and failed miserably both times.  At this moment in time, Putin is running the show.  The EU, NATO, and the United States show no real inclination to stand up to Russian aggression, and the Chinese seem to be content to watch from the sidelines.  Russia intends on destroying ISIS and remaking the Middle East, but according to its designs, which include Iran as a regional superpower.  The disappearance of the United States has been breathtaking.  Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are scrambling to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia as the world's sole superpower.  Putin has laid his cards on the table; he is determined to rewrite the legacy of the Cold War, this time with Russia as the winner.  His timing has been perfect, with U.S. President Barack Obama apparently uninterested in facing down his Russian counterpart.  For the moment, what Russia wants, Russia gets.  In 2016, a new President moves into the Oval Office; will it be too late to set things right again?

Russia's latest bombing sorties require closer evaluation.

Link: Russia bombs 448 ISIS targets in Syria.

In the last three days, the Russia Air Force in Syria has conducted 137 bombing sorties against 448 ISIS targets.  This latest uptick in the Russian bombing campaign in Syria comes as ISIS continues to claim responsibility for the October 31 destruction of a Russian passenger airliner over the Sinai.  It is beginning to appear likely that ISIS is behind the tragedy, with the recent high-intensity Russian bombing sorties considered to be a response.  Russia claims that the bombing raids have targeted ISIS' infrastructure, in particular destroying a munitions warehouse near Damascus which hosted makeshift unguided missiles.  The attacks have also resulted in numerous civilian casualties, with multiple claims that non-military targets were bombed.  As ISIS and Russia become more familiar dealing with each other as battlefield opponents, and civilian targets on both sides become more frequent, many more episodes of retaliation-type attacks can be expected.  If ISIS was able to plan and execute the destruction of the Russian airliner in question, it will signify an expansion of ISIS' ability to reach beyond the battlefield and attack non-combatants outside of the Middle East.  If Russia continues to conduct its air sorties with little concern for civilian casualties, ISIS have less trouble recruiting supporters and soldiers from the local population.  And if another airliner affiliated with Russia or one of the members of its budding "coalition" becomes victim of ISIS sabotage, expect the Arab community to be less than sympathetic.  After all, its their families who are being indiscriminately blown to pieces and their farms and homes that are being destroyed by Russian bombs.

One development that warrants closer review is Russia's claim to have targeted multiple ISIS infrastructure locations and munitions factories.  When Russia entered the Syrian conflict, one of its priority concerns should have been the lack of intelligence sources.  On the other hand, the United States, with its sponsorship of ISIS opposition groups and its historic close ties to Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and the Kurds, must have a well-developed network of sources providing timely intelligence.  Its true that Russia has always been very close to the Assad regime, but the intelligence that is most needed, information on ISIS and its movements, is in no way accessible to elements of the Assad regime.  Be that as it may, Russia has managed to locate many important ISIS targets.  The question is, if the United States has a well-developed network for collected intelligence in Syria, then why did those ISIS targets exist to be the recipients of Russian bombing sorties? Why hasn't the U.S.-led air coalition already destroyed those facilities and munitions warehouses?          

Russia to host Syrian peace conference; any Assad opposition that the Russian's haven't killed will be invited to attend.

Links:  A. ISIS considered strong suspect in downing of Russian passenger jet over Sinai.
            B. Russian action in Syria strengthens Iran.
            C. Russian sending clear message to Syrian civilians about support for Assad.

Since the destruction of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai on October 31, the international community was left to decide the veracity of claims of responsibility by ISIS.  Although ISIS proved that it had influence in the Sinai last year when an ISIS group attacked an Egyptian military compound, many questioned their ability to actually carry out a successful attack on a passenger plane.  Sadly, it seems to be more apparent everyday that ISIS was indeed responsible for this tragedy, which resulted in the deaths of 224 mostly Russians on holiday at Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt.  In addition, experts now believe that an onboard bomb was most likely responsible for the crash.  This event raises the stakes in the war against ISIS.  As most European nations and the United States come to grips with the likelihood that open-border policies have allowed ISIS operatives into the EU and the U.S., security and inspection procedures at airports, ports, and other likely targets will have to be reviewed and increased when necessary.  Any person having access to a passenger plane on the ground or a tourist cruise liner in port will have to be vetted and searched.  This includes regular employees like pilots, cabin crew, ship officers and crew, maintenance and repair staff, medical personnel, refueling crews, and food and beverage suppliers, for a start.  This necessary policy will cause a decided inconvenience for many, but ISIS has shown no regard whatsoever for civilian lives.  If they can successfully access a Russian passenger plane on the ground at an Egyptian Airport (Egyptian Airport Security has a solid reputation), then western nations can not take chances.

Regarding the current conflict in Syria, the latest entrant into the war has decided hold a peace conference.  Russia intends to invite all factions involved in the conflict to this conference in Moscow, including Syrian opposition to Russia's favorite, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  Two questions must be answered before the conference commences: will the Assad opposition boycott the conference?  How many members of the Assad opposition feel safe to travel to Moscow, in light of the beating they have taken from Russian bombs in the last two weeks?  As Russia continues to build its own anti-ISIS coalition, this conference is an important opportunity for Vladimir Putin to demonstrate that Russia is indeed a power-broker in the Syrian theater.  No doubt the United States, which labeled the conference "premature", will send representatives, in order to not appear "unconstructive".  Russia will use the conference as another chance to build up the credentials of its ally, Iran.  The captive audience in attendance, diplomatic representatives of China, the United States, European nations, Israel, Turkey, and other concerned parties, will see Iran treated as the dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf.  Russia wishes to perpetuate this idea as often as possible, hoping that the international community will eventually see it as a "fait accompli".  How Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates respond will be pivotal.  The Gulf monarchies understandably do not want to see Iran become the most powerful leader in the Persian Gulf region.  Iran is tied to Shi'a fundamentalism like ISIS is tied to Islamic extremism.  The Gulf states are quick to point out Iran's support for Hezbollah, and Iran responds with accusations of Saudi financial support for ISIS.  Up to now, this effort to reform Iran's image has been basically diplomatic, but for the world to truly consider Iran in a new light, something monumental must occur.  Russia is aware of this fact, and intends on Being the "Eastern Hammer" which will be used to destroy ISIS.  Russia, of course, and her budding coalition, will be the "Western Hammer".  Once Iran has isolated and minimized the U.S. presence in Iraq, then it will be free to deploy regular divisions from Iran into Iraq, to attack ISIS.  By then, Russia will be in a position to fully engage ISIS in the west.

The stage is being set for Russia and Iran to deliver the world from the greatest threat since Nazism.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone else had stepped up to tackle this problem with the conviction of Vladimir Putin. 

Russia steps up air campaign in Syria, increasing sorties against ISIS, but continues to target anti-Assad forces.

Link: Russian forces on-the-ground in Syria increase to over 4000.

In response to ISIS advances in the vicinity of Aleppo City, Russian bombing raids against Islamic State targets have increased.  On November 2 and 3, Russian warplanes attacked ISIS positions near Palmyra and Qaraytan in eastern Homs, as well as in ar-Raqqah City.  Russia claims to be working with Syrian opposition in its targeting of ISIS units.  In reality, Russia has coordinated some of its bombing sorties with Syrian opposition that is the least "at odds" with the Assad regime.  Russia claimed to have coordinated with Syrian opposition when utilizing precision weapons to attack ISIS targets near Palmyra and Deir ez-Zour, in an effort to pressure the United States to recognize and support the more "moderate" Syrian opposition.  As Russia negotiates with Jordan and Israel regarding the make-up of a post-ISIS Syrian government, Putin wants to isolate the more determined and uncompromising of the Syrian opposition groups.  A number of the organizations that Russia considers more moderate have only evolved in the more recent stages of the conflict, which will provide a problem for some of the groups who were present in the beginning of the movement to topple Bashar al-Assad.  Its easy for some to forget that this conflict began as an offshoot of the Arab Spring, and was a ground-roots, indigenous effort to remove Assad.  ISIS took advantage of the breakdown in authority and civil control to expand its base and create a three-dimensional battleground in Syria.  In reality, the foreign elements involved in Syria should be exclusively focused on the defeat of ISIS, which is in itself, foreign to Syria.  When attempting to create an anti-ISIS ground force in Syria utilizing mostly former Assad regime officers, great efforts were made to avoid contact with regime forces.  Russia does not accept the obligation to avoid internal Syrian problems.  In fact, Russia has used the excuse of opposing ISIS as a shield to conduct one bombing raid after another against Syrian opposition.  Recent Russian focus on ISIS targets have been in response to ISIS advances near Aleppo City and international criticism of its up-to-now almost exclusive targeting of Assad's Syrian opposition, vice ISIS positions.

The United States and Russia have made some progress in deconflicting military operations in Syria;  a successful short-range communications test with a U.S. fighter was conducted on November 3.  But Russia seems determined to continue with its strategy to build Iran into a dominant regional power, and to counter U.S. efforts at strengthening its military cooperation with its eastern European allies.  This week Russia deconflicted a contract with Iran for S-300 anti-aircraft systems.  This agreement had been stalled for some time as Iran focused on developments in Iraq and nuclear treaty negotiations with Europe and the United States.  In a typically heavy-handed attempt at intimidation, Russia launched one of its largest missile tests of the year on the day of the meeting in Vienna to discuss the Syrian conflict.  Russia is also suspected of supporting the action taken by the Moldovan Parliament on October 29 to remove the current government.  As NATO stepped up efforts to strengthen its ties in eastern Europe, Russia launched a snap aviation drill in Kaliningrad.  Russia has a habit of occupying its opponents with diplomacy and other distractions, while continuing whatever action has caused disagreement.  Expect Russia to continue its efforts to prop up Assad and to build Iran into an international player.  Iran has a very important role to play in Vladimir Putin's larger plan to propel Russia into the role of sole world superpower.    

Russia and Iran; friends for the moment, or for the distance?

Links: A. Russia making military commitment in Syria.
           B. Russia warming up to Iran is part of broader Russian policy.

Earlier this year, when it became apparent that Barack Obama had ordered U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to successfully conclude a nuclear treaty with Iran, regardless of the sacrifices, there was some confusion regarding the continued closeness of Iran with Russia, who had previously been Iran's closest ally with regards to the nuclear issue.  Was it possible that this new treaty, which was actually signed by a few European nations as well, would usher in a new era of cooperation between the United States and Iran, to the detriment of Russia?  It certainly wasn't likely, and in fact, within days after the agreement was announced, Iranian religious leaders were up to their tired old bullshit of parading around mass quantities of zealots, screaming, "death to America!".  No doubt Vladimir Putin didn't even flinch when news of the treaty reached Moscow.  He had been working on his own strategy in the region, and in this plan, Iran is a major player.

Once Putin realized that U.S. President Barack Obama was content to ride out his last term in office, allowing the nuclear treaty to be his "legacy moment in foreign policy", he crafted a new direction for Russian foreign policy, which if successful, would displace the United States as the world's only superpower, to be replaced by Russia.  The advent of ISIS and Russia's long-time close relationship with de-facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave Putin the perfect opportunity to implement his plan.  Russia would intervene militarily in Syria, and using Assad as a proxy, defeat ISIS.  But Putin had no intention of allowing ISIS to retreat into the wastelands of western Iraq, to lick its wounds and reload.  Russia's new best friend, Iran, would be the next opponent for ISIS to confront.  In fact, Putin's plan was to confront ISIS in Syria with Assad/Russian support, and simultaneously push ISIS westward from Iraq, using the Iranian Shi'a militias, Iraqi Army, and Iranian military units, if necessary.  Russia has established itself militarily in Syria, as planned, but Iran has to negotiate its way through a bit of a diplomatic triangle in Iraq.  The United States continues to have instructors imbedded with the Iraqi Army, and the U.S.-led air coalition remains active, conducting daily sorties against ISIS targets.  Iran's plan is to support the Iraq Army and its Iranian-backed militia partners in action separate from Iraqi Army efforts which involve the U.S., with the intention that one effort will be successful and the other will fail.  Currently, the U.S.-supported effort by the Iraqi Army to retake Ramadi appears to be failing, while the recent militia-supported operation to retake Baiji and its important oil refinery was successful.  This occurred on the heels of an announcement of the creation of a joint communication cell in Baghdad between the Russians, Iraqis, and Iranians.  Putin is convinced that once Iraqi military initiatives directly supported by U.S. personnel fail, that the Obama Administration will throw in the towel.  He is betting on the likelihood that a failure in Ramadi will lead to demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Iraq.  Once the U.S. is out, then Iran will "lead" the Iraqi Army, militias, and Iranian Special Forces/Republican Guard units in confrontation with ISIS.

Putin's long-term strategy is that by defeating ISIS, Russia and Iran will increase their influence, Russia internationally, and Iran regionally.  Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict has removed the eyes of the west from Ukraine, allowing Putin to forget that within the last two years, Russia has annexed Crimea, an integral part of the Republic of Ukraine, and that Russian military equipment was responsible for the tragic destruction of a civilian airliner and the murder of hundreds of innocent people.  Putin has changed the topic of international conversation.  Today, the world is focused on Syria and the continuing refugee problem, which provides Putin with more justification for military involvement in Syria.  Someone has to do something; if not Russia, then who?  The United States is totally reactive in its international relations, and the current administration does not have the stomach for military casualties.  Certainly a united military force created by the various EU nations would handle ISIS without much difficulty, but that option has never even been suggested.  Russia had an invitation to take on ISIS, and Iran will have the opportunity to become the dominant nation in the Persian Gulf region because of its impending involvement in the destruction of ISIS.

Washington Post lest-than thoughtful editorial on Russia's interest in Syria.

Link: Washington Post article on Russian involvement in Syria.

I haven't read the New York times in years.  I'm not alone in my disdain for politically motivated interpretation of national and international events; the Gray Lady ain't what she used to be.  But I do still take a look at the Washington Post on occasion.  Today's editorial by Samuel Ramani isn't terrible, but it is selectively dismissive of certain facts that really shouldn't be left out of this discussion.  As his first point of conversation, Ramani introduces the issue of Putin's motivation for military involvement in Syria.  Basically, he gets this one right.  Putin has a handful of reasons to be interested in the Syrian conflict.  As we've discussed on this blog previously, Putin really wants that Mediterranean Sea Naval Base at Tartus.  Historically, Russia has always craved access to the Mediterranean.  Moscow's interest in the Mediterranean caused the Ottoman Empire centuries of concern.  Presently, the U.S. has naval facilities in the Mediterranean, and also in the Far East and in the Persian Gulf.  Putin must frequently ask himself why Russia, as an "equal" superpower, doesn't have the same access.  If Assad stays in power in Syria, and ISIS is defeated, you can bet that Russia will get that Naval Base at Tartus.  I'm not sure about Putin interest in billion-dollar arms deals.  I have no idea how Assad is accessing money these days, but I would be very surprised to learn that he's paying for all of the recent Russian largesse regarding military equipment and supplies.  Ramani is right-on about the importance of Syria as an opportunity for Putin to demonstrate his abilities as the supreme leader of a world's superpower.

Ramani makes great import of Russia's interest in "the legitimacy of the Assad regime" as the government and authority in Damascus.  I don't believe that Russia give's a rat's ass about the legitimacy of any government.  Its all about Russia's interests, not Assad's legitimacy.  The opposition that Putin's jets are currently blasting to bits in northeast Syria are arguably more legitimate than Assad ever was.  Don't you think that if Assad could have won a free and fair election, he would have called for one before we reached this stage?  Before Putin's arrival, Assad and his Ba'ath Party cronies had become so marginalized that they were close to losing the support of even the Alawite community.  If Assad were in any way a legitimate ruler, he wouldn't have been facing a rebellion that almost swept aside the Levant's largest army and air force.  Ramani comments about Putin's fear of the U.S. is trying to reshape the world in its own image.  Right after Obama pulled U.S. troops out of Syria, and laid out a plan to do the same in Afghanistan?  Actually, if we turn the clock back just a bit, we see Russian interference in Georgia, and more recently, the outright invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.  So who is trying to reshape the world here, Putin or the United States?  Putin may publicly accuse the United States of imperialist intentions, but its nothing more than typical Russian obfuscation.  In the last seven years, the United States has been about as expansionist as Botswana.

I agree with Ramani that Putin is determined to spread the message loud and clear that Russia will not be ignored.  But Russia's intervention in Syria, with its proxy Iran alongside, is really about regional power and damaging U.S. influence in the Middle East.  Putin is a megalomaniac and he does want to be acknowledged as the world leader who vanquished ISIS.  I do not envision a Russian "bloc of allies" in the Middle East, the likes of which we saw in the days of Gamal Abdel Nassar and Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez.  Putin is definitely living in the moment, and recognizes that the leadership vacuum that currently exists vis-à-vis the international community and ISIS, may not last past 2016 and the next U.S. presidential election.  Also, Russia's closest ally in the region is Iran, who leaders have a habit of spitting in every direction, and Tehran may not always agree with Russian strategy.  Iran has serious ideas about its own regional position, and Iraq may end up causing disagreements between the two "new friends".  Putin is aware that he has limited time to accomplish his goals.  Expect to see more aggressive action by Russia against ISIS.

Foreign Policy Armageddon: Obama fiddles as the Middle East burns.

Link: Syria is showplace for Russia's new military.

We keep waiting for the Obama Administration to introduce a flurry of new policy initiatives to counter the aggressive movements made by Russia in Syria and Iraq, but all we get from the Oval Office is diplomatic double-speak.  The fact is, it appears that the job of President no longer interests Barack Obama, and he's just counting down the days until he can become a permanent fixture on the celebrity golf circuit.  Actually, I'm convinced that Obama has one more important presidential decision to make before 2016 comes to an end.  I believe Obama will use Executive Action to provide a direct path to citizenship for up to twenty million illegal aliens living in the United States.
We will hear the tired excuse that Congress is broken and that the American people deserve action.  I guess the American people don't deserve action as far as the Middle East is concerned, regardless of our security concerns and the fact that every country in the region short of Iran is swarming with U.S. intelligence officers, military training specialists, diplomats, aid workers, State Department personnel, evangelists, and last and least, media correspondents.  I can only assume that Europe has its fair share of citizens traipsing around Baghdad, Damascus, Amman and Jerusalem as well.  One interesting development to note about the European nations is their willingness to follow the United States hook, line, and sinker since Barack Obama took office.  I haven't decided if its just another symptom of Obamamania, or fear on the part of the Merkels and the Hollandes that their people would remove them from office if they step out of the Obama line. 

One thing is certain: now would be an ideal time to create a coalition to either oppose Putin's heavy-handedness, or build a military coalition to fight ISIS side-by-side with the Russians.  It would allow the west to reap some of the good press that will result from the squashing of the Islamic State.  How can I be sure that Europe would support an appeal from Obama for some kind of collective response to Russia's heavy-handed military intrusion into Syria?  For the answer, all that is needed is a simple review of every policy move made by Obama since he took office.  Count the times that his initiatives were in the smallest manner opposed or criticized by a European government outside of Hungary; probably never.  Actually, all you need to do is observe how quickly the European leaders suffered "shrinkage" when Putin pushed the envelope on Ukraine.  Obama was quick to announce that NOTHING would make him take steps harsher than sanctions in response to blatant Russian aggression.  Obama provided the Russians with the European, NATO and U.S. strategy in one fell swoop:  regardless of what you do, Mr. Putin, you will never have to deal with anything more uncomfortable than economic sanctions, which in reality will only end up hurting the middle-class and poor in Russia.  Putin with his KGB background has never expressed the slightest sympathy for the average Russian.  Once Putin knew Obama's limits, he announced the permanent annexation of Crimea.  

Back to the Middle East, where President Obama continues to argue that he sits in a position of "strength", and Russia "argues from a position of weakness".  Anyone who makes that statement is trying to convince an audience of something that they themselves know to be untrue.  Obama has been drowning in sycophant bullshit for so long, that he thinks he can get away with anything.  Hell, what am I taking about; he can.  A treaty with Iran that legitimizes their in-your-face effort to obtain a home-brewed nuclear weapon (just like whiskey, home brew is always better than purchased, because if you want more, you can always make it yourself), turns Inspections into an embarrassing waste of time, and gives the Ayatollahs access to buy freely from the world's most modern stockpiles of weapons, is declared a victory by Obama.  Also, he doesn't see any connection whatsoever to the return of ISIS to Iraq and the simultaneous departure of most of the U.S. military personnel.  The Obama Administration's policy vs-a-vis the Arab World is so convoluted, that even the press seems about ready to throw in the towel.   I give Obama some credit; in other regions, including the South China Sea, Obama appears willing to allow the experts to run the show, i.e. the U.S. Navy.  In fact, for some time it appeared that he was determined not to allow the Taliban to regenerate in Afghanistan.  But the Taliban are like cactus; sooner or later, they'll be back.  The key is, when one of those nasty bastards shows his bearded mug in public, he should have a 500-lb bomb dropped in his lap. Considering the number of troops that have been withdrawn from Afghanistan in the last two years, I'm not optimistic regarding the success of the above-mentioned Operation Bomb the Bad Guys.

Russia is running rampant, using Turkey as its roadmap to Syria, eliminating the groups that originally opposed Bashar al-Assad, and making friends in Baghdad by providing intelligence on ISIS to the Iraqi military.  Every step seems well-thought and executed, with the Iranians along for the ride.  The relationship between Tehran and Moscow has become increasingly friendly as the Russians expressed their willingness to sell anything that wasn't cemented down, including nuclear-related goodies.  In my next blog post, we will discuss what Iran hopes to gain from its involvement in Iraq and its evolving partnership with Russia.   

Russia has declared war on any groups opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad; who are they?

Link: Russian missiles crash in Iran.

Russia is demonstrating its military capabilities in the Syrian theater, by launching multiple bombing raids and missile launches, targeting ISIS positions.  After initially focusing on internal Syrian opposition targets, Russia has expanded its hit list to include ISIS-held positions.  The missile barrage, launched from Russian warships in the Caspian Sea, was apparently intended to reinforce the message that not only does Russia have the determination to conduct all-out war, it also has the capacity and reach to do so.  Although the Russians have started conducting bombing sorties against ISIS forces, the Free Syrian Army, an anti-Assad organization with very close ties to the United States, was also among today's targets.  As the Russians become more familiar with the Syrian political environment, they will realize that the participants in this conflict are not limited to the Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nusra, the Free Syrian Army, Syrian Kurds, and forces loyal to de facto President Bashar al-Assad.  Since Russia has declared war on all the organizations opposing the Syrian Ba'ath Party and Assad, lets review some of the groups who are determined to implement regime change in Damascus:


Aleppo Province:
Aleppo Conquest is an anti-regime, anti-ISIS group that is singularly focused on    
the liberation of Aleppo City.
 Ansar al-Sharia is also active in Aleppo and is opposed to the Assad regime.  But Ansar al-Sharia is a fundamentalist group with possible ties to ISIS.  Their goal is to introduce Sharia Law to Aleppo City.
The group Euphrates Volcano is an interesting group, who do not necessarily oppose the Assad government, but fights against ISIS and other Islamist and Kurdish extremist factions.

Idlib Province:
Jaysh al-Fatah Idlib is exclusively focused on eliminating all regime forces in Idlib Province.
The group Battle of Victory is opposed to the Assad regime, and is determined to occupy the city of Jisr al-Shughour.

Hama Province:
Jaysh al-Fatah Idlib is also active in Hama Province, and is determined to keep the Sahel al-Ghab plain from remaining in government hands.
Jaysh L-Nasr is opposed to the Assad regime, and can be found in small units, operating throughout Syria.

Homs Province:
Victory of the Oppressed is opposed to both the Assad regime and ISIS, and works to provide support to the local population.

Damascus Province:
The Eastern Ghouta Unified Command is a group focused on liberating the Eastern Ghouta suburb of Damascus from regime occupation.  Ghouta envisions a community without the Assad puppets, that provides representation and works to improve the lives of the local population.
One Flag Alliance is dedicated to the total overthrow of the Assad regime.
Jaysh al-Fatah Qalamoun fights to liberate the Qalamoun region from regime and Hezbollah forces. The Gathering of Western Qalamoun is also opposed to the Assad regime and the presence of Hezbollah in Syria.
The Eastern Qalamoun Operations Room is opposed to both the regime and ISIS.

Dera'a and Quneitra Province:
Jaysh al-Harmoun is focused on eliminating the Assad regime elements southwest of Damascus. Jaysh al-Fatah al-Janoub fights to liberate the suburbs of Western Ghouta in Damascus from the Assad Regime.
The Southern Front is opposed to tyranny and extremism, and fights to bring representative government to the Syrian people.

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?

It begins: Russian disinformation campaign, now a fixture in the Ukrainian crisis, arrives in Syria.

Link: Russians targeting Syrian regime opposition as opposed to ISIS.

As Russia begins its military campaign in Syria, the international community is discovering the reality behind President Vladimir Putin's motivations.  Putin has cloaked his intervention in Syria as a decision to destroy ISIS and end the civilian casualties and refugees that have resulted from the conflict.  Excuse the cliché, but it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to determine that Putin is targeting ISIS, but only as it is part and parcel of the operation to save the Russian puppet regime of de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  Since it will be necessary to destroy ISIS in order to save Assad's skin, Russia, which is slowly unveiling is strategy to use its ally Iran to pressure ISIS from the east, the Russian military machine will eventually get around to targeting ISIS forces.  But ISIS was a bit "Johnny-come-lately" to the Syrian conflict.  Readers will recall that an evolving, determined opposition to the Assad regime was in place and making progress, albeit at a less-than intimidating pace, before ISIS began its main offensive operations in Syria.  It should come as no surprise that the first targets of Russia's military fist are the Syrian opposition groups who are fighting the despotic and decrepit Syrian Ba'ath Party and Bashar al-Assad.  Russian jets launched bombing sorties against the opposition-held community of Talbisah in northern Homs Governorate, with the official death count at thirty-three so far.  Like an old friend, the Russian disinformation machine immediately announced the successful initial bombing raids "against ISIS targets".  Just how do you say, "bullshit" in Russian?

For those of you who haven't been following the Ukraine crisis closely, you will soon get to know the Russian media campaign and its bellicose sycophants.  These political activists masquerading as journalists are still trying to blame the United States and the Ukrainian Air Force for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17), even though western media was able to disseminate photographs of the Russian-made Buk Surface to Air Missile System (initially, the Russian press announced that that two Ukrainian Air Force jets, with the help of U.S. radar, had purposely targeted and destroyed MH17; when that theory and its doctored photographic "evidence" was laughed off the front pages, others were proffered, including that the Ukrainians THEMSELVES used a Buk to shoot down the civilian airliner).  Since the West has had enough time to forget the crash site photographs of mangled children and personal belongings, the same media machine is now engaged in blaming every aggressive action taken by the Ukrainian separatists as a provocation on the part of Ukraine.  In a short conversation I had with a Ukrainian journalist out of Kiev, he made the interesting point that the Russian media covering the Ukrainian conflict could not claim even one accurate storyline on its behalf, since the crisis began.  Because the western press feels some obligation to present both sides of an issue, we always get the Russian version of events, usually just after the truth has been reported.  Be prepared; the Russian media is an arm of the Putin regime and will only disseminate information, accurate or not, that subscribes to the desired storyline.

Now that we realize that Putin is going to thrash with a vengeance even those opposition groups who are pro-Democracy and only wanting the removal of Assad, what impact will this have on U.S. policy?  On one hand, the Obama Administration refused to agree to Russian demands that the U.S. suspend the Coalition Air Campaign, but on the other hand, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States would welcome Russian airstrikes, if they are targeting ISIS positions.  At this stage, I'm almost sympathetic to John Kerry, given the totally reactive policy he is forced to defend.  Did the Obama Administration consider Russian intervention, and if so, what was the intended response?  Since we haven't seen a response, only reactionary commentary, we can only surmise that a plan doesn't exist.  Given recent Russian maneuvers in Iraq, which appear to create a military communication network between Russia, Iran and the Iranian-backed Shi'a militias, has the Obama Administration given consideration to full Iranian military intervention in Iraq, supported by Russia?  What would be an acceptable response to that development?  I don't have an answer to that question.