Funker530 has the video. It's the sort of thing you probably thought you'd only ever see in movies about WWII, but it's happening right now.
If only someone had enforced his red line like he said he would, Russia wouldn't even be in Syria right now.
Russia probably needs Syria to support their Crimea push. Which isn't all that dangerous, if their ultimate target is Turkey. Their interference in Ukraine, as a reaction to Hussein's anti Bush antics, is more problematic.
ReplyDeleteWhat Crimea push? That is done and over.
ReplyDeleteHave ya looked at where Crimea is. Having a water port to the Mediterranean is no good when Constantinople can sit and blockade the entrance out of it. Crimea is strategically worthless without the naval and logistical support to unblock the road out of the Mediterranean.
ReplyDeleteFor nations and geo political strategic visions, taking one port is merely one step in a long term plan.
For people that can only think a few steps ahead in tactical simulations, it's not something they need concern themselves with.
The Georgian incident that Bush II had to intervene in, around 2008, is also related to Crimea and indirectly, Syria.
ReplyDeleteRussia is looking at taking over or checking Turkey. Many of their diplomatic and military strategies have been aimed at creating a naval port logistics center near Turkey, or into Turkish territory. Which is why Georgia got caught in the middle of it.
Ideally, Georiga would just allow the Russian military to go along the sea coast into turkey if they needed to, but I doubt the diplomatic relationships of the country would allow for such trust, unless overseen by a US President known for loyalty and honor. Georgia's desire to use NATo or the EU as a counter balance check against Russia, heightens their alienation and distrust of each other.
Ironically, the threat from ISIL, the immigration invasion flood from Turkey and the ME, may have created a more stable situation around Russia's borders. It has diverted RUssian attention, and given them alternative routes to get to where they want to, without trying to push through countries like Georgia.
The Russians are not subtle. Not even their "separatist" independence support gambit was hard to figure out *during or before the invasion*. That trick is old hat and has been used before in that region, backed by ethnic cleansing. Anyone who has studied and learned from Islam, would be able to easily detect how Russia was providing support for the Ossetian separatists.
The Russians are easy to figure out and predict. Unlike the Clinton brigade and John Kerry in the US, the Russian leaders are still nationalists and even patriots. Their desire to strengthen Russian interests makes them extraordinarily predictable.
They don't need Turkey or the Bosporus. They will have Greece. And if the Turks keep screwing over the rest of NATO, they're going to find themselves alone.
ReplyDeleteThere won't be a second siege of Sevastopol.
They need logistics and bases from which to secure those logistics. Everything else is merely a matter of willpower or national preferences.
ReplyDeleteThe Russians would prefer that Turkey go it alone, as it gives them more strategic options when pressuring the Turks.
There are many more options open to Russia when their logistics base isn't concentrated on the federal city of Sevastopol. Ideally, they would have a lot more than 2, but they have to take what they can get right now.
As for Greece and Turkey, Russia's interest in them goes beyond merely the nationalistic, it goes into the Christian Orthodox history.
The Russians can reliably support Sevastopol with ground, air, and perhaps naval forces. They won't be able to unblock that narrow piece of sea Constantinople is sitting on, if it gets mined or interdicted, without additional reach. If all they care about is being on the defense, they won't need to reach out further or need Syrian bases to support Russian military assets.
Being on the defensive is probably not on Putin's agenda or vision.
As for Greece, the problem is that it is in a foreign country. And foreign countries, especially ones with democracies, don't tend to be very stable or even predictable. If I were Russian, I would not do any long range planning with Greece's support in mind, because they are too much of a wild card. Unless Greece wants to recapture Constantinople back from the Turks, Russia and Greece doesn't share enough for a full level alliance. Not like they have with Syria, at least.
ReplyDeleteRight now, Syrian military power and investment is a safer bet to go with. Given the amount of airpower Russia has moved there and begun utilizing, it's much easier for them to stage operations out of as a result. It would be a problem if Turkey blockaded the route out of Sevastopol. It would not be enough to endanger Sevastopol, a federal city of the Russian federation. It might cut off supplies to Syria. And cutting off supplies with Syria might cause something else to happen, which Russia probably doesn't want. With Syria as a solid defensive or forward operating base, Russia won't have to worry about Turkey or anybody else blockading or interdicting the route that Sevastopol needs to take on the sea.
The Turks may also have decided to go full Islam, if they are the ones that keep sending more Islamic invasion boys to Europeans countries like Germany. The Turks may destabilize the EU. Russia has to decide which direction they want to push. I wouldn't go west if I was in their pov. Historically, the threat to Orthodox Christianity has always been from Islam. And that's in the south.