Rate Article (4 / 1)

BEIRUT, LEBANON (6:40 P.M.) – According to the Military Review (the official journal of the US Army Combined Arms Center), Russia’s rolling back of Western regime change processes in Syria has not only granted the country a major strategic victory in Syria itself, but in fact around the world.

In a recent article, the US Army journal stated that Russia’s success in Syria has granted it an international victory, once again making the country a leader on the world stage after decades of isolation and pushing the United States (and the West in general) to recognize it as an equal.

The journal article shows pragmatic admiration towards Russia for its ability to quickly adapt to the declining situation in Syria at the time of its intervention and to since overcome great political and military obstacles with great efficiency despite limited resources.

Lastly, the article’s authors concede that Russia’s ‘lean’ military campaign in Syria has been enhanced by an equally ‘flexible’ diplomatic effort which has served to break the ‘monopoly’ of the US-orientated Geneva process (inherently opposed to any real compromise with the Assad government) by carving out an internationally recognized and renowned Moscow-led coalition and political process.

Thus, according to the article, even ‘if the campaign in Syria is not a victory for Russia, it is certainly a defeat for those who opposed the Russian-led coalition.’

Advertisements
Share this article:
  • 2.2K
  •  
  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • 4
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    2.2K
    Shares
ALSO READ  Russia, Turkey, Iran fail to agree on constitutional committee members

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
lenin chigbundu
Guest
lenin chigbundu

Putin’s investment in the Russian military…as a leftover of the late Soviet military rearmament in the late Nineties has paid off.

Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler
Rate Article :
     

“The cornerstone of Russian policy in Syria became preventing the United States from carrying out a Libya-like intervention to overthrow Assad.” Russia has achieved that. “Only President Assad’s armed forces and Kurdish militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.” Putin said at the UN. Thus he supported only these players in Syria. Because “from Russia’s perspective, there was no such thing as a “moderate” opposition in Syria, and the entire term was a misguided Western invention aimed at legitimizing extremists opposed to Assad.” So Russia struck all these terrorists indiscriminately. This discouraged further support… Read more »

Daeshbags Sux
Member
Master
Upvoted
Rookie Mentor
Commenter
Daeshbags Sux

There would not be a “conventional conflict” between NATO and Russia : it’d near immediately go nuclear! On the conventional side alone, cumulated EU forces are twice as big as Russian ones. For sure, Russian action fucks up the Anglos as IMHO, EU countries are nowhere near being in the mood to follow them in any s**t like the Libyan operation, but it’s not a conventional forces fact : it’s because Russia is a nuclear power, thus any direct clash could go out of hand. You also forget one pretty serious point : Russia intervened in Sept 2015. The SHTF… Read more »

Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

Putin is not into any adventurism. So he waun’t go nuclear. Cumulated EU forces do not count – EU is no adventurer either. Plus Germany traditionally prepares war late. Exception Hitler. You should really read the whole article I quoted. It has many facets. Russia in 2011 said njet. After the US alliance raised the stakes by donating a bounty of anti-tank missiles to even out SAA’s tank superiority Russia intervened. Putin does not want a Libya like situation close to home. I prefer Russians’ gas. Reason. Trade partners do not war. They are on our continental island – they… Read more »

Ben Hodges
Guest
Ben Hodges

[On the conventional side alone, cumulated EU forces are twice as big as Russian ones]

Do you really think Russia is alone these days militarily, even on a conventional side?

Daeshbags Sux
Member
Master
Upvoted
Rookie Mentor
Commenter
Daeshbags Sux

But Putin is also ruining his own actions by letting Erdogan doing what he pleases through the S-400 purchase and a pipeline contract which are nothing else than the same kind of pay-to-play KSA/Qatar did with their donations to the Clinton Foundation that allowed to create this mess in Syria.

Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Stern Daler

Likely.