Technicians at Syria's Hmeimim airport where Russian aircraft are deployed. © Dmitriy Vinogradov / RIA Novosti
Russ Read, Daily Caller: Russia Wants Out Of Syria Because It Can’t Afford To Fight
Russia recently helped facilitate the surrender of Aleppo to its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but its motives may be financial, as opposed to virtuous.
Russia’s intervention in Syria is estimated to cost approximately $4 million per day, according to data collected by IHS Jane’s. Russian military forces began bombing Syrian targets around Sept. 30. Since the beginning of its relentless bombing campaign, Russia spent approximately $1.84 billion.
The total defense budget for 2016 of the Russian Federation was approximately $50 billion, meaning that the Kremlin spent an astonishing 3.6 percent a year on Syria alone. Though the percentage may seem relatively small, for Russia, it is unsustainable.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Fighting any war is always an expensive proposition .... especially if you decide to use modern weapons as Russia is doing in Syria. And while Russia definitely has the resources and funds to continue its campaign in Syria, it will mean diverting money away from other priorities that Moscow considers to be important. But the biggest factor that is driving Moscow's desire to disengage from Syria is politics .... Russians go to the polls next year, and a minimal Russian presence in Syria will favour Putin when he faces the electorate.
2 comments:
The real question should be, can the western nations continue to support the Military at current levels as well as social programs, with the debt at current levels?
TWN,
Very respectfully the answer to the question you pose is a resounding "no!!" While I fully understand why you asked it and have asked it a number of times myself, asking it is a bit like asking "can I jump out of a plane without a parachute at 30.000 feet and not only live but be completely uninjured?" The answer to that question, similar to the one you propose is so obviously no that one wonders why we even need to pose it in the first place yet clearly we do!!
Very respectfully I think an error is made when we refer to "western nations" as well "western nations." It seems to assume these are some monolithic entity with the exact same needs, goals, strengths, and weaknesses. While there may well be some similarities, these are not some monolithic entity. Each "western" nation will need to decide how to allocate spending between social, military, debt service, etc based upon their individual interests and needs.
As for the US, NATO and other defense agreements need to be renegotiated and American forces need to be pulled back from a number of places where they are currently deployed. I've stated this for years now. As far as I can tell, Mr. Trump is the first main stream candidate to suggest this possibility. Getting this done in such a way that maximizes the security of both America and allies needs to be a top priority.
Post a Comment