President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad (second from left), Russian President Vladimir Putin (center), Russian minister of defense General of the Army Sergei Shoigu (second from right), and chief of the general staff of the Russian Federation armed forces General of the Army Valery Gerasimov (right) meet 21 November 2017 in Sochi, Russia, to discuss the closing phases of Russian support for operations in Syria. (Photo courtesy of Administration of the President of Russia)
Tom Ricks, Task & Purpose: The Army’s ‘Military Review’ Just Declared The US Was Defeated In Syria
I was interested to see in an article in the new issue of “Military Review,” a publication of the U.S. Army, conclude that, “Russia appears to have won at least a partial victory in Syria, and done so with impressive efficiency, flexibility, and coordination between military and political action.”
Looking at Putin, the article states that “the Russian campaign might be judged a qualified success from the standpoint of the Kremlin’s own objective.”
As for the United States, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the authors (who are not Army employees—one is at the Center for Naval Analyses, and the other is at the Kennan Institute) conclude “it is certainly a defeat for those who opposed the Russian-led coalition.”
Read more ....
WNU Editor: No .... the U.S. has not been defeated in Syria .... nor has it really won anything. I would call it more of a "holding situation" with its Kurdish allies in eastern Syria. But the article from "Military Review" that Tom Ricks is referring to is an interesting read, and it can be found here .... What Kind of Victory for Russia in Syria? (Michael Kofman & Matthew Rojansky, Military Review)
How to say "defeat" when the war is not finished?
ReplyDelete...do you do his sheets?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletearch 3, 2018 at 12:56 PM
ReplyDeleteSince there is no direct action between US and Allied forces, and Russian and their allies , seems to be a wierd thing to say a defeat has occurred. In fact, in the limited instances when the forces have come into limited conflict, it hasn't worked out well cor the Russian alliance forces. Just look at the 200 to 400 Russian contractors that
Were killed attacking the US outpost a few weeks ago. Syrian military and Iranian militia have all tasted the same fate in those instances. The real problem is when IS is totally defeated and the US lacks a reason to stay. Then what? It's still Syrian territory and they are going to want it back. We will not back Kurdish independence that's clear from what happened in Iraq, and since Turkey is a NATO ally we won't do it in Syria either. Also, the Kurds understand that they have some leverage due to their battlefield victories, possession of almost half the country's land, and the temporary support of US forces. But they know they won't have it for long, because the US isn't going to stay. They will come to an agreement to return all of the present territory to Syrian control with some autonomy when the US is clearly leaving. But if Trump, who is an idiot and knows or at least can retain much information to understand the situation, for some reason refuses to leave. Then a big problem will arrive, which could see US and Russian forces in conflict. The US should be able to handle all sides militarily, but for how long would they be willing to take losses for no foreseeable gain? Plus the US will be forced to bring in a lot of fired power to the area, which will also be costly. Another issue wi be the continued support of the Kurds (who know the US will eventually leave) as well as other local allies, like Iraq (whose air space we need to fly into Syria, who are becoming closer to Iran who is on the Syrian side) along with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, etc (who all have their own interests, a big one being that they don't want to be drawn into a war or be hit because of support for an ally. Not to mention the possibility of a nuclear war between similarly arms opponents. As Hamlet said, there's the rub.