Russo-Syrian arms shenanigans

[Walsingham]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/31/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

 

Russia sending 10 Mig 29s over.

 

It just occurred to me that perhaps the Kremlin is using oby's posts as some sort of foreign policy generator. I'm at a loss to conclude how supplying migs is going to calm the situation. Also, how the hell are the Syrians paying for all this new kit? They can't export any oil or gas ta the moment.

[Rostere]

I would attribute every action of Russia in this conflict to Russian revanchism with it's source in the end of the Cold War. I think Putin is doing everything he can to spite what he believes is "Western" interests. The Russian base on Syria's coast is basically his excuse for doing this, without it he would just look like a quarrelsome child.

[Agiel]

The huge influx of Russian weaponry and no obvious way of paying for all of it in a timely fashion by Assad would likely mean the loyalist Syrians will be completely in Russia's pocket in the incredibly unlikely event Assad comes out of this only a *little* bit less worse for wear. Think Cold War Poland, DDR, and Czechoslovakia for the type of relationship Assad will have with Russia if he manages comes out of this mess in one piece.

 

That said, the Russians' naval base in Tartus lies in a firmly Alawite region of Syria, so a balkanised Syria will do little to harm Russian strategic interests (Iran and Hezbollah? Different story).

[Oerwinde]

The Israelis have warned Russia against supplying them.. blah consequences... blah. If Israel attacks the Russians I don't see it ending well for anyone.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Ridiculous. The US instigated this war through overt and covert support in an effort to bring the country under its sphere of influence. Standard scenario: support rebels -> create puppet state when they come to power etc. Since its the last country in the middle east where the Russians have substantial influence they'll fight tooth and nail for it.

Otherwise they might as well retreat from global policies altogether.

 

If the west wanted to "calm things down" they wouldn't have started the war in the first place. 

[obyknven]

It's capitalism baby! Moar profit for god of profit. Actually we are best partners with Israel in this region. They create wars, we sell arms. Don't worry about this media hysteria, its just tool to brainwash crowd. Evil Russia/China/Iran everywhere, we need increase military spendings! Boo!

[Calax]

Personally I get the feeling that Syria won't calm down until after one side (probably Al-Assad) is entirely removed. I haven't kept up on the situation so I couldn't tell you the hwo's whats or wheres, but the few things I have heard is that the entire thing's turned into a giant proxy war, and everyone wants to set up their own puppet in the region.

 

Muslim nations have extremists who are attempting to make Syria into a haven for their attacks on Israel.

Turkey just wants things to settle down, and for a stable border

Russia wants to project power into the region (given how Putin is, I'd say as a counter balance to US interests in Iraq)

and the Citizens want to oust Al-Assad for (ostensibly) democractic reasons. But they've had issues where one hand of the "rebels" doesn't know what the other hand is.

 

And this isn't going to end with an "Oh, lets all put our guns aside and talk this out." Things haven't gotten bad enough for that to happen out of distaste for more war, and there have been enough atrocities committed that nobody will just "let go".

[Zoraptor]

I'm at a loss to conclude how supplying migs is going to calm the situation. Also, how the hell are the Syrians paying for all this new kit? They can't export any oil or gas ta the moment.

You could view both in reverse as well. How is the west supplying weapons to the rebels going to calm the situation and how can the rebels pay for it?

 

First you make sure that the side you support wins, then the bills can be settled.

[Malcador]

Shame US and Russia can't band together and annihilate both sides in the civil war.

[Walsingham]

I really can't see either side winning this. I mean a civil war could drag on easily for, what, I think 12 years is normal.

 

But this could just run and run, quite honestly.

[HoonDing]

It's capitalism baby! Moar profit for god of profit. Actually we are best partners with Israel in this region. They create wars, we sell arms. Don't worry about this media hysteria, its just tool to brainwash crowd. Evil Russia/China/Iran everywhere, we need increase military spendings! Boo!

oby finally unmasked.

[Rostere]

Ridiculous. The US instigated this war through overt and covert support in an effort to bring the country under its sphere of influence. Standard scenario: support rebels -> create puppet state when they come to power etc. Since its the last country in the middle east where the Russians have substantial influence they'll fight tooth and nail for it.

Otherwise they might as well retreat from global policies altogether.

 

If the west wanted to "calm things down" they wouldn't have started the war in the first place. 

 

I'm very sceptical to this opinion of current politics.

 

Considering Mubarak's reign was basically paid for by the US, and Khadaffi's recent turn towards th EU the revolutions in their respective countries can hardly be interpreted as "Western". On the other hand, I think many Middle Eastern countries will drift closer to (democratic) Islamism after this turmoil.

 

Iraq and Afghanistan? That's a different story. But as Iraq have practically become BFFs with Iran as a direct consequence of the US intervention, I don't see how you can adopt a conspiratorial view of the matter. If there is a US conspiracy to overthrow Middle Eastern dictatorships, then it has failed to produce particularly West-friendly alternatives in every case.

[Zoraptor]

That view is predicated on the west trying to subvert the Arab Spring- it didn't look good that the first two AS countries were western proxies, and that Bahrain's autocratic monarchy was only propped up by considerable British surveillance tech and weaponry as well as an invasion by thousands of Saudi soldiers. Thus you aid the uprisings against the leaders you don't like because it's convenient, it's become doable both politically and practically, and as an added bonus it distracts from the inconvenient examples.

 

I don't really subscribe to it either except with regards to Libya, and even there it was more complicated and involved a lot of stuff like Sarkozy wanting to be all France Strong! for the upcoming election and distract from internal problems. Certainly the US/ west had no reason to topple the Hoz or Ben Ali, they just weren't worth supporting in the fashion that would have been required for them to remain in power. Syria was always more of a Sunni Gulf State project to try and reduce Iran's power and influence since they'd gained (albeit a much weakened) Iraq. If they'd got a no fly zone through it may have been different, but that was pretty much never going to happen. The only americans really supporting the rebels are John "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain and some PNAC types eager to be remembered in such glowing terms as Wolfowicz, Rumsfeld, Perl et al by asterisking up another country as badly as they did Iraq. And even they'd hesitate to actually fight the Russians, which is pretty much what it would take since they're even sending their aircraft carrier into the Med, as well as the S300s and MiGs.

[Calax]

I think that any US adventurism in Syria would completely tank the political career of the person found to be "responsible" for the adventure. Mostly because military families (worshipped as they are) don't want their military member to go off to some other dusty land to rebuild another country. At best this would be a rehash of Afghanistan in 2002, at worst it'd be Iraq 2.0 (now with more booms!).

 

Obama was elected, in part, on a promise that he was pulling the States out of those crazy lands.

[Walsingham]

 

It's capitalism baby! Moar profit for god of profit. Actually we are best partners with Israel in this region. They create wars, we sell arms. Don't worry about this media hysteria, its just tool to brainwash crowd. Evil Russia/China/Iran everywhere, we need increase military spendings! Boo!

oby finally unmasked.

 

 

 

I believe masks are more traditionally worn on the other end.

[Walsingham]

According to Stratfor.com the move is essetially placing a Russian 'counter' on the mediterranean board, where it currently has none.

 

"Russia has a strategic interest in maintaining a naval presence in the Mediterranean at Syria's Tartus port. Even as Syria fragments along ethnic and sectarian lines, Tartus would still likely remain under Alawite control, making it imperative for Russia to maintain close ties with the ethnic minority when Moscow is already a clear adversary of the Sunni rebels. Moscow is one of the few countries that can hold a conversation with the United States, still has influence in the al Assad regime and has strong intelligence capabilities on the ground in Syria that could prove critical to Western attempts to seize and secure chemical weapons stockpiles. Russia may cooperate sporadically to entice the West, by restricting fuel shipments or certain weapons transfers, but as long as the United States acts disinterested, much less confrontational, with Russia, Moscow has little incentive to sacrifice its existing influence in Syria.
 
Currently, Russia is reinforcing its supply lines to Syria. It is deploying five to six warships with support ships from its Pacific fleet to establish a permanent presence in the Mediterranean Sea for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union. A permanent command structure in the Mediterranean would oversee a constant presence of these ships that would be rotated in from different fleets. Critically, Russia's reinforced naval presence in the Mediterranean would not only entrench Russian interests in the region but could also provide a secure line of supply for the Alawites in Syria unless foreign groups want to risk a military conflict on the Mediterranean by trying to blockade these shipments."

 

Pretty much what Agiel said, above.

[Rostere]

It's also interesting that Russia has chosen to deploy S-300 AA to Syria. This might very well prove to be a double-edged sword.

 

If it becomes known that Russia guarantees AA support, but the IAF can continue to raid Syria freely, then the market appeal of Russian AA wil decrease. For a case study, compare the Lebanon War (the most recent one). Russian AA was humiliatingly defeated by the IAF virtually without resistance. Obviously, this was a setback both financially and for Russia's international credibility as a military power, even if the air defense systems were a bit outdated they should at least have been able to make a dent.

 

Here's the wikipedia article on the S-300 system. The question of the exact model supplied to Syria appears crucial. We know Syria has these, which were introduced in 2003, so it's not unreasonable to assume Russia will supply Syria with equally modern AA. We apparently know it's not S-400 (if we can trust the sources on this; there is some confusion since the S-400 was initially named as a submodel of the S-300), so it then appears it's most likely S-300PMU-2 or possibly, but more unlikely, S-300VM which is very similar but meant for use by a mobile army rather than as a static air defense.

 

So not opting to send S-400 can also be viewed as an interesting decision by Russia. Maybe this is because this entire business has been a Syrian initiative, or because Russia is afraid that it won't perform well enough against the IAF, which would be a catastrophe for future sales. On the other hand, if they knew S-400 would be a strong, viable defense it could be stupid to see S-300 being blown to smithereens, which will hinder Russian arms sales even if it's not their newest system.

 

As a side note, the IAF is (officially) set to receieve American F-35s and a load of side gear in 2015 (as part of a rather fishy deal where Israel got 180% of the value of the deal in offset contracts - when the entire thing is paid through military aid by American taxpayers to begin with!). From Israel's side, the hurry to get that equipment is motivated by the will to be able to put Iran under pressure - but that's another discussion. If the IAF could somehow get a hold of F-35s earlier than 2015 (in analogy to what Syria got with the S-300s), it is my educated guess that they would be able to trump the S-300s - not surprising, since the F-35 and it's equipment was designed with this AA system in mind. What Russia would do if such a situation seemed likely? That would be very interesting to know...

Edited June 4, 2013 by Rostere

[Gorth]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/31/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

 

Russia sending 10 Mig 29s over.

 

It just occurred to me that perhaps the Kremlin is using oby's posts as some sort of foreign policy generator. I'm at a loss to conclude how supplying migs is going to calm the situation. Also, how the hell are the Syrians paying for all this new kit? They can't export any oil or gas ta the moment.

 

Welcome to the Balkans, 1917

 

Russia doesn't want anything in the vicinity that could end up as a breeding ground for the Caucasus Caliphate recruitment drive, so they don't want the AQ faction to be amongst the winner in the war. They probably feel morally obliged to support the Syrian government in their "War against Terror" ®

 

As for funding... Neither Iran nor the AQ "store front" backers are particular short of money.

 

In short, geopolitics in a messy situation without borders and criss-crossing alliances.

 

Edit to add: It seems a bit comparable to US - Pakistani relations, which are a marriage of convenience, not one of love.

[Agiel]

The Russians notoriously keep the shiniest toys to themselves (to an even more blatant degree than other major arms supplier nations) as stated in my talk on "Monkey Models". A Russian arms expert I've talked to seems to think that the Russians were more easily able to part with this system given that they believe the performance of the SA-21 to far surpass that of the SA-10. While the older system is indeed very capable to this day, western powers have been acquainted to its capabilities for quite some time (the Bulgarians brought one with them to a Red Flag exercise), and without a sufficient IADS in depth (mid-range SA-17s and SA-15s and short-range SA-19s and MANPADS), the thing is asking for a HARM up its tailpipe (even since the introduction of SAMs, anti-air artillery remains the largest killer of military aircraft by a large margin). That said, it's unlikely the Israelis will touch it in the near future, as it would mean killing a whole lot of Russian advisors and involving them further in the conflict. 

 

You are indeed correct that the Russians have been quite wary about how their export equipment performs (hence the re-branding of the T-72BU as the T-90 in the aftermath of Desert Storm).

 

Another interesting thing: Iran previously claimed to have purchased an SA-10 battery from Belarus, going so far as to parade the TEL during the 2010 Gulf Blockade crisis. However, a defense analyst took a closer look at the photos and deduced the "TEL" to actually be 55 gallon drums welded together and mounted on a generic heavy lifter truck.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Agiel

[Rostere]

OK, so appartently it is indeed the S-300PMU-2 system: http://missilethreat.com/russian-s-300-missiles-unlikely-to-reach-syria-for-months/

 

Another interesting angle is that Syria could potentially shoot down civilian aircraft over Israel.

[obyknven]

Facepalm. Any weapon is just a tool, only important who use it and how.  For example in Vietnam MIG's (very-very cheap jet's, not the best ever) show own effectiveness against USAF, meanwhile in Egyptian-Syrian-Israeli conflicts Arabs suffered a complete defeat and lost hundreds of MIG's  in fights against same US jets.

[Walsingham]

Facepalm. Any weapon is just a tool, only important who use it and how.  For example in Vietnam MIG's (very-very cheap jet's, not the best ever) show own effectiveness against USAF, meanwhile in Egyptian-Syrian-Israeli conflicts Arabs suffered a complete defeat and lost hundreds of MIG's  in fights against same US jets.

 

For someone who posts pictures of Russian hardware the way mkreku posts pictures of random girls' butts this seems an odd perspective.

[Calax]

Not Russian based, but apparently Syria just fired off a Sarin Gas attack which "crossed the red line" for the USA.

[Oerwinde]

Wasn't it the rebels using Sarin? At least that's what the UN was saying

 

And honestly, I don't see what the big difference is between killing people with chemical weapons and causing repiratory problems and birth defects in survivors, and blowing people the hell up and leaving survivors with missing limbs and shrapnel and such. End result of both is dead and mangled people.

 

Its not like the rebels are any better than the governmemt at this point either. At least the government isn't cutting out the hearts of prisoners and eating them.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Oerwinde

[Calax]

Wasn't it the rebels using Sarin? At least that's what the UN was saying

 

And honestly, I don't see what the big difference is between killing people with chemical weapons and causing repiratory problems and birth defects in survivors, and blowing people the hell up and leaving survivors with missing limbs and shrapnel and such. End result of both is dead and mangled people.

 

Its not like the rebels are any better than the governmemt at this point either. At least the government isn't cutting out the hearts of prisoners and eating their hearts

I think that it's the fact that Bombs and splosions are controllable, more so than a gas. A bomb, you hit a spot, it explodes, and that spot is gone, you cut loose with Sarin and you've got your target zone, and anything down wind contaminated.