On top of this, just last week President Obama and Putin had discussed potential deconfliction in Syria. This aggressive act by the Putin regime has taken US-Russian relations back a peg, and has done nothing but add wood to the fire in Syria.
Getting Russia on the same page in the fight against ISIS would clearly be a step in the right direction, but their support for the evil Assad makes it impossible for our leaders to see eye to eye. Putin continues to be a rebel without a cause on the world political scene. His brash, unfiltered actions only seem to cause distrust with Western nations, and turmoil in the East. If he were to side against Assad, it would certainly help bring the carnage in Syria to an end. However, he continues to aid the tyrant while Americans call for his departure.
As it stands, Russia will most likely not be sustaining continued military presence in Syria, although there are currently 600 readied troops stationed at Russian Latakia Air Base in the middle-east nation (CNN). Since the Russian attacks were clearly not aimed at ISIS forces, we need to closely monitor Russian military movements, and begin to have more advanced military discussions with them before a crisis ensues.
Do you guys think Russia has all negative motives in Syria? What is Obama's responsibility in this dilemma? What type of response would be most beneficial to the United States or the world as a whole?
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/russia-syria-airstrikes-isis/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/world/europe/russia-airstrikes-syria.html
9 comments:
I think Russia’s motives in Syria are mixed; both negative and positive. By aiding in the war they will most likely help to end the war sooner and thus help stop the carnage. They had claimed to have struck four different ISIS buildings including “terrorist staff”, an ammunition drop and headquarters in Hama. However now that it has come to light that they are targeted those who oppose President Bashar al-Assad, including some moderate factions that have U.S. support, it seems they have a much sinister motive. The Syrian Ambassador to Russia, Riad Haddad told CNN that Russia is fighting alongside the Syrians to destroy all rebel groups, including ISIS because these groups motives are only to “to spread terror.” Senator John McCain also said that he could “absolutely confirm” that the initial attacks had been against the Syrian rebel army because of CIA contacts in Syrian right now. By fighting against the Free Syrian Army, Russia is not only supporting keeping a dictator in power but is also fighting against the United States. The United States CIA has been helping to train and arm the Free Syrian Army; I believe that our duty is continue this. However I don’t think that this is a call for American troops to be sent to Syria. Although keeping a dictator in power is not what America supports, if Russia is targeting all rebel groups in ISIS, their actions could be beneficial for the United States. As we have been fighting terrorist groups, especially ISIS for years. The White House's response to Russia’s actions has been surprisingly minimal and I believe that the best action would be no action at this point in time.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/middleeast/russia-syria/
I believe that Russia is sending mixed messages about their actions in Syria. Though Russia claims that they are attacking areas where ISIS buildings are believed to be identified, yet U.S. Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, thinks otherwise. In addition, a senior U.S. administration official believes that the area that Russia air-raided doesn't really help the cause for fighting against ISIS. "...a Russian airstrike near the Syrian city of Homs "has no strategic purpose" in terms of combating ISIS," a U.S. senior administration official. Even though Russia claims that it is bombing and attacking areas where ISIS is believed to be, data shows that most of the people that were killed during these Russian airstrikes were just civilians. This means that Russia may be saying they are doing something just to cover up the real intention of their plans. The best course of action that the United States can do monitoring each time Russia decides to airstrike on Syrian land and determine whether or not the airstrike was beneficial in combating ISIS. This action is mainly conservative, but would limit/decrease the chance that American soldiers would be deployed into a situation where their lives are at risk when the information for being there is very limited.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/middleeast/russia-syria/
I believe that Russia has negative motives in Syria. Vladimir Putin has shown a pattern of misuse of power for his own good, one reason why he would side with Bashar al-Assad. Although he claims that the Russians are attacking areas that are believed to be ISIS buildings, Putin is not one to be trusted. Statistics even state that most of the people that were killed during the bombings were innocent civilians, not dangerous terrorists. This is not something that the Obama administration can overlook, especially considering the relations between the US and Russia. Although we do not want to get involved in any wars over this, the US has a responsibility to take some action on the issue. We must keep watch on these attacks to verify if they truly are to kill ISIS. If the attacks escalate, then it would be time for the US to take action. However, even though we may not support what Putin is doing, it is not the right time for our government or military to take any serious action on the issue to get us involved.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/middleeast/russia-syria/
I believe that America should be cautious of Russia’s actions. Though the Russian Defense Ministry claims to have destroyed eight ISIS positions, including arms, transportation, communications and control positions, it was the civilians opposed to Assad that were hurt the most. The Syrian National Coalition reported 36 deaths, all civilian. Russia, at least now, seems to have negative motives in Syria, though they think they are helping Assad. In addition, Russia is displaying a lack of respect for their military alliance with America. A senior U.S. defense official told CNN, "Our Presidents just talked about setting up de-confliction talks and now they just go ahead and do this? They cannot be trusted" (CNN). Russia didn’t fully inform American officials of their mission or try to coordinate the airstrikes with American officers despite the fact that Americans are in charge of conducting the airstrikes. We know that at least one Syrian opposition group armed by the CIA was targeted by the Russian airstrikes and that Syria’s state-run news was pleased by Russia’s help. On another note, Putin may also be acting for selfish reasons. He may be searching for ways to restore Russia to the international power it once was or try to maintain control over Russia’s naval station at Tartus, in Syria, their only remaining overseas military base outside the former Soviet Union (WSJ). I believe that Obama’s first priority should be the safety of the American people. If we were to involve ourselves into the situation in the Middle East, I think it would be safest if he consulted the European Union and try not to do it alone. I also believe that relations with Russia should try to be maintained since they play a major role in Syrian peace. Though Russia doesn’t seem to value the alliance, we should since they could eventually help in removing radical groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/world/europe/russia-airstrikes-syria.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/russia-syria-airstrikes-isis/
If Putin was intentionally attacking Syrian rebels (which is very likely), it is possible that he is doing out of fear. With the uprising of the Syrian people against the oppressive regime of Al-Assad, Putin is at risk of losing an ally. In addition to this, the civil war represents forces (such as popular uprisings, dictatorships being overthrown, and chaos) that could even threaten Vladimir's own regime (Vox World). Putin is struggling to keep his interests afloat, which in turn forces him to act against the ideals of western nations. So far, Putin is protected by the gravity of the situation, and therefore other powers, especially the US, will let his actions slide. The way I see it, it seems that if another nation, like the US, were to begin providing stronger military support to the rebels to fight both Al-Assad and Russia, that nation could risk creating dangerous tensions with Russia and expanding this civil war to a more global scale. Because of this, no one wants to get any more involved with the Syria, which forces them to let Putin's air assaults on US-supported rebels slide, hoping that it will go away on its own.
Source:
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/9433967/russia-bombing-syria
I think that Putin is trying to expand his sphere of influence (as we saw with Ukraine); as a result, he is creating alliances with these powerful dictators. By launching these airstrikes, he is trying to prop up Assad's regime to strengthen his alliance with him.
On this issue, although it is highly unlikely, I feel that Obama should declare Syria a “no fly zone” to the Russians. It is about time that the United States take some significant action in the international sphere. Right now, Putin feels as though he can do whatever he wants because he knows that the United States will probably not take action in response to his actions. On issues such as the Ukraine and even the issue including chemical warfare in Syria a couple years back show that the United States is not willing to intervene to protect its allies. This makes us look weak and illegitimate. Threatening Russia will most likely not start any war but it will help the United States assert its own power in the world to protect the United States’s allies against regimes like Bashar Al-Assad's.
I think that Russia isn’t trying to attack Syria because of their relationship and alliance to one another. However, I think that Russia is trying to attack the Syrian rebels and have the Syrian government and people be back in control. The Russians launched another air strike today, October 1st, and the main target was a location where the rebels were located. This leads me to believe that the Russians are not aiming to attack Syria but rather stop their rebels. While Russia is just adding fuel to the fire and doing things that are completely absurd and unnecessary, they have only positive motives in Syria, in terms of helping their alliance.
Obama’s responsibility in this dilemma would be to communicate with Russia to stop what they are doing and have the UN step in to help with the issues occurring across the global. I think that Obama getting any more involved than that would be causing a bigger issue. The type of response that would be most beneficial to the United States and world as a whole would be a more diplomatic approach towards Russia in an attempt to find a motive and to stop them from causing more, unnecessary damage in Syria.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34413050
Like all conflicts that have come to manifestation upon the world's soil, there is no easy solution, especially with this day in age. To say that Russia has negative motives in Syria is a rather tough statement to make, because as with any nation on this earth, (relatively speaking) Russia is entitled to its own actions and will act according to its own national interest. To say that the United States acts within the interest of every nation on the planet would be a vastly naive statement to make. In this case, and ironically in many cases, Russia's motive appears to be somewhat contradictory of our own; however, to say Russia is acting in a 'negative' way simply stems from our perspectives and circumstances as Americans in the 21st Century. As stated in initial post by Stephen, Bashar Al-Assad's family has been in line with the Russian course of action for quite sometime. And just as we would help an ally in need, as we are now in the fight against ISIL, Russia has helped an ally of its own. However, as Assad is against ISIL himself, Russia has no time for the barbarians of Iraq and the Levant either. Undoubtedly, the most efficient solution to peace in the Middle East is worldwide co-operation and a common goal. The issue is finding that goal. However, I believe that the proceedings regarding Syria in the months to come will play into NATO and world interests. As for the President, Obama needs to continue to stand his ground and work with the Kremlin to find a solution that may not benefit, but is at least acceptable by both parties.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/1/russia-admits-to-targeting-many-groups-in-syria-not-just-isil.html
Vladimir Putin tends to act however he sees fit, leaving his intentions shrouded in mystery or open to the world, no matter the reaction. He will also tend to continue to feign innocence when his country is clearly doing something wrong. Does that necessarily mean he has bad intentions in his actions in Syria? It's hard to say, but I think that we should be cautious. I don't think that there is anything Obama really can do at the moment, so he'll just have to wait and see before he acts on anything. As to benefiting the world, I don't think any action should be taken because Russia might take it the wrong way and with the strained relationship between the US and Russia, we don't need things to get any worse.
Post a Comment