RE: What will happen to Syria?
July 6, 2012 at 6:20 pm
(This post was last modified: July 6, 2012 at 6:26 pm by Anomalocaris.)
Basically, Syria and Libya were two reasonably friendly ports which Russian Navy could use to maintain a presence in the mediterranean.
Having secured access to the mediterreanean has been the penultimate geopolitical aim of Russia since Peter the Great. Russia and the west went to war in 1854 because Russia sought to crush the Turks to gain secure access to the Mediterranean, while Britian and France would prop up even the turks, and directly invade Russian territory, to keep Russia bottled up in the Black Sea. Russia went to war in 1914 because she convinced herself that by joining the allies, and Allied victory over the central powers would give Russia control over Bospherus and secured access to Mediterranean. So convinced were the Czar about this that Russia's 1915 naval program, approaved just before the war in 1914, was essentially a program to build a battlefleet for the Mediterranean assuming the defeat of Turkey and Russian naval base in Corfu. Part of Soviet aim in the Russo-NAZI pact in 1939 was to give Soviet leverage in the Balkans towards eventual seizure of constantinople and secure control of access to Mediterranean.
When the west intervened in Libya, it did so with Russia's acquiescence because it was done under the pretext that intervention would not topple the Kaddahfi regime, and therefore would not jepardize continued Russian access to the less important of their two potential naval footholds in the Mediterranean.
To the Russians, the subsequent toppling of Kaddahfi was a complete stab in the back by the west after Russia offered her cooperation.
It is sheer fantasy that Russia would now make the same mistake again and lose her most important naval foot hold in the Mediterranean.
Mr. Clinton is a total idiot if she thinks she could conceivable cause Russia to "pay a price" that, in Russia mind, could match the weight of giving up the penaltimate geostrategic goal of the Russian nation for the last 300 years.
Russia will accept even a shooting war to maintain her accesss to Syrian port and her influence over Syrian regime. West is not willing to stomach a shoot war with Russia to topple Syrian regime and install a Regime friendly to western interest, and therefore hostile to penaltimate Russian strategic goal.
That's the bottom of it. To everyone outside of the west, the more the west blow hot and cold over Syria, the more it appears that it is Russia who is the really genuinely serious player with eye on the grow up's ball.
Having secured access to the mediterreanean has been the penultimate geopolitical aim of Russia since Peter the Great. Russia and the west went to war in 1854 because Russia sought to crush the Turks to gain secure access to the Mediterranean, while Britian and France would prop up even the turks, and directly invade Russian territory, to keep Russia bottled up in the Black Sea. Russia went to war in 1914 because she convinced herself that by joining the allies, and Allied victory over the central powers would give Russia control over Bospherus and secured access to Mediterranean. So convinced were the Czar about this that Russia's 1915 naval program, approaved just before the war in 1914, was essentially a program to build a battlefleet for the Mediterranean assuming the defeat of Turkey and Russian naval base in Corfu. Part of Soviet aim in the Russo-NAZI pact in 1939 was to give Soviet leverage in the Balkans towards eventual seizure of constantinople and secure control of access to Mediterranean.
When the west intervened in Libya, it did so with Russia's acquiescence because it was done under the pretext that intervention would not topple the Kaddahfi regime, and therefore would not jepardize continued Russian access to the less important of their two potential naval footholds in the Mediterranean.
To the Russians, the subsequent toppling of Kaddahfi was a complete stab in the back by the west after Russia offered her cooperation.
It is sheer fantasy that Russia would now make the same mistake again and lose her most important naval foot hold in the Mediterranean.
Mr. Clinton is a total idiot if she thinks she could conceivable cause Russia to "pay a price" that, in Russia mind, could match the weight of giving up the penaltimate geostrategic goal of the Russian nation for the last 300 years.
Russia will accept even a shooting war to maintain her accesss to Syrian port and her influence over Syrian regime. West is not willing to stomach a shoot war with Russia to topple Syrian regime and install a Regime friendly to western interest, and therefore hostile to penaltimate Russian strategic goal.
That's the bottom of it. To everyone outside of the west, the more the west blow hot and cold over Syria, the more it appears that it is Russia who is the really genuinely serious player with eye on the grow up's ball.
