It’s off-topic but this sentence in the article caught my eye:
This seems quite false. The Geneva Convention has been around since 1864. Moreover, the “code of chivalry” was many centuries older than that – that “Code” may have been frequently violated, but the same can be said of Geneva Conventions. An old document codifying the “Right of Sanctuary” was issued by Gunbald, Archbishop of Bordeaux, in 989. (The same right was invoked by the Anthony Quinn character in an effort to save the Sophia Loren character in a famous movie. )
Russia hasn’t shipped a lot of weapons to Syria during the civil war.
The Russian naval installation is little more than a shed. It’s of no great importance.
Everybody needs money, but Syria only accounted for some 5% of Russian military exports much of which was never paid for.
I’d add:
Russia fears the spread of jihadist ideology back to Russia. Thinks the West is crazy for what it sees as arming and helping Islamists.
Since Syria was allied with Russia during the Cold War and was some kind of socialist there was much interaction, also personal. A lot of intermarriage, and a lot of Russian nationals living inside Syria. Don’t know how many are left after two years of civil war.
Russia still feels sore for the Libya thing. Thinks it gave a little finger, the West fucked it over and ate the whole hand and arm. And it goes all the way back to Serbia and the Baltic states, with the same issues.
But all in all, Syria isn’t so important to Russia. It has done it’s part to an ally and can walk away political unscathed. As for the “Red Line.” It seems to fill a lot of the talk among Americans, but I think you’re putting way much more weight on it inside the USA, that the rest of the world does.
I was going to question the ‘needs the money’ thing and then forgot. Isn’t Russia a major exporter of oil and gas? I could look it up, but I don’t recall Syria having much of either.
And yes on the jihadist part. That’s a much bigger problem inside Ruskiland like with Azerbaijan and I think Georgia for example not to mention the former satellite states (the ‘-stans’) of central asia.
Thanks. That was the reason for the ‘Ruskiland’ moniker. I don’t really understand the relationships there but I get the feeling that many of the former satellite countries are only independent in the same way that American Indian territories in the US are sovereign. Technically that’s true and maybe you can even get a federal court to go along with you when push comes to shove, but as a practical matter, I’m not sure how much that really matters. But honestly, I’m mostly ignorant on the topic.
Anyway, I’m posting to share this - it looks like the latest resolution for the use of force in Syria is a bait and switch maneuver designed to allow the insertion of US troops and CIA “advisers” - a term anyone from the Vietnam era will remember fondly.
Whether or not it will succeed as drafted is another issue. But the fact remains that no one is going to be happy until those chemical weapons are secured and that isn’t going to happen w/o a well trained force on the ground - the estimate I’ve seen is 75k troops.
Good point. That’s a little more complicated than the other satellite countries I think but I could easily be wrong. Just read the background in wikipedia. But you’re getting at what I probably *should *have said. I think Russia still regards these states as territories that need to toe the line whether they like it or not. Also I don’t think there’s much doubt about Islamic/Jihadist terrorism being an issue in Russia proper - although most of seems to revolve around Chechnya.
Postwar Italian sex goddess nitpick* : it was Gina Lollobrigida.
*you could read that phrase in a different way, and say you were saving young women from typhus.
)
Georgia is Christian. And is not part of Russia. Neither is Azerbaijan part of Russia.