Putin’s intervention in Syria is intended to push back against expanding US influence but that’s not why I suggested that the US is losing power and influence in the region.
America’s marked decline really has to do with the aftermath of the Iraq war. The US has exhausted enormous economic, military, and political energy in the US and we don’t have endless stamina to remain there forever. Iran and Syria know this, and they don’t seem particularly intimidated by the threat of US force, especially now that they have Putin aggressively intervening on their behalf. But don’t just look at Iran and Syria; look also at Saudi Arabia’s behavior, which is asserting itself politically and even militarily, regardless of what the US desires. Turkey, meanwhile, is just barely a NATO member.
All of this is against the backdrop of the US now engaged in fiscal drunkenness at home, which is going to catch up to us in time as it has before. The math just doesn’t add up to our being a credible player much longer.
Looks like a trap, feels like a trap … I guess we’ll see. Putin is a long way from stupid.
What has happened so far is John Bolton has made his first call, Macorn wants to lok important on the world stage and made his, and the USA has used it’s credit slip with Theresa May (for the support over Salisbury). All of that based on not a shred of evidence - 102 tomahawk missiles fired into Syria from beyond the border to sites visted by western journalists the following morning. In shirt sleeves.
I don’t know what happened in the USA but the PM here was roasted for a full day n Parliament yestderday over this. I presume the USA media did what it does and felt great about blowing shit up again in the Middle East. And goodness knows, the military needs it’s monthly validation.
So what happens if nothing is proven this time - when it becomes clear Trump, Bolton and Macron have been played? Do they look stronger in the region, does Putin look smarter? What happens when one of those ‘red lines’ the moral and superior USA is so fond of is crossed next month, or the month after?
Where is the evidence? Oh gee, the Russians stopped us, the Russians cleaned it up, the Russians have disappeared the evidence despite how many toxic deaths - 75?
It’s now binary; either there is evidence or the US was played again by Putin.
I know this poster has been banned, but anyone have any thoughts on why Putin, of all people, would set such a ‘trap’ against the US? I’m honestly baffled at how this logic works where Putin would fake a chemical attack to get the US and it’s allies to pound the crap out of Syrian chemical facilities while Russia stood back and watched. I could see one of the rebel groups opposed to Assad et al doing so, if they could pull it off…but Putin?
I had this same question. If it was a trap, it wasn’t a smart one because it left Putin looking rather impotent. That’s pretty much the polar opposite of my understanding of the image he has tried very hard to cultivate over the years.
It’s as if trump tweeted he was going to attack so his buddy Puttin’ would have time to withdrawal his assets, while posturing that he’d shoot down the incoming attack. Mission accomplished for sure. I mean, you attack a country with 120 +/- cruise missiles and the next day the world news is covering an attorney’s office search and a porn stars clientele.
I am quite confused about what’s going on in Syria, but I don’t particularly think Russia is unhappy with developments. Even when deaths in Russia’s equivalent of Blackwater are included, Russia has suffered fewer than 300 deaths total there, less than 2% of their Soviet-era losses in Afghanistan, which is a country of much less strategic importance than Syria. IIUC, there’s little danger of the Putin-Ba’ath-Shia axis actually losing the war, or of Russian bases coming under attack. If so, the on-going war probably serves Putin’s, if not Russia’s, interests.
I don’t know exactly what Putin’s strategy is in this “game of chess,” and it may be true that Putin’s chess play is well below grandmaster-level expertise. But I feel confident in calling him an expert strategist compared with Trump and Bolton.
Wait, did I imply that the skill-level of John Bolton, his Bush-era colleagues and Trump at geopolitical chess was that of patzers? Maybe a better analogy would be pigeons pushing the chess pieces around without even knowing the rules or what the goal is.
