Vladimir Putin is no master of strategy — his Syria plan was a disaster

As Russian pilots fly home from Syria, they can look forward to triumphant welcomes.

Their commander-in-chief, Vladimir Putin, is the focus of almost as much fawning adulation — even from the supposedly hostile Western media. Once again, the Russian president is being portrayed as a strategic genius, adept at wrong-footing America and Europe.

Yet the self-congratulation conveniently ignores some awkward truths. Far from making a cool and calculated decision to intervene in Syria, Putin was compelled to deploy his forces in order to rescue a feckless ally. His campaign has yet to achieve any of its stated goals. Worse, Russia has now invested so much in saving Bashar al-Assad that Putin risks being manipulated by the trickster in Damascus.

Putin’s defenders might respond by saying that fighting ISIL was never the real goal: saving Assad was the campaign’s true objective — and, by that measure, it has succeeded. The problem is that Putin himself consistently denied that he was interested in rescuing Assad.

You mean Putin might have--GASP!--lied about his intentions?! You don't say! I doubt we really know what Putin's strategic goals were in Syria, and he probably kept it that way just in case things went south.

What we do know is that

1) Putin is now mostly out of Syria, and

2) We had GOP candidates who were willing to start WW3 over that place due to Russia's intervention.

There's some real genius foreign policy, right?

I think it is a main reason why Russia maintains the government of Syria, and to maintain its only naval base in the Med. They are there to prop up the regime so that the regime continues to deny permission to build the pipeline which would compete with oil from Russia.

The Saudis want the pipeline and wish to destroy to Syrian regime.

The Russians want it through Ukraine. They are creating the conflict to take over Ukraine, to permit the pipeline.

The US is supporting the Saudi supply through Syria, so it is allied with the Saudis in getting rid of the Syrian leadership.

ISIS was created to facilitate the conflict. They are fighting with the Saudis in Syria.

Why the pipeline? It would save the cost of the shipping in dangerous waters, and make it more secure that shipping and the possibility of piracy and military embargos.

In the meantime, an oil pipeline would give royalties to every Muslim nation in its path. It would also give the Saudis the option of cutting off Europe’s oil.

Could it be attacked? Yes, but those who would attack it are the beneficiaries of the line, and I don’t think it will happen.

Staring at a map, I can't see the critical importance of Syria in this pipeline issue, at least not to the point of waging a war and sponsoring terrorist groups that have completely destabilized the entire Middle East.

The Saudis could pipe oil straight north, through Iraq, into Turkey.

They could pipe it through Jordan and Israel, then load it on tankers at the Israeli coast and save Suez Canal fees and 3,000 miles of shipping.

They could pipe it straight west across Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, then pipe it into southern Italy.

Why would any of those solutions be more politically complicated or more dangerous or more expensive than trying to overthrow Assad and trying to replace him with a new dictator who might - or might not - be reliably pro-Saudi?

And once you leave Turkey, then what? Pipe through the politically unstable Balkans? Pipe through politically unstable Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia?

And once you finally reach the stable and wealthy countries of northern Europe, you will have to deal with eco-terrorists and with governments that are committed to replacing carbon based energy with renewable energy.

To my eye, Syria is just one more possible solution to an incredibly complex and risky pipeline into Europe.

Syria is no better, and no worse, than half a dozen other high risk solutions.

This is a proposal that was made several years ago and factors in political complications that exist along these other routes.

For example, they would never go through Israel...because Jews.

They could not go through the Sinai if it is subject to be taken over by Israel, or if the government of Egypt was not in agreement in a long-term sense. It would then make the shipping across the Med a continuing reality.

Shipping through Turkey was a goal discussed if it was to reach southeastern Europe. I am assuming that there were reasons why it could not go the route you suggest.

It is all about the competition between the Mideast oil states and Russian oil.

Why else would anyone care about what happens in Syria? The only national interest for anyone is Mediterranean ports and oil transport.

I also wonder about undiscovered oil reserves in the area, whether they are there and no one will admit it.

A bit of detail of what was discussed - from Wikipedia:

Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline

Country Iran, Iraq, Syria[1]
General direction east–west
From Asalouyeh, Iran
Passes through Damascus, Syria
General information
Type Natural gas
Technical information
Length 5,600 km (3,500 mi)
Maximum discharge 110 million cubic metres of natural gas per day[1]
Diameter 56 in (1,422 mm)
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline (called the Friendship Pipeline by the governments involved and the Islamic gas pipeline by some Western sources[2]) is a proposed natural gas pipeline running from the Iranian South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field field towards Europe via Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to supply European customers as well as Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.[1] The pipeline was planned to be 5,600 km (3,500 mi) long and have a diameter of 56 inches.[1] A previous proposal, known as the Persian Pipeline, had seen a route from Iran’s South Pars to Europe via Turkey; it was apparently abandoned after the Swiss energy company Elektrizitätsgesellschaft Laufenburg halted its contract with Iran in October 2010 in the face of pressure over US sanctions against Iran.[3][4]
Iraq signed an agreement with Iran in June 2013 to receive natural gas to fuel Iraqi power plants in Baghdad and Diyala. The contract covers 1.4 Bcf/d over 10 years. Iran’s plans to export 176 MMscf/d of gas to Iraq by 2015.[5]

In July 2011 Iran, Iraq and Syria said they planned to sign a contract potentially worth around $6bn to construct a pipeline running from South Pars towards Europe, via these countries and Lebanon and then under the Mediterranean to a European country, with a refinery and related infrastructure in Damascus.[1][6][7][8] In November 2012 the United States dismissed reports that construction had begun on the pipeline, saying that this had been claimed repeatedly and that “it never seems to materialize.”[9] A framework agreement was to be signed in early 2013, with costs now estimated at $10bn;[10] construction plans were delayed by the Syrian civil war.[11] In December 2012 the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies said that the project “remains doubtful. It is not clear how such a project will be financed given that both Iran and Syria are subject to strict financial sanctions.”[12] In July 2015, Iranian Gas Engineering and Development Company (IGEDC) and Pasargad Energy Development Company signed a BOT (build-operate-transfer) contract under which the project owner will provide 25% of finance and National Development Fund of Iran the rest for the construction of IGAT-6.[13]

The pipeline would be a competitor to the Nabucco pipeline from Azerbaijan to Europe.[1] It is also an alternative to the Qatar-Turkey pipeline which had been proposed by Qatar to run from Qatar to Europe via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.[14] Syria’s rationale for rejecting the Qatar proposal was said to be “to protect the interests of [its] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”[14]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.