To readers of this thread, what is published in “Military Review” is not necessarily the opinion of the U.S. Army. Read the following instead of being fooled by implications in fake news.
MILITARY REVIEW
“Military Review is the U.S. Army’s forum for original thought and debate on the art and science of land warfare. Authors and readers comprise researchers, politicians, leaders, academics, and heads of industry. Stimulating leaders to think critically and deal with controversial subjects while providing a medium to inform on new ideas and analyze concepts, doctrine and warfighting principles.” [U.S. Army https://www.army.mil/media/publications/ ]
To find out what was really in the article referred to by the Yahoo piece excerpted in the post above this thread, read the original article.
What Kind of Victory for Russia in Syria?
Michael Kofman
Matthew Rojansky, JD
http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/March-April-2018/Rojansky-Victory-for-Russia/
The war in Syria, like most wars, is not, and never was a zero sum game with the singular exception of the Assad regime. Here is my assessment of “winners and losers”
Russia “won” i.e. achieved its goal of maintaining and expanding access to Syrian ports and airfields.
Iran “lost” because they could not successful project military power decisively into Syria. The Revolutionary Guards achieved tactical successes, but failed to achieve any significant strategic objectives. Assad owes his survival to Moscow, not Tehran.
Hezbollah “lost,” they poured a lot of combat power into Syria at Iran’s behest, and have achieved bupkis. What limited independence they had from Tehran is likely reduced. But they still maintain influence in Lebanon.
Israel “won.” Arab/Muslim infighting generally benefits Israel. Syria, once the main opponent in the West, is crippled for at least one-two generations.
The U.S. as a whole “won.” the only important strategic goal we have is defeating ISIS. That potential future (if unchecked) existential opponent has been resoundingly defeated and fragmented. Obama “lost” as his strategy was demonstrably a failure. Trump “won” because he modified Obama’s enough to beat ISIS. All other strategic considerations are, at best marginal interests for the U.S. Though Russian influence in Syria will be pain in the backside.
Turkey is on the path to losing. Yes, they have tactical success in Afrin, but Erdogan’s goal of being the preeminent power in the Middle East is dying a slow death. No Arab wants to see a recreation of the Ottoman Empire and no one trusts Erdogan. Turkey is showing they cannot project power and achieve strategic goals. Further, he is distancing Turkey from NATO and the U.S and will face Russians to both the north and south when that relationship inevitably sours.
The Kurds will be losers to an extent. The dream of an independent Kurdistan is dead at least for the foreseeable future. The U.S. remains their only friend, and while we will help, they are not a vital interest to us. The Turks will maul them where they can, and Kurdish Iraq is tied to a Baghdad that is barely preferable to Ankara. Arabs don’t like Kurds, but many Turks want them dead. The Syrian Kurds may be a bit better off. Assad knows they didn’t target his regime and may provide them limited autonomy
The Assad regime “won” but barely survived. They are a satrap to Moscow and they know it.
The various Syrian insurgent groups mostly lost. It will depend upon Assad’s willingness to deal with each of them. The groups in the west that we supported against ISIS will probably fare better than those north of Damascus.
The big losers are the Syrian Sunni Muslim population, who hated Assad, but suffered the most in the attempt to depose him. Second are the Alawites, who lost thousands of young men in the attempt to preserve the Assad regime.