Syrian Situation's Development Strongly Tied to Russo-American Game
Published in KM
(Russia) on 29 May 2013
by Mikhail Leontiev (link to original)
(Russia) on 29 May 2013
by Mikhail Leontiev (link to original)
Translated from
by Dagny Dukach.
Edited by Philip Lawler.
Russia has achieved remarkable results with its policies relating to Syria. The media reports that a meeting has taken place between the foreign ministers of the European Union countries. The ministers were unable to negotiate the terms to extend the embargo on arms supplies to Syria, resulting in the lifting of the embargo. Mikhail Leontiev comments on the consequences of this decision.
Many European nations are acting under the logic of escalating idiocy.
Militarily, it makes absolutely no sense to allow European arms shipments to Syria. I believe Syria will receive shipments of both small arms and limited quantities of special weaponry that the opposition can afford. These weapons would travel into the country across practically every border. Delivery of heavy weaponry, a highly desired objective of the rebels, would be impossible. A stable stronghold would be needed to maintain and hold the weapons, or else the Syrian army would simply destroy them. An air operation would be impossible.
This [situation] is the product of the stubbornness of the Americans. There is a unique scenario in Britain, which is doing an independent evaluation of the issue, but the rest of this European madness resembles what occurred in Libya. The same logic of escalating idiocy enhanced by political crisis is operating in many European countries. At the moment this does not include Germany, which takes a relatively reserved position on Syria. After all, the decision being discussed is not whether or not to send supplies, but rather, whether or not to lift the embargo such that every country can make its own decision on the issue. Moreover, the embargo is not irreversibly lifted; it simply has not been extended. It will continue to be in place for some time, during which the European countries are prepared to return to the discussion of the issue.
There is little logical reasoning in these collective decisions.
The question is: Will the Americans start to put serious pressure on the Europeans to continue the embargo? The U.S. is in a tricky situation since it already has its own problems when it comes to following through on adjusting its own policies. It cannot apply public pressure on the Europeans. The only means by which the Americans can influence Europeans or other potential sponsors or guardians of the Syrian opposition is by supplying Russian S-300 missiles to Syria. This alternative has serious implications that must be carefully considered. I wouldn’t be surprised if this decision was made with the open mutual understanding of the Americans.
If the U.S. can’t work out its problems with its allies on its own, then it should use the Russian S-300s. This would block any discussions of escalation. It is clear that without external support, large quantities of arms deliveries would be senseless and idiotic. Yet, we have long stopped discussing these decisions as it would be pointless; it clearly makes no sense to arm the Syrian rebels.
Russia’s position is the same as it has always been; it understands everything perfectly. Furthermore, Russia has achieved results with its policies in Syria. It’s quite possible that this is extremely annoying to some. After all, Russia has achieved real outcomes by opposing the ideologies of more progressive nations. The short-term outlook for the situation in Syria is to a large extent tied to the Russo-American game and will depend on the extent to which America will be able to carry out adjustments to its course of action.
Many European nations are acting under the logic of escalating idiocy.
Militarily, it makes absolutely no sense to allow European arms shipments to Syria. I believe Syria will receive shipments of both small arms and limited quantities of special weaponry that the opposition can afford. These weapons would travel into the country across practically every border. Delivery of heavy weaponry, a highly desired objective of the rebels, would be impossible. A stable stronghold would be needed to maintain and hold the weapons, or else the Syrian army would simply destroy them. An air operation would be impossible.
This [situation] is the product of the stubbornness of the Americans. There is a unique scenario in Britain, which is doing an independent evaluation of the issue, but the rest of this European madness resembles what occurred in Libya. The same logic of escalating idiocy enhanced by political crisis is operating in many European countries. At the moment this does not include Germany, which takes a relatively reserved position on Syria. After all, the decision being discussed is not whether or not to send supplies, but rather, whether or not to lift the embargo such that every country can make its own decision on the issue. Moreover, the embargo is not irreversibly lifted; it simply has not been extended. It will continue to be in place for some time, during which the European countries are prepared to return to the discussion of the issue.
There is little logical reasoning in these collective decisions.
The question is: Will the Americans start to put serious pressure on the Europeans to continue the embargo? The U.S. is in a tricky situation since it already has its own problems when it comes to following through on adjusting its own policies. It cannot apply public pressure on the Europeans. The only means by which the Americans can influence Europeans or other potential sponsors or guardians of the Syrian opposition is by supplying Russian S-300 missiles to Syria. This alternative has serious implications that must be carefully considered. I wouldn’t be surprised if this decision was made with the open mutual understanding of the Americans.
If the U.S. can’t work out its problems with its allies on its own, then it should use the Russian S-300s. This would block any discussions of escalation. It is clear that without external support, large quantities of arms deliveries would be senseless and idiotic. Yet, we have long stopped discussing these decisions as it would be pointless; it clearly makes no sense to arm the Syrian rebels.
Russia’s position is the same as it has always been; it understands everything perfectly. Furthermore, Russia has achieved results with its policies in Syria. It’s quite possible that this is extremely annoying to some. After all, Russia has achieved real outcomes by opposing the ideologies of more progressive nations. The short-term outlook for the situation in Syria is to a large extent tied to the Russo-American game and will depend on the extent to which America will be able to carry out adjustments to its course of action.
Next article![]( "US Authorities Surveil Journalists")
