While in Syria Russia didn't even really try at all to kill ISIS or ISIL soldiers. Instead they concentrated on killing pro democracy anti-Assad mostly civilians and a few anti Assad fighters. So, crippling and killing Sunni civilians was mostly what they achieved (in other words Sunni Ethnic cleansing of civilians in Syria). So, now they are leaving because he has helped Assad kill enough Sunni Civilians so that Assad's government isn't threatened as much by Sunni Anti-Assad Activists nationwide for now. So, Russia has left Thousands to millions of Walking wounded left alive in it's wake and thousands of their relatives dead as well.
However, it is unlikely that Assad will remain in power forever either at this point. Why Russia is leaving is likely less important than whatever Russia decides to do next. So, keep your eye on Russia more than anything else in the world now.
begin quote from:
Russian withdrawal leaves Isil intact in Syria
| Telegraph.co.uk | - |
No
matter how hard Russian President Vladimir Putin might try to portray
his military intervention in Syria as a great success, the reality is
that Moscow's controversial involvement in the Syrian conflict amounts
to little more than a pyrrhic victory ...
Tuesday 15 March 2016
Russian withdrawal leaves Isil intact in Syria
Moscow has safeguarded its military interests, but failure to tackle terrorism leaves the region unstable
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad Photo: EPA
6:23PM GMT 15 Mar 2016
Comment
No matter how hard Russian President Vladimir Putin might try to portray his military intervention in Syria as a great success, the reality is that Moscow’s controversial involvement in the Syrian conflict amounts to little more than a pyrrhic victory.
In the six months since Russian forces first began military operations
in support of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, they have flown more
than 9,000 combat sorties, destroyed around 209 oil facilities and
helped pro-Assad loyalists to reclaim nearly 4,000 square miles of
territory – including 400 towns and villages – from rebel forces.
All this activity, moreover, has been undertaken with two key
objectives in mind: safeguarding Moscow’s vital strategic interests in
the region and preventing the overthrow of the Assad regime.
To an extent, the Russians can claim they have achieved their
objectives. Russia’s naval base at the Syrian port of Tartous has been
secured, as has its air base and intelligence-gathering centre at
Latakia. The Assad regime, which was in real danger of collapse last
summer, has also been strengthened, not least because the majority of
Russia’s bombing sorties were directed against the rebels.
But the low key manner in which Mr Putin made his surprise announcement
that Moscow is withdrawing its forces suggests the Russian leader is
well aware of the limitations of his Syrian enterprise.
Far from achieving a significant breakthrough in the conflict, all the
Russians have achieved is to prop up a Syrian dictator for whom they
have scant respect. Defending Russia’s military bases in Syria is one
thing: trying to deal with a dysfunctional and deluded politician like
Mr Assad is another matter entirely.
Moscow opposed Damascus falling to pro-Western opposition groups mainly because this would have meant the end of its long-standing military ties with Tartous and Latakia. Putin’s support for Assad, on the other hand, has been lukewarm for some time. During the last attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict, Moscow indicated it was not wedded to Mr Assad’s survival, so long as a successor could be found who would guarantee Russia’s continued military presence in the region, as well as ending the civil war.
As fresh efforts to reopen peace talks get underway in
Geneva to end the conflict, the Russians do not appear to have changed
their opinion of Mr Assad. In his brief statement Mr Putin said “the
effective work of our military created the conditions for the start of
the peace process” without providing any safeguards with regard to Mr
Assad’s future.
Indeed, the timing of the Russian president’s announcement suggests Moscow is rapidly losing patience with the truculent attitude the Syrian delegation has displayed at the opening of the Geneva talks. Walid al-Muallem, the Syrian foreign minister, reacted angrily when opposition delegates suggested Mr Assad’s fate should be included in the talks, declaring “Bashar al-Assad is a red line.”
Nor has Moscow been impressed by comments Mr Assad made in a recent interview in which he declared his intention to continue the fighting until his regime had won back all the territory it had lost. The Assad regime would be long gone had it not been for Russian intervention, so the Kremlin is perfectly entitled to its view that Moscow, not Damascus, will decide if and when the fighting stops.
Add to this the economic hardship Moscow has suffered as a result of its support for Mr Assad, and it is easy to understand why Russia is to keen to extricate itself from the Syrian quagmire. Saudi Arabia, which has demanded the removal of the Assad regime since the start of the conflict, has been one of the driving forces behind the recent collapse in the price of oil. This has had a catastrophic impact on the Russian economy, which relies heavily on the country’s oil revenues.
The most glaring disappointment of Mr Putin’s military
adventure in Syria, though, has been its failure to tackle Islamic
State (Isil), the group that poses the greatest threat to the region’s
security. At the start of Moscow’s involvement Mr Putin insisted the
mission’s main aim was to combat terrorism. Yet Western analysis of
Russian bombing missions shows that the vast majority of them have been
directed against positions held by opposition fighters, while the
attacks on Isil have been minimal. Thus Isil remains as strong in Syria
today as it did when Russian airstrikes first began last July.
The question now is whether, with Russia scaling down its role, this provides a genuine opportunity to end a conflict that has already claimed around 300,000 lives and prompted the biggest migration crisis of modern times? This is certainly a possibility, especially if the fate of the Assad regime does not become the dominant issue at the Geneva talks.
But even if some sort of deal is brokered in Geneva, the immensely more complex challenge presented by Isil will remain. And Isil threatens the stability not only of Syria and the Middle East, but the world.
Moscow opposed Damascus falling to pro-Western opposition groups mainly because this would have meant the end of its long-standing military ties with Tartous and Latakia. Putin’s support for Assad, on the other hand, has been lukewarm for some time. During the last attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict, Moscow indicated it was not wedded to Mr Assad’s survival, so long as a successor could be found who would guarantee Russia’s continued military presence in the region, as well as ending the civil war.
Indeed, the timing of the Russian president’s announcement suggests Moscow is rapidly losing patience with the truculent attitude the Syrian delegation has displayed at the opening of the Geneva talks. Walid al-Muallem, the Syrian foreign minister, reacted angrily when opposition delegates suggested Mr Assad’s fate should be included in the talks, declaring “Bashar al-Assad is a red line.”
Nor has Moscow been impressed by comments Mr Assad made in a recent interview in which he declared his intention to continue the fighting until his regime had won back all the territory it had lost. The Assad regime would be long gone had it not been for Russian intervention, so the Kremlin is perfectly entitled to its view that Moscow, not Damascus, will decide if and when the fighting stops.
Add to this the economic hardship Moscow has suffered as a result of its support for Mr Assad, and it is easy to understand why Russia is to keen to extricate itself from the Syrian quagmire. Saudi Arabia, which has demanded the removal of the Assad regime since the start of the conflict, has been one of the driving forces behind the recent collapse in the price of oil. This has had a catastrophic impact on the Russian economy, which relies heavily on the country’s oil revenues.
The question now is whether, with Russia scaling down its role, this provides a genuine opportunity to end a conflict that has already claimed around 300,000 lives and prompted the biggest migration crisis of modern times? This is certainly a possibility, especially if the fate of the Assad regime does not become the dominant issue at the Geneva talks.
But even if some sort of deal is brokered in Geneva, the immensely more complex challenge presented by Isil will remain. And Isil threatens the stability not only of Syria and the Middle East, but the world.
