plawolf
Lieutenant General
Just like to add and expand on the "Putin hypothesis", but I don't think Putin is only expecting or counting on defections to ISIS. That would require that all rebels are die hard radicals who see only victory or death.
The reality on the ground is far more likely that the true hardcore jihadists are not the overwhelming majority, or even the majority maybe.
I would expect a significant part of the rebel movement to be made up of paid mercenaries, opportunists and armed militia and bandit groups out to make hay during the chaos of war. You also have a fair number of foreign "war tourists" who come to fight for whatever cause they have convinced themselves is just, but who are not committed for the long term.
Right now, war is profitable and entirely survivable as far as all of the above groups are concerned. Obviously fighting involves significant dangers and risk, but currently, in their minds, the pros of continuing to be involved outweighs the cons.
Putin hopes to drastically change that calculus for these guys by closing the boarder with Turkey.
That would make resupply extremely hard, risky and costly (both in terms of money and lives), make extraction improbably (mercenaries and war tourists are happy to kill for pay and pleasure, but few are actually prepared to die for the cause), and generally make war profiteering far harder.
I think that if it looked like the Russians and Syrians might be close to closing the Turkish boarder, you will start to see a massive exodus of mercenaries and war tourists, with many militias and non-radical armed groups suddenly very open to peace talks or even switching sides if some concessions are made locally to safeguard their most important interests.
You will see a lot of defections to ISIS, but you are also likely to see many defections to Assad and other previously formidable fighting strengths simply melt away.
I think here is where the real hardnosed geopolitics of Russia and the West will collide most strongly and fiercely, and why western efforts at combating ISIS has thus far been so...disappointingly ineffective.
I believe many in the western security establishment actually secretly liked the Syrian conflict as it was, and could have happily see it rage for all eternity as it has been. The reason is that Syria was acting like a giant jihadist bug-zapper.
It was attracting jihadists from all over the world, much of them the western world, removing dangerous and hard, if not impossible to find and prosecute elements from within western societies. Where they are "dying like dogs in the sun" in Syria, and taking significant Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah strengths with them to the afterlife.
Syria was actually in effect doing the "job" of Iraq and Afghanistan, without the associated cost in blood and treasure it was costing America and the western alliance to bleed world-wide jihad and expend their main strengths abroad, so they have less time and resources to try and mount attacks against well defended western interests and targets in the western home territories.
Russia's entry into the conflict has already massively changed the delicate balance that was working so well in the west's favour, and I think that is one of the key reasons why the west is so foaming at the mouth mad about it.
Look at the past 3-4 years before Russia entered the conflict and after. How many significant, successful attacks have been launched in western countries before Russia got involved? How many since?
The reason is very simply. Russia getting involved has already started to change the risk-reward calculus for many western war/jihad tourists, and they have been starting to trickle back home.
I think the Syrian refugee crisis was a bit of an unexpected development for the western security establishment. The western intelligence shot-callers probably thought of Syria as some far removed foreign place and expected normal passport controls to be enough to allow them to find and flag citizens who travel abroad for jihad upon their return.
Now they are already panicking about how to weed out sleeper jihadist agents from amongst the hundreds of thousands of real refugees, just as the trickle of jihad returnees is starting to turn into a flood as more and more are deciding they don't want to be on the receiving end of modern air power.
Its an incredibly de-moralising experience to be pounded and not be able to fight back at all.
Against the Syria army, even the hardened Hezbollah fighters and Iranian Republican Guard special forces (who might or might not be there), you'd at least know you can fight back and hurt them and at least stand a chance in a fight.
Against a cruise missile or laser guided bomb, or even your bog-standard iron bomb dropped with skill and precision, you got no chance.
The western powers stepping up their own air campaigns is partly because of Paris, but also largely to try and kill as many jihadists as they can before they melt away and start re-appearing on the streets of London, Paris, Berlin and New York.
The reality on the ground is far more likely that the true hardcore jihadists are not the overwhelming majority, or even the majority maybe.
I would expect a significant part of the rebel movement to be made up of paid mercenaries, opportunists and armed militia and bandit groups out to make hay during the chaos of war. You also have a fair number of foreign "war tourists" who come to fight for whatever cause they have convinced themselves is just, but who are not committed for the long term.
Right now, war is profitable and entirely survivable as far as all of the above groups are concerned. Obviously fighting involves significant dangers and risk, but currently, in their minds, the pros of continuing to be involved outweighs the cons.
Putin hopes to drastically change that calculus for these guys by closing the boarder with Turkey.
That would make resupply extremely hard, risky and costly (both in terms of money and lives), make extraction improbably (mercenaries and war tourists are happy to kill for pay and pleasure, but few are actually prepared to die for the cause), and generally make war profiteering far harder.
I think that if it looked like the Russians and Syrians might be close to closing the Turkish boarder, you will start to see a massive exodus of mercenaries and war tourists, with many militias and non-radical armed groups suddenly very open to peace talks or even switching sides if some concessions are made locally to safeguard their most important interests.
You will see a lot of defections to ISIS, but you are also likely to see many defections to Assad and other previously formidable fighting strengths simply melt away.
I think here is where the real hardnosed geopolitics of Russia and the West will collide most strongly and fiercely, and why western efforts at combating ISIS has thus far been so...disappointingly ineffective.
I believe many in the western security establishment actually secretly liked the Syrian conflict as it was, and could have happily see it rage for all eternity as it has been. The reason is that Syria was acting like a giant jihadist bug-zapper.
It was attracting jihadists from all over the world, much of them the western world, removing dangerous and hard, if not impossible to find and prosecute elements from within western societies. Where they are "dying like dogs in the sun" in Syria, and taking significant Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah strengths with them to the afterlife.
Syria was actually in effect doing the "job" of Iraq and Afghanistan, without the associated cost in blood and treasure it was costing America and the western alliance to bleed world-wide jihad and expend their main strengths abroad, so they have less time and resources to try and mount attacks against well defended western interests and targets in the western home territories.
Russia's entry into the conflict has already massively changed the delicate balance that was working so well in the west's favour, and I think that is one of the key reasons why the west is so foaming at the mouth mad about it.
Look at the past 3-4 years before Russia entered the conflict and after. How many significant, successful attacks have been launched in western countries before Russia got involved? How many since?
The reason is very simply. Russia getting involved has already started to change the risk-reward calculus for many western war/jihad tourists, and they have been starting to trickle back home.
I think the Syrian refugee crisis was a bit of an unexpected development for the western security establishment. The western intelligence shot-callers probably thought of Syria as some far removed foreign place and expected normal passport controls to be enough to allow them to find and flag citizens who travel abroad for jihad upon their return.
Now they are already panicking about how to weed out sleeper jihadist agents from amongst the hundreds of thousands of real refugees, just as the trickle of jihad returnees is starting to turn into a flood as more and more are deciding they don't want to be on the receiving end of modern air power.
Its an incredibly de-moralising experience to be pounded and not be able to fight back at all.
Against the Syria army, even the hardened Hezbollah fighters and Iranian Republican Guard special forces (who might or might not be there), you'd at least know you can fight back and hurt them and at least stand a chance in a fight.
Against a cruise missile or laser guided bomb, or even your bog-standard iron bomb dropped with skill and precision, you got no chance.
The western powers stepping up their own air campaigns is partly because of Paris, but also largely to try and kill as many jihadists as they can before they melt away and start re-appearing on the streets of London, Paris, Berlin and New York.
it's breaking news at Russian news-servers:
