OK Jeff let me finish with this (I'll try to keep it as brief as I can, and while there'll be economy-related points, I believe I don't go off topic):You can pull the general Webster's definition all you want, Jura. it is a term that is classically, in non-military applications, rooted in a mud hole.
However a military Quagmire is typically associated with a drawn out campaign that is very expensive in men, material, and money, and that one is finding a hard to extracting one's self with.
If Bloomberg said it...then he's wordsmithing and displaying his own bias IMHO..
Fact is, IMHO and based on four decades of watching this stuff, and studying hundreds of years of military conflict, I'd stand by my statement.
Calling Russia's involvement in Syria a quagmire at this point is far, far too premature.
I look at the following numbers, for now
- five thousand Russian troops in Syria (says
- 70% of Syria territory under ISIL control (says
- two Russians KIA in Syria;
- US$ for more than seventy Rubles (tragicomic gazeta.ru article from today, pulling the quotes of Russian Officials:
- oil for about thirty-five US$ per barrel (it's slightly more, and it depends on Brent/WTI etc., but that's not the point)
So I'm sorry to disagree with you, Jeff, but I also think the intervention in Syria becomes Russian "quagmire".