The short answer is “no!”. However,
There are clear signs of two things happening:
a) Russian politicians and decision makers have different views about the situation in Syria. Some think that Assad will lose, while others think that government forces have inflicted serious losses on the insurgency.
Keep in mind: differences in opinion between experts do NOT AT ALL mean a change in policies. Russia’s policy towards Syria is one based on principles and not one which will change depending on circumstances. Russia has clearly said that it will never allow a “Libya #2” in Syria. That is a principled position which in itself does not secure an outcome, only excludes a specific scenario.
b) The Kremlin is clearly working on contingency plans which include a possible evacuation of Russian citizens should the insurgency present an even bigger threat to Russian nationals.
Keep in mind: several Russian (and Ukrainian) nationals have been kidnapped by the insurgents which, in a typical Wahabi-thug manner, are now demanding a ransom in US dollars. This is an ominous development which the Kremlin cannot ignore. Again, contingency plans do NOT AT ALL mean a change in policies. To take all the necessary measures to protect its nationals is an inherent obligation of any state and not an original policy.
In the past I wrote several posts to the effect that the “Russians are not coming” (to rescue Assad) and now I have to post again saying that “the Russians are not leaving either”…
M. K. Bhadrakumar, whom I respect a lot and whom I consider a very good expert, has, this time, gotten it fundamentally wrong when he says that Russia changes tack on Syria. Russian policy on Syria has not changed one bit: Russia will oppose the US/NATO/Wahabi war on Syria by all political means, Russia will remain open to a negotiated political solution as long as it approved by the UN Security Council and Russia reserves the right to take any action needed in defense of its nationals. That’s it – no more, no less.
Frankly, I find this policy rather simple, clear and rational and I don’t see why so many experts are zig-zagging between predictions of “Russia sends its Navy to stop NATO’s aggression against Syria” to “Russia has given up on Syria” or “Russia and US in secret deal over Assad”.
Fundamentally, Russia is using the power that it has (veto at the UNSC) and stays away from pretending to use the power it does not have (military intervention). By the way, this is also exactly what China is doing, all for the same reasons, yet nobody is constantly speaking about Chinese zig-zags on China. Why? Because China is not the ex-Soviet Union with global ambitions.
This is the key thing which so many experts simply cannot get used to: Russia is not a global power anymore. In fact, it has absolutely no desire to become one again. Russia is, of course, a major power which, in theory, could challenge the USA, just like China could. However, both Russia and China could only do that a great, immense, risk for themselves.
And then there is the time factor: both Russia and China fully realize that they, even more than the other BRICS countries, have time on their side and that each passing year makes them stronger. The USA, in contrast, is globally overextended, burdened by a debt it will never pay, hated world wide, and the only thing which still keeps it going is the fact that the rest of the planet is too afraid of the US military to openly refuse to use the US dollar as a currency reserve and to pay for its energy. The US is also socially dysfunctional, culturally sterile, militarily over-extended, economically de-industrialized, and politically “neo-feudal” (1% rule over 99% of serfs). Sooner or later the USA will become weak enough to make it possible for any major power, including Russia or China, to openly defy it, but while it is still powerful but weakening it is an extremely dangerous foe which should not be under-estimated. This is why Russia, along with the other regional powers on the planet, will continue to carefully wait for the right time and avoid any sudden move which would compromise all that it has achieved in the past 12 years.
One more thing: the EU. I would argue that the current condition of the EU is even worse than the one of the USA. Russian politicians look at the EU in total disgust. Just yesterday I was listening to one Russian expert saying that all that the EU had to offer was a “never ending gay-pride parade combined with a massive Maghrebization of Africanization of its society”. That is not a bad way to put it. The EU, as a political project, is dying, and the European society arguable even more dysfunctional than the US one. The likes of Sarkozy and Merkel can delude themselves by playing big power politics, but the fact that French Rafales were the first to bomb Libya will change exactly nothing to prevent the French society from dying from the truly cataclysmic influx of immigrants, most of which come from the Maghreb. From Estonia to Portugal and from Bulgaria to Iceland, Europe is nothing more than a US colony, totally ruined by a corrupt political elite, which is sinking as fast as the Titanic did, and whose orchestra (corporate media) is still playing its happy ballroom music.
But “dying” and “dead” are very different things. The EU is still a huge market, and the EU elites have a lot of soft power to throw around, much more than Russia. And this is why at least for the time being, Russia will try to avoid openly antagonizing the EU.
I hope that the above sheds some light on Russia’s policies in general and Russia’s policies towards Syria in particular. If you have any questions, opinions or comments, please feel free to post them here.
The Saker
Mass immigration is a consequence of the West imposing brutal market fundamentalist “structural adjustment” policies on the Third World. This is chickens come home to roost.
The War on Drugs finances the mafia and terrorism world wide and massively strengthens the criminal gangs that have totally penetrated some of the immigrant communities. In Britain we used to have a sensible drugs policy whereby heroin was treated as a medical problem and addicts could get it prescribed by doctors which meant they weren’t dependant on criminal pushers.
This ended in the early Seventies largely thanks to massive pressure from the Nixon administration. The catastrophic War on Drugs is another of the US Empire’s gifts to the world.
A former narc cop Michael Ruppert lost his job by going public about the CIA importing cocaine into the US. I believe he testified before Congress about it but nothing has been done.
When conservative morons accuse those calling for an end to prohibition of being soft on crime the simple answer to to accuse them of being in bed with the mafia. Prohibition simply gives the likes of Al Capone a monopoly they wouldn’t otherwise have. And because drugs are illegal the mafia use murder and torture to enforce contracts rather than going to the courts as legit businessmen would. Far from protecting vulnerable people from drugs prohibition gets people killed.
About the only thing I agree with Milton Friedman about is when he said prohibition only benefits three groups, the mafia, the people bribed by the mafia and the DEA who are kept in a job.
Some European countries are moving towards decriminalisation of drugs if not legalisation. This still leaves the mafia and terrorists with a huge money making opportunity but it’ nonetheless a huge improvement. Europe will solve this problem before the US does.
Meanwhile Max Keiser of RT’s Keiser Report has denounced HSBC as involved in money laundering for the Mexican drug cartels. He also claims that the City of London is the epicentre of global financial fraud worse regulated than Wall Street. The UK is a moral cesspit and has no business lecturing Russia on anything.
@Robert: The War on Drugs finances the mafia and terrorism world wide and massively strengthens the criminal gangs that have totally penetrated some of the immigrant communities.
Absolutely true! After a lot of soul searching on that topic, I personally came to the conclusion that all drugs – prescription or recreational – should be readily available just as Aspirin is today. I am for a full legalization of all drugs and a total decriminalization of its use. One of the key ideas which brought me to that is the fact that the percentage of addicted people in any one country does not change with laws. Each society society will have its percentage X of addicts (to drugs, or booze or whatever) and this percentage is much more a factor of, for example, genetics than laws. “Solving” the addiction problem by banning drugs is as futile as “solving” the violence problem by banning guns. Neither will work.
And yes, immigrants are the perfect vector for any kind of smuggling, including drugs. Most European cities have fully ethnic drug cartels. But that is a politically incorrect thing to say, especially if at the top you have the Jewish mafia (like in France).
Finally, there is so much money made by government officials in this insane war on drugs that they have a vested interest in having it go into perpetuity, just like this craze Global War on Terror (GWOT).
Endless wars – how totally Orwellian indeed…
Cheers!
Not so sure about guns. A total ban is not practical or politically possible but sensible regulation might work. In an ideal world the US would interpret its Second Amendment as being about collective provision for national defence. You could have a system whereby militias, gun clubs and hunting clubs registered with the state (not the Federal govt but the state) and provided an individual was in good standing with their milita they could keep the weapons issued to them at home, unless convicted of a felony. Farmers are entitled to have licensed guns to deal with vermin and so on. What the NRA fanatics and the libertarians have done is interpet the Second Amendment as an absolute license for any crazy individual to own automatic weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition even if they have mental health issues. I suffer from bipolar disorder and certainly don’t think it would be a good idea for me to have access to an automatic weapon.
Like drugs reform needn’t mean a total free for all. Legalise, tax and regulate.
@Robert: on guns my take is influenced by my life in Switzerland. You want a gun – no problem. Get a permit certifying that you are neither a criminal nor mentally impaired, and you can get one. Your gun will be registered, of course.
Actually, I see guns just like cars and big dogs: potentially dangerous things which you should only get if you use it responsibly and for which you should be held liable civilly and criminally. You need a license for a car? Get one for your gun too, pass a course if needed. You want to have a potentially dangerous dog? Same thing (full disclosure – I have 4 dogs, including 2 shepherds which are very well trained). Having potentially dangerous items should be an extra responsibility and the state should make sure you do not endanger others with it.
So I am very much for regulations and against a free for all. All I meant with my comment above is that banning guns does not solve the problem of violence. I did not mean to say that guns should be a free for all.
–BEGIN VENTING–
One more thing: its usually the same bloody assholes who cannot drive their cars who then have dogs which don’t obey them and guns which they misuse. The real problem is, frankly, the FRIGGIN HUMAN STUPIDITY and that is not one we will ever solve. I live in Florida, which I love, but believe me, between the moronic drivers, the idiots with their obligatory Pitbulls and guns all over the place, I have given up hope for any regulation to civilize these congenital cretins with their hug SUVs which they cannot even park, their obnoxious and ugly Harley Davidsons, their guns and their out of control dogs
–END VENTING–
Seriously, most humans are pretty dull, and quite a few are amazingly stupid. They are usually the cause of most of these social problems, and no amount of prohibition or regulation will ever turn these cretins into valuable members of society.
That is a very depressing thought…
Saker
In general, I agree with you but Russia’s policy towards Syria is not only “one based on principles”
Its also bassed on interests, and Russian national security. So, Russia can’t throw the towel neither Syria nor for Assad, because after Assad there would be no Syria, and the post-Assad’s Syrias would say bye bye to Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah.
So, Russia needs Syria more than Syria needs Rassia, all the planed gas pipes passes through syria, in particular, Homs, and such pipe lines would lift a russian sword off Europes neck.
Time is not on the side of China and Russia only, its also on the side of Iran and Syria though syria is paying heavly every day.
To the extent that genuinely autonomous nation states continue as the major military and political arbiters of the planets military and political affairs, I agree with that analysis.
My worry is that transnational organisations with minimal national loyalties/allegiances are coming to dominate foreign affairs and marginalising nation states in the process. The major globalised corporations seem to be the driving force, with their bought-and-paid-for politicians, bureaucrats and intelligence establishments who effectively moderate the treaty interpretation and development process (among other critical things). Their big potential problen lies in the ultimate loyalties/allegiances of the military establishments that they rely on as enforcers of last resort. That together with the mass of the planets population that really have come to hate America and NATO with a vengeance.
The thing that nags me deeply is the possibility of Putin and/or other capable Russian and Chinese big-hitters being made offers they can’t refuse. In other words, when the chips are finally down in this accelerating global game of poker, where will their loyalties really lie? OTOH maybe it should be seen as a global chess game, in which case the calculus may be different. Hey Ho.
PS – I agree on both drugs and guns too. Guns are the problem they are in the US because the US is so sick
@uprooted Palestinian:Russia’s policy towards Syria is not only “one based on principles”. Its also bassed on interests, and Russian national security.
Yes, of course, and in this case it is a national interest of Russia to insist that the situation be handled strictly according to international law. Russia seeks a multi-polar world and that means one in which international law is respected. In other words, it is in Russia’s pragmatic national interest to insist in principles.
Russia needs Syria more than Syria needs Rassia,
Oh no, Russia has exactly *zero* need for Syria. Zero. Yes, Russia does see Syria as a friend, and many Russian politicians see Assad as a friend, but that does not mean that anybody in Russia “needs” him.
And Russian gas is already going through two routes (north and south) to Europe in total safety which would never be the case if the EU depended on a pipeline going through Syria. In fact, Russia does not even “need” Iran, though I would argue that Iran is far more important to Russia than Syria. Yes, Syria is strategically located at the crux of the Middle-East, but Russia has very little influence in the Middle-East anyway, and there is no aspect of Russian national security to which the Middle-East would be really important except one: the fact that the USA is trying to impose its will on the Middle-East in total violation of international law which does set a dangerous and highly undesirable precedent for Russia.
Cheers!
@wikispooks: In other words, when the chips are finally down in this accelerating global game of poker, where will their loyalties really lie?
That is a big question indeed. Which would they choose – themselves and their power or the welfare of their people?
I guess that we will never know for sure until they are actually faced with this choice. Sometimes, in historical situations, not so principled folks suddenly take a principled stance, while in other circumstances previously rather idealistic people suddenly cave in and betray the values they were supposed to stand for.
What I will say is that regardless of personalities, there is, I believe, a very large social consensus in Russia and this social consensus is what gives real power to the Kremlin’s policies. Any politician wanting to go against this social consensus would place himself in a great deal of risk and would have to start ruling by force, which would be rather dangerous.
Bottom line: I am reasonably confident that you can take the current Russian policies to the bank and that there will be no sudden “zag!” though, of course, I cannot be sure.
HTH