Russia’s Syria Intervention Sign of Weakness, Not Strength
Russia can only afford to be “bold” in Syria because it has no other allies to care about.
Russia can only afford to be “bold” in Syria because it has no other allies to care about.
The American argues that Russia’s intervention in Syria is a sign of weakness, not strength.
So long as all parties in Syria are determined to destroy each other, America has little reason to get involved.
Russia’s involvement means Syria no longer needs to rely exclusively on its more controlling ally.
The presence of Russian troops in Syria will discourage other powers from invading.
The Syrian leader’s protectors send forces to support his regime in the areas it still controls.
Rather than attack the Islamic State, Russia bombs in defense of Bashar Assad’s homeland.
Syria’s Bashar Assad is not a bulwark against fanaticism and war. He is the enabler of both.
A truce between Islamists and Bashar Assad’s allies involves population transfers in the north and south of Syria.
The Russian leader argues that the alternative to Bashar Assad is the disintegration of Syria.
By drawing out the war in Syria, Russia may be trying to exacerbate a crisis that is dividing Europe.
Russia has interests in Syria, but it also sees the war through the prism of its standoff with the West.
Russia’s support for Bashar Assad makes it seem more reliable to its allies. But at what cost?
An alliance of Islamist groups ejects forces loyal to Bashar Assad from the northwest of Syria.
Rumors swirl about Russian forces in Syria weeks after a high Iranian official visited Moscow.