Russia's Failed Adventure in Syria

by Con Coughlin
December 1, 2015 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6990/russia-failure-syria

Translations of this item:

Spanish

Then there is the question of just how long Russia can afford to sustain its expensive military adventure in Syria. The Russian economy already has enough difficulties without having to bear the cost of Mr Putin's latest act of military aggression.

Russian President Vladimir Putin may well come to regret agreeing to Iran's request for Moscow to intervene militarily in Syria's brutal civil war.

The shooting down of a Russian warplane over the Syrian border by Turkey has graphically illustrated the risks Moscow faces after the Kremlin agreed to intervene on behalf of Syria's beleaguered President Bashar al-Assad.

Mr Putin took his fateful decision to launch military action in Syria after meeting Major-General Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's notorious Quds Force, in Moscow last August. Visiting Moscow shortly after the conclusion of June's deal on the future of Iran's nuclear programme (JCPOA), Soleimani delivered a blunt warning to the Russian leader that the Assad regime, Russia's long-standing strategic ally in the Middle East, faced defeat without outside support.

Major-General Soleimani's intervention was sufficient to persuade Mr Putin to enter the Syria fray, and within weeks Russian SU-24 Sukhoi bombers were regularly attacking the positions of opposition fighters, while forces from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have been brought in as reinforcements to bolster the ranks of pro-Assad Syrian Army forces and their Lebanese Hizbollah allies.

Yet, even before last week's shooting down of a Russian SU-24 bomber by a Turkish F-16 fighter, there were clear signs that the new joint Russian-Iranian offensive is struggling to make headway against the Syrian rebels.

The first sign that Russia's military intervention was not going according to plan came in October, when a Russian-backed plan to recapture the strategically important northern Syrian city of Hama was halted by stiff rebel resistance. Western intelligence sources say one decisive factor was the delivery to the rebels of 500 U.S.-made TOW anti-tank missiles, believed to have been provided by the Saudis.

In what has since become known locally as the "massacre of the tanks", nearly 20 tanks and armoured personnel carriers fielded by the Assad regime were knocked out of action by the highly accurate TOW missiles.

The fierce resistance put up by anti-government forces, which also claimed the lives of several senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers, dealt a serious blow to the morale of regime loyalists. It also resulted in a significant change of tactics on the part of the Russians who, aware of the limitations of the regime's ground forces, have increased their reliance on air power to achieve their objective of defeating the rebels.

But while the Russians insist that their main attacks in Syria are being directed against fighters associated with the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), the reality is that they are bombing a large variety of anti-Assad forces – including those backed by the U.S.-led military coalition. One of the explanations given for the Turks shooting down a Russian SU-24 jet was that it had been bombing rebel groups backed by Turkey rather than ISIS, as the Russians later claimed.

The lack of progress made in Syria since Mr Putin first authorized Russian military involvement could soon have serious repercussions for the Kremlin.

Public support for the mission in Russia is starting to wane, after Investigators suggested the bombing of a Russian passenger jet over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula at the end of October, killing all 224 on board, was carried out by ISIS terrorists in retaliation for Moscow's military campaign.

Many Russians are also wary of the country becoming embroiled in another long, drawn-out military entanglement, as happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s and ultimately ended with the Soviet Union suffering an ignominious defeat.

And then there is the question of just how long Russia can afford to sustain its expensive military adventure in Syria. The Russian economy already has enough difficulties without having to bear the cost of Mr Putin's latest act of military aggression. Moscow's invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s ultimately bankrupted the Soviet Union: the Syrian conflict could have a similarly catastrophic effect on modern Russia.

Con Coughlin is the Defence Editor of the Daily Telegraph, London.

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Related Topics: Russia, Syria

Recent Articles by Con Coughlin

Charging Netanyahu with War Crimes Shows the ICC Is Illegitimate and Not Fit for Purpose, 2024-12-01
Trump Would Be Wise To Deliver Regime Change in Iran, 2024-11-17
United Nations' Material Support for Terrorism: Allegedly Gave $1.3 Billion to Hamas in Cash, Presumably for Weapons, 2024-10-13
Defeating Hezbollah Will Strengthen the West, 2024-10-01
The New UK Government's Anti-Israel Policy Is a Disgrace, 2024-09-12

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

18 Reader Comments

William Cleveland • Dec 1, 2015 at 20:55

Just as the Obama/Clinton/Saudi Cabal murdered 4 Americans and Moamar Qhadafi in Libya, and in doing so turned Libya into a terrorist haven playground, throwing out Assad is the same plan -- different country. The run-up, and intent in Libya, was transferring tens of millions of dollars in both light and heavy weapons, from Libya, through Turkey into the hands of ISIS, Al-Nusra and any other terrorist organization that claimed animosity to the Assad government.

Just as in Libya, under Qhadafi, women, minorities and non-Muslims in fact lived lives free of the barbarism of radical Islam. Qhadafi was, justifiably, a bastard towards radical Islam and that was the forces he had been fighting when Hillary Clinton sold him out to the Saud family. In the process, Clinton committed treason against the U.S. and is directly responsible for the deaths of the four Americans at Benghazi.

Assad is a secular ruler, as was Qhadafi, deposing Assad hands Syria over to the animals of Islamic jihad and creates another deathland, exactly like Libya is today. Let us all fervently pray that Putin stuffs all opposition to Assad into a coffin. Otherwise Syria becomes another jihadi stronghold of savages, dedicated to bringing America to her knees, by whatever means they can execute.

Reply->

Clint Warren • Dec 1, 2015 at 18:55

Great website, this is the first time that I am seeing it.

I follow international news pretty closely but, like the majority, only see it from the outside. I have no inside knowledge of affairs.

If I may say: the downing of a 25-year-old bomber hardly constitutes a catastrophe and is hardly likely to reoccur after the deployment of S-400 missiles close to the border.

The Russian campaign only really heated up in mid November -- a thousand tankers destroyed, numerous refineries hit -- seems a pretty good start to me!

As for the downing of the Russian civilian jet: Russia was not their intended target, however after failing to place the bomb on a British plane the opportunity arose to get it aboard the Russian plane. An opportunistic crime.

When ISIS exploded on the scene the first thought that occurred to me was that this could be as significant as the Tet Offensive. Do we pack up and leave again or will the NATO nations vote the necessary funds to eliminate this group. Or do we learn to live with them?

Please excuse my naivety, but this is how one man on the street sees it.

Clint.

Reply->

Jeb Stuart • Dec 1, 2015 at 13:58

The most recent reports are that Russia is sending heavy and mobile artillery units to Syria. This is not an indicator that Russia is feeling beaten, merely upping the stakes. Russia is not using our ROEs or evaluating progress in any terms other than military battlefield damage. They are heavily invested in oil and oil lines from Iraq. They want to use their hegemony against Turkey, which is not oil independent and for a number of reasons beginning with the Georgian invasion imposed any sort of deliveries oil it does not control.

In assessments to date, Russian oil dependent Turkey has not been ascribed how it will get around these embargoes. They have much more to lose than Russia economically. Russia will go all in to protect its near monopoly on oil and oil pipelines in the region.

Reply->

KenW • Dec 1, 2015 at 11:34

Does it not make sense that the Iranians are/will bail Russia out for intervening in Syria. They, Iran, now have billions after Obama gave it to them in the fake nuclear deal. They, Iran, have already bought millions of dollars worth of rockets from Russia. Something prohibited in 'the treaty'.

Reply->

David Ashton • Dec 1, 2015 at 11:22

The trouble is that the UK has no credible follow-up plan to bombing ISIS-held territories. Saudi Arabia has had a curious role all along over ISIS, as has Turkey. It is quite true that Russia is weaker than it pretends, so why not leave Putin take on ISIS and take the flak from the results? The "democratic" opposition to Assad is negligible from a united military perspective, so the west should cut its losses instead of letting others cut their throats.

Reply->

Stan Lee

David Ashton • Dec 2, 2015 at 18:32

David Cameron appears to want to do "the right thing." But, while his gesture may be genuine, he's about to move on the Syrian issue by adding RAF missions to French and U.S. missions (for what they're worth!), while Barack Obama has the reins on U.S. air power via his highly limited ROE. And now, his government has announced for the entire world to know, that he's sent U.S. Special Forces in to hit IS. But they're not to be construed as "boots on the ground!" Silliness by Obama! Absolutely stupid on his part in view of the nature of Special Ops missions which depend upon secrecy and surprise.

I doubt that Cameron would ever be so stupid! Obama has announced it as if it's already worth a "victory lap" to him. He's done all but phone IS and give them the time and place. It will be all talk on his part, as it always is. (Those two mythical "red Lines" -- remember?)

Putin will concentrate upon hitting Assad's enemies, which to him are those backed by Turkey, Saudis, and a forked-tongue Obama. Those so-called Syrian rebels are the anti-Assad forces and they're the force being hit by Russia, and coincidentally IS when they're in the way. Putin's main interests are the Tartous Naval Base for his Mediterranean fleet, plus the Latakia Military Base which he has rebuilt and reinforced. All coastal.

The air space is becoming very crowded and there is bound to be a Russian misfire from those newly installed Russian AA S-400 batteries.

There'll be Russian French, British (soon), U.S., and occasionally Israeli aircraft (though they're most interested in military hardware enroute to IS in close approaches to Israel). Quite a mess considering that most of the fighting is now being done with air power missions.

By the way, any Arab forces of recognized Arab nations, in the vicinity of fighting, is purely accidental.

Reply->

Phil N • Dec 1, 2015 at 10:47

"... Mr Putin's latest act of military aggression." - Whose aggression? Syria is a sovereign nation ruled by a secular dictator. The US, Turkey and Saudi Arabia conspired to oust that dictator and replace him with, well that is unclear. It is hard to believe that Saudi Arabia, one of the most brutal and repressive regimes in the world wanted to replace him with anything other than a Sunni Islamic dictator. This too seems to be Turkey's aim.

When the initial aggression (yes, we were clearly the aggressors) by the US, Turkey and Saudi Arabia failed, thousands of Sunni Muslim mercenaries, paid for by Saudi Arabia, were brought in through Turkey, no doubt with Obama's blessing. These became the core of ISIS. ISIS and the chaos in the Middle East is on the head of Obama and Hillary.

Reply->

Stan Lee

Phil N • Dec 1, 2015 at 18:08

Vladimir Putin has to keep the Russian people inspired with the image of a resurgent Russia. He's not going to resurrect the image of a USSR, he's aware that any rerun of Afghanistan cannot be allowed to happen. He may have depended upon an Iranian military to deal with any ground war, he may have believed Iran was up to the task, especially equipped with Russian military hardware.

He should have taken a better look at the Iranian military forces. The Iranian "elite force" is not as deep as it has been purported to be. It functioned via the direction of its commander, Suleiman, who now lies in an Iranian hospital, supposedly having facilities to do "wonders." It may require wonders to bring that "elite commander" to his prior state of health because of the wounds he suffered. What was leaked about him was that shrapnel had penetrated his brain. There's been a blackout of any further information concerning the man's wounds. But they were serious enough to rapidly transport him back to Iran, he couldn't receive appropriate medical treatment in Syria.

Iranian news operations are under their government's orders not to convey whatever information they may have about him. He's the king-pin for the Iranian military. Besides that, Iran's Quds Force has sustained much higher casualties than anticipated, they are in no position for an aggressive ground action against Assad's enemies.

Putin threw in with Iran thinking that its potent ground force could be supported by Russian air power, therefore the reports we've heard of Russian bombers far surpassing any air efforts by U.S. air power. That report is true, the Russians would not have the ROE imposed by Obama on U.S. efforts. But, it's doubtful that Putin would send Russian ground forces into the war, the Russian people are still counting their Russian youth losses in Afghanistan. The Iranians don't have the ground forces they were thought to have. They couldn't prevail against Saddam Hussein whose forces that really counted, his Sunnis, fought a larger Iranian Shiite army to a stand-still years ago.

In addition, Putin could be on a hot-seat. Russian Muslims, including Russian Tatars, are about 15% of the Russian population. I believe he, Putin, is well aware not to aggravate the peaceful Tatars of southern Russia, they would be aroused if their boys were conscripted to fight for a Shiite cause. Russia has already had its problems with Caucuses Muslims, an ongoing problem with the Chechens who are Sunni Muslims. Some of them are fighting against the Assad Regime and its Iranian Shia allies. This puts them against Moscow, which they've been against for years. The anti-Assad forces have approx. 3000 Chechen fighters, their commanders received Russian military training through Russian military conscription before they became anti-Russian fighters volunteering to fight the Assad regime.

Putin has to slow it down, Iran was a bad move for him. The Iranians are all publicity, but good fighters they are not.

Reply->

Jeb Stuart • Dec 1, 2015 at 09:57

Isn't it more likely the Russian response will be to double down and escalate the violence? Because a wall was torn down, should we really toss caution to the wind and assume that because the USA puts its economy first, sic and not true, the Russians will?

Putin has a lot of prestige and fortunes at stake and although lowering American esteem and virtues seems to be the goal of the anti-American pro-Islamic clique around Obama, I don't think Putin thinks the same. In fact, his regime characterized Obama as a monkey in the most insulting manner. Not simply disparaging Obama but mocking his ideology.

If Obama thinks of himself as a progressive socialist, Putin obviously thinks 20 trillion in debt and much more than 100 trillion in credits is no proof of a healthy economy.

Chechnya was about oil, the Ukraine is about oil revenues the Ukrainian government reneged on. Russia is invested in its image as a tough speculator in the oil market unafraid to use military force to capitalize on oil enforcing a monopoly in the region and Syria although not an oil producing nation Russia has used the violence to dominate production in Iraq and is looking to the long term of pipelines in which Turkey must be circumvented that leaves the direct route from Iraq north or to Beirut.

Obama may discard oil interests and retreat from world affairs because of shale production, despite the fact he was pro-ethanol as a "renewable" fuel today he is opposed to congress on that issue. The President, who wishes to be known as an environmental giant, is dependent on shale as the only healthy crutch for his horribly failing eco-friendly anti-American socialist economy.

It is a huge mistake to project the way Obama and America under the illusion of a fantasy progressive kingdom does things and Putin, a hard core politician of the realpolitik kind, will do especially when oil revenues are the main currency and power in the former Soviet Union.

Reply->

Gomer Wumphf • Dec 1, 2015 at 09:09

Obama's withdrawal from Iraq enabled ISIS to take and hold territory. His force reductions in Afghanistan are enabling ISIS to expand there and into Pakistan. There are 1.4 billion Sunni Muslims. If "only" 2% are jihadist there are 28 million jihadists. If ISIS gains power in Pakistan, they will get nuclear weapons. Could it possibly be that Russia, unlike the EU, feels that stopping the development of a nuclear capable ISIS, with tens of millions of fighters at it's service on Russia's borders, might be worth any price?

Reply->

Keith Sowden • Dec 1, 2015 at 08:52

It was not so much the USSR which stumbled into defeat in Afghanistan, as a simple American President who was patriotic and led the Russians into a rapid build-up arms race, which only the massive American economy could win. The situation now is different. We have an intellectual president who could not win a race with a one-legged Russian. Instead of a death blow, we'll have a Vietnam-type slow escalation, with no definite winner, for years to come...and all the huffing and puffing of the dithering Europeans will make no difference to the outcome.

Reply->

Ayatollah Ghilmeini • Dec 1, 2015 at 08:51

Iran is using the nuke deal windfall to pay for the war.

It is not clear that even with Russian help that Iran has the numbers or ability to take hold and suppress the rebels long enough to regain control of the country even for a day.

Expect a long slow bleed.

Reply->

Anthony Radbill • Dec 1, 2015 at 08:33

As an expat who reads The Daily Telegraph, I'm familiar with Mr. Coughlin's views. Bless him! Now let me see if I've understood this "Great Game."

On one hand, it's a dastardly proposition for the Russians to intervene for their Arab dictator client. By the way, there is a paucity of democracies of any sort in Arab North Africa and the Middle East. On the other hand, it's perfectly kosher for the USA to smash the crockery to smithereens in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The USA support of Wahhabist Saudi Arabia or the various Pakistani military juntas has been extremely counter-productive. Now which "devil" do we want in Syria -- Assad or IS? Moderates are in rather short supply.

Never mind, the House of Commons will probably vote this week whether we join the bombing campaign. Our contribution will tip the balance. Six fighter jets? Budgie, the helicopter?

I believe Kissinger stated. "The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins." Have the Russians or the Western Powers a clue at how to reconstruct Humpty Dumpty should we emerge from the Syrian imbroglio?

Reply->

Stephen J Newton • Dec 1, 2015 at 08:17

Con Coughlin labours hard to run down the Russian effort which has done more in the last 2 months than the whole of the 4 years of US and its allies.

Iran will support Russia and the result will be IS driven out of Syria and Assad holding elections.

US interference by arming so-called rebels and then their defection to IS has been disastrous for the thousands of innocent folk killed and 4 million refugees in Jordan and Turkey.

Saudi Arabia is simply a conduit for US arms being passed into Syria as is Turkey. So much propaganda from the West as usual and the man in the street no longer trusts US or European governments who have created the worst ever (since 1945) wars and out of control illegal migration with at least 2 million unknowns floating around UK and the rest of the EU. The West screwed up deposing Ghaddafi and Hussein and have created chaos.

Reply->

Eric Hilf • Dec 1, 2015 at 07:58

How do you know that's a "Syrian rebel fighter"? And speaking of expense, where did he get a TOW missile? Can you pick those up at the local hardware store now?

It's a little early to call Russia's intervention in Syria a 'failure'. At least Putin is supporting an historical ally, whereas the "rebels" seem to be intent on making Syria into another Libya. No thanks.

Reply->

Liam • Dec 1, 2015 at 07:37

With the sanctions regimen against Iran ending, $150 billion will be freed up thanks to the Obama administration. If Iran commits but 5% of that, the campaign can go on for quite some time. For Iran, cementing their Shia arc from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf makes the expenditure worthwhile.

Reply->

Ian Harris • Dec 1, 2015 at 07:27

Russia has one of the world's largest standing armies, which presumably has to be fed and paid whether fighting or doing nothing. Everyone has said that ISIL can only be defeated on the ground, but none of the Western powers are willing to do that. Bombing alone has proved inconclusive. If the Russians want to take on ISIL they should be encouraged. The West should pressure 'friendly' Saudi Arabia whose fundamentalist Wahhabist regime supports ISIL with arms and money.

Alternatively, Western powers, and Russia, should stop intervening in the Middle East altogether, in what is fundamentally a religious war, let them get on with it, and concentrate on weeding out, eliminating or deporting the fundamentalist jihadist fifth-column in many of our European cities.

Reply->

Albert • Dec 1, 2015 at 06:40

"The shooting down of a Russian warplane over the Syrian border by Turkey has graphically illustrated the risks Moscow faces..." Wrong! What is it? Are you blind? Turkey is part of Islamic terror worldwide and still a member of NATO. Turkey destroyed a Russian jet while it was attacking Islamic terror in Syria. Even if it mistakenly stayed a little over Turkey, why bring down this plane if Turkey is on the side at war with Islamic terror? The facts are there for all to see. Turkey is the safe harbor where would-be Islamic terrorist go to join ISIS. It is also where trained Islamic terrorists on their way to attack the West go to in order to go to their target to kill "infidels." It is time to take off you blinders and call the murderers by what they are to defeat them: Islamic terror even if it upsets the Islamist in chief in Washington.

Reply->