The View

Russia and China

Put Al-Assad on
life support

Russia fans
the flames
of the Syrian Civil War

Russia and China

Put Al-Assad on Life
Support

he recent Russian and Chinese intervention in the conflict in Syria is going to have several short-term and long
term consequences over the course of
the next several years both regionally and internationally. As can already be seen, the political
debates for next years presidential election are already beginning to concentrate on foreign policy.
In addition, the balance of power is going to be
shifting significantly over the course of the next
several years. The two competing proposed IranIraq-Syria and the Qatar-Turkey pipelines will
have long-term economic ramifications once the
war is over and reconstruction of the country can
begin. The final decision concerning whichever
of the two pipelines is built after the war is over
will be a deciding factor in how well the country
will recover in the post-war years. Russia is actively using military force in Syria, mostly concentrating on air strikes, much like the United
States and the rest of NATO begain doing last
summer with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq
& Syria, also know as ISIS or IS. They also have a
small contingent of land forces and advisors centered mostly around the port city of Latakia and

its airport or the Russian naval base in Tartus about

60 miles south of that. China on the other hand, is
concentrating mostly on sending military advisors
to the capital city of Damascus although it is also
flexing its military muscle by sending several warships to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean Sea close
to the Syrian coastline. There have been several reports of a Chinese aircraft carrier having launched
several aircraft which then proceeded to land in
Syria. For the time being though, it seems as if the
Chinese military is taking a backseat and allowing
the Russians to provide the brunt of the assistance.

From an economic point of view, there is a
lesser known aspect of this war concerning two proposed oil pipelines. In the several years preceding
the Arab Spring and the Syrian Civil War, there were
two pipeline propositions that were drawn up by the
several governments of the European Union. At the
present moment, Russia and the countries of the former Soviet Union are the main suppliers of oil and
gas to the rest of Europe. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
States are allied with the West and NATO, mainly
for economic and military reasons. Europe is nearly
completely dependent on oil and gas being imported
from Russia. Both proposed pipelines would have to

pass through Syrias territory. However, the IranIraq-Syria pipeline would benefit Russia far more
greatly seeing as both the Iranian and Syrian governments are allied with the Kremlin. If the oil
were coming from the northern oil fields of Qatar
and went up through Syria and Turkey into Europe, it would benefit the EU states much more
and make them that much less dependent on oil
and gas coming from Russia and its allies. Before
the war began in 2011, Al-Assad had refused to
sign a proposed agreement with Qatar and Turkey. Al-Assad instead opted to support directing
oil from the fields of its Iranian allys South Pars oil
field and up through Iraq and then onto Syria to
Southeastern Europe. His rationale is said to have
been to protect the interests of his Russian ally,
which for the time being is Europes top supplier
of oil and natural gas. Considering the long-term
economic repercussions of al-Assad remaining in
power and refusing to direct oil and gas from NATO-allied countries in the region, one can begin
to see that there is a lot more to this conflict than
what is initially seen at the surface. With Russia

growing ever more powerful since the Soviet Union

collapsed, the thought on the minds of many Western European leaders is how they can manage to sustain a long drawn out war of attrition against a giant
such as Russia that has limitless supplies of oil and
gas which it can refuse exporting to Europe whenever it pleases.

As can be seen from the Democratic presidential debates on Tuesday October 13th, the Syrian
Civil War in general, and the creation of ISIS and
the recent Russian military intervention in defense
of the Syrian government have become important
talking points. These will without a doubt influence
discussions on the 21st century approach to American foreign policy and our countrys position in the
world. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders had a very
unique point of view in that he believes that if the
United States gets involved in another distant war
with no future in sight, many of the domestic issues
here. His opinion is that if the government spends
an enormous amount of its budget on waging a war
and consequently rebuilding the region, the American people will have to pay the price, quite literally,

over the long term as there will be no funds left over

to take care of our own people. He also made sure
to point out how the dark memory of the Soviet
Unions failed war in Afghanistan combined with
the more recent knowledge of the costly American
led occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq would be
a reason to worry for the Russian populace. Sanders seems to believe that Putin is not going to get
caught in this quagmire and is trying to get the most
rewards for the lowest cost while embarrassing the
US at the same time.

Several of the other candidates from the
conservative side have also touched on the subject
of how to approach this foreign policy dilemma during the two Republican debates. Donald Trump in
particular made sure to highlight President Obamas
perceived weakness, in the eyes of the Kremlin, as
the main reason why the Russians have been aggressively expanding their influence in the world. He
believes it is evident that President Putin has no respect for Obama nor for the United States of America. Trump also made sure to highlight the unfortu-

nate trend over the past several decades of the U.S.

giving rebellious force billions of dollars-worth
in weapons and those countries later turning on
us. Thus, he touched on the prevalent opinion
amongst many Americans that arming the moderate Syrian rebels is a bad decision.

One other option that been touched on recently is implementing no-fly zones within Syrias
air space as was done in Libya during the 2011
revolution and in Iraq during the 1990s after the
Persian Gulf War. Several of the Republican candidates such as Fiorina and Bush were in agreeance that no-fly zones should be introduced, however risky that maneuver may seem. When asked
about this option during the Democratic debates,
several of the candidates were opposed to this
idea due to the fact that the United Nations would
have to force the Russian Air Force to adhere to
these regulations as well, not just the weakening
Syrian Air Force. Clinton specifically drew comparisons between this proposition and the disastrous attempt to blockade Cuba and prevent the

Soviet Navy from entering its waters

during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Trying to make Russia abide by
these flimsy no-fly zone rules would
only bring the Russian government
in direct conflict with the United
States and NATO. Although the nofly zones have good intentions, as
they are almost always implemented
to stop the indiscriminate bombing
of innocent civilians by government
aircraft, they are usually enforced by
a single unified foreign entity, NATO
in the case of 2011 Libya, not by two
opposing forces with drastically different agendas. Both the Russian and
United States Air Force have engaged
in accidental bombing of civilians in
Syria and Iraq, which is inevitable in
any war, regardless of how many precautions are taken. On the very first
day that the Russian air strikes began, media propaganda in the West
was trying to politicize the accidental
killings in an effort to paint Russia
in a bad light, yet just days later the
US Air Force accidentally bombed a
Doctors Without Borders hospital in
Kunduz, Afghanistan. With this incident, the Obama Administration lost
all the moral superiority they could
have had over the Kremlin. For obvious reasons, given its history, Russia
never had a chance of establishing a
moral high ground over the Western
powers, which over the past several
decades have unofficially become the
defenders of human rights across the
world.

These increasing tensions
between the American sphere of influence and the Russian sphere of
influence are reminiscent of Cold
War era politics. The Russian governments main mission being to prop
up the Syrian government forces,
they would see little interest in partaking in a blockade that would prevent their aircraft from embarking on

combat operations. As is, the Syrian Army has been

working in conjunction with the Russian Air Force
to take back land controlled by both ISIS and nonISIS anti-government forces. For the purposes of
their mission, unlike the Western powers, the Russian and Syrian governments are making no distinction between the non-Islamist and the Islamist factions fighting to overthrow the legitimate Al-Assad
regime. They are just grouping them all together under the umbrella term anti-government forces and
attempting to re-implement government control of
the areas they are in.

In defense of Moscow, in the aftermath of
the failed 2011 Egyptian and Libyan revolutions
which were backed by the United States and their
NATO allies, it is understandable why Vladimir Putin does not want one of his few remaining allies in
the Middle East to be toppled. In both these scenarios, two secular dictators who had firm, albeit sometimes tyrannical, control over their respective coun-

tries were toppled by Islamist fundamentalists, funded

by the West, resulting in both countries descending
into chaos and resulting in an increase in terrorist activities. Additionally, although presented as more of an
afterthought, much like NATO, Russia has been fighting their own personal War on Terror in the regions of
Chechnya and Dagestan in the southern Russian territories. There have been reports of numerous Chechen foreign volunteers fighting within the ranks of ISIS
and several other terrorist group in the region such as
Al-Nusra. They number in the several thousands with
several of them serving as commanding officers and
other high-ranking leadership positions. Because of the
threat presented by these groups, who would easily be
able to cross the border with their Russian-issued passports, Russias stance is to take them out while they are
still on foreign territory and easily visible targets rather
than when they come back and blend in with the civilian population.

Senator Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio predicted it

before it even happened.
During the second primary debate, he announced
what he thought would happen in Syria. In his proposal,
he stated that they wouldnt only
be targeting ISIS and Russia considers America to no longer be reliable.
Rubios plan of action is to provide
Ukraine with lethal military assistance
and intelligence sharing to ensure that
Putins violation of Ukraines sovereignty comes at a price.

Governor Jeb
Bush

Jeb Bush proposes that the

United States
should establish
a no-fly zone for
Syrian air forces, and
prevent Assad from using
indiscriminate weapons, such as
the barrel bombs. Bush realizes
that this would be rather difficult to establish,considering the
Russian intervention. Bush then
speaks about Assad, saying that
he needs to go. Assad has killed
200,000 people. Should we just
sit back and accept this slaughter? Jeb Bush says no.

Carly Fiorina

In an interview for Fox News, Carly Fiorina

announced her idea of what the United
States should do, I believe we must tell the
Russians that we will secure a no-fly zone
around anti-Assad rebel forces that were
supporting. When asked about having to
use force against the Russians, she replies
by saying that hopefully it does not come to
that but if they oppose the plan, we should
be prepared to use force. Fiorina also emphasized the fact that the Russians need to
be aware that they will not be able to become
the dominant power in the Middle East.

Senator Ted Cruz

In an interview with CNN,

Ted Cruz speaks about the
Syrian Civil War. He believes
that the United States should
not partner up with Russia
nor try to oust Assad. We
should only focus on ISIS.