Putin Urged to Deploy Nuclear Weapons to Expedite War and Sever NATO Supply Routes

[webfact]

U.S. wary of Putin's declaration of military victory in Syria

By Phil Stewart

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu watch servicemen passing by as they visit the Hmeymim air base in Latakia Province, Syria December 11, 2017. Sputnik/Mikhail Klimentyev/Sputnik via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is voicing scepticism about Russian President Vladimir Putin's announcement of a major withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria and is arguing that his declaration of victory against Islamic State was premature.

 

Putin, during a surprise visit on Monday to Russia's Hmeymim air base in Syria, declared that the work of Russian forces was largely done in backing the Syrian government against militants in the country's war following the defeat of "the most battle-hardened group of international terrorists."

 

Still, U.S. officials are challenging the Russian and Syrian portrayal of Syria as a country poised for peace once the final enclaves of the Islamic State militant group, known as ISIS, are recaptured.

 

Syrian government forces, U.S. officials said, are too few, too poor and too weak to secure the country. Islamic State, and other militants in Syria, have ample opportunity to regroup, especially if the political grievances that drove the conflict remain unresolved, the officials said.

 

"We think the Russian declarations of ISIS' defeat are premature," a White House National Security Council spokeswoman said. "We have repeatedly seen in recent history that a premature declaration of victory was followed by a failure to consolidate military gains, stabilize the situation, and create the conditions that prevent terrorists from reemerging".

 

The U.S. military in Syria, which unlike the Russians are operating there without the blessing of Damascus, has long been sceptical of Moscow's announced drawdowns.

 

Marine Major Adrian Rankine-Galloway, a Pentagon spokesman, said the United States had not observed any significant withdrawal since Putin's announcement.

 

Although he did not predict future moves, he said: "There have been no meaningful reductions in combat troops following Russia's previous announcements planned departures from Syria."

 

The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War said Moscow's past announcements of pullouts led to a recalibration of Russian forces.

 

"Russia has previously used claims of partial withdrawals in order to rotate out select units for refit-and-repair, remove redundant capabilities, and reinsert alternative weapons systems better suited for the next phase of pro-regime operations," it wrote in a research note on Tuesday.

 

VICTOR'S PEACE?

 

The U.S. military still has around 2,000 troops in Syria and has announced that any withdrawal will be conditions-based, arguing a longer-term presence of American forces would be needed to ensure Islamic State's lasting defeat.

 

Russia's announcement, however, suggested a different image of Syria in which foreign forces were becoming unnecessary. After turning the tide of the conflict in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's favour, Putin wants to help broker a peace deal.

 

A senior Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the United States believed Assad would fail if he attempts to impose "victor's peace."

 

The odds of Syria breaking into a civil war again would be high without meaningful political reconciliation, the official said.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Tuesday stressed the importance of a roadmap for peace, including elections that would allow voting by Syrians overseas who fled to the conflict.

 

"And it is our belief that through that process, the Assad regime will no longer be part of that leadership," Tillerson said.

 

(Reporting by Phil Stewart; additional reporting by Idrees Ali in Washington, Denis Pinchuk in Moscow; Editing by Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-13

[BuaBS]

The only terrorist left are the US backed ones.

[IAMHERE]

The withdrawal is a slick move to get the Syrian President to let Russia in permanently. When Syria has more problems than it can handle without the Russians, then Putin will be back, next time with ICBMs. 

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

The only terrorist left are the US backed ones.

You don't follow the news much, do you.

[craigt3365]

Just now, IAMHERE said:

The withdrawal is a slick move to get the Syrian President to let Russia in permanently. When Syria has more problems than it can handle without the Russians, then Putin will be back, next time with ICBMs. 

Reports are saying it's not really a withdrawal.  Just moving some out for R&R and maintenance, and moving other units in.  Russia did this before.

 

[BuaBS]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

You don't follow the news much, do you.

I read the right news .

[Morch]

4 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

The withdrawal is a slick move to get the Syrian President to let Russia in permanently. When Syria has more problems than it can handle without the Russians, then Putin will be back, next time with ICBMs. 

 

Russia will keep two bases in Syria regardless, in that sense their presence is "permanent". And the scale of the withdrawal was not clear even for Russian sources and troops. Why would Russia need ICBM's in Syria? The whole point of ICBMs is that they have the range already.

[Kiwiken]

Russia will have several new Bases in the Region soon enough. Probably in Egypt and Iraq

[craigt3365]

8 hours ago, BuaBS said:

I read the right news .

Based on your replies, you don't read the right news.  You need a better source.  Seriously.

[craigt3365]

16 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

Russia will have several new Bases in the Region soon enough. Probably in Egypt and Iraq

Considering the thousands of US troops still in Iraq, Russia won't be there for quite some time. LOL

[IAMHERE]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

Why would Russia need ICBM's in Syria? The whole point of ICBMs is that they have the range already.

To be closer to a target, to make foes look in more than one direction for incoming, for the same reason they wanted them in Cuba, to give America grief and worry?  

Edited December 14, 2017 by IAMHERE
grief and worry

[craigt3365]

Just now, IAMHERE said:

To be closer to a target, to make foes look in more than one direction for incoming, for the same reason they wanted them in Cuba?  

That makes no sense.  And Cuba was decades ago.  Not relevant today.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

To be closer to a target, to make foes look in more than one direction for incoming, for the same reason they wanted them in Cuba, to give America grief and worry?  

 

Closer to target how?

 

Moscow to New York - 7500km.

Damascus to New York - 9000km.

 

The Cuba Missile crisis was 55 year ago, and the missiles involved were not ICBMs, but had shorter ranges (2000-3700km). Unless mistaken, by that time the USSR already had its first operational ICBMs with a range of about 6000km. There is no no viable need to be "closer to a target" with an ICBM nowadays, and there wasn't one back then. Considering ballistic missiles can be also launched from mobile non-land platforms, makes the argument even weaker.

 

Add considerations related to anti-proliferation treaties if that's not enough.