Russia withdraws its remaining personnel from Syria
Source: Guardian
Russia has evacuated the last of its personnel from Syria, including from its Mediterranean naval base in Tartus, in a move that appears to underline Moscow's mounting concerns about the escalating crisis.
Russian media reported on Wednesday that they had confirmed the evacuation with officials in the country's military and foreign ministry. But there was no official confirmation of a claim from rebel Free Syrian Army sources that a Russian plane had been shot down and its pilot captured in the western Aleppo area.
The effective closure of the Tartus base would be a significant loss, though a 16-ship naval task force is still in the eastern Mediterranean. The base is Russia's only foothold in the Middle East.
Neighbouring Cyprus has, however, made its ports available to the Russian fleet. Cypriot media have reported that the government may allow Russia to use its base at Paphos to host military aircraft.
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/26/russia-withdraws-personnel-syria
= new reply since forum marked as read
The borders of Iraq and Saudi Arabia was set by the British based on how far a plane along the Euphrates river could fly and return in 1921. Anything outside that range and to the South became Saudi Arabia.
The British adopted a similar policy as to Palestine and Jordan. This is the reason why the borders between Jordan and Iraq and Saudi Arabia are the way they are.
Now, a complication is that Iraq has very little rain fall, its source of water are the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The area between the rivers are extensively farm with irrigation (Thus its Greek Name, Mesopotamia, the land between the Rivers). As you go more then 20-50 miles south of the Euphrates, irrigation runs out and you end up with desert/pasture land like the rest of Arabia.
Amman, the Capital of Jordan, is the ancient point where the the rains from Mediterranean tends to run out of water. i.e. the rains EAST of that point tends to be to little to support agriculture (Through dispersed headers can use it as pasture).
Thus, while the present borders were set by the range of planes in 1921, the area east of the Amman - Damascus line is more like Saudi Arabia then the rest of Jordan or Syria. Given that most of these herders have been herding sheep and goats in this area for Centuries, they loyality is to their tribe NOT to whatever country they happen to be in (Movement across National Borders is done all the time in these areas).
Below is a map of lanaguges of Syria, notice that the part in revolt and nearest Iraq and Arabia speak a version of Arabic closer to those areas then Western Syria, this reflects the traditional movement between those areas, Iraq and Arabia:
http://geocurrents.info/geopolitics/syrias-ethno-religious-complexity-and-potential-turmoil
A division of Syria means more for Arabia, for the Durse, Alawites and Christians may accept division with each having their own country (or as one country) but the Arabs in the Middle would be ripe for take over by Arabia:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/07/29/sunday-review/a-sectarian-patchwork.html?_r=0
Now I do not mean actual annexation, Saudi Arabia gave up on that during the time of Saud I (who died in 1952), but by making sure whoever rules the country is a toady of the House of Saud (as are the Persian Gulf States). The house of Saud do NOT need this area for money, they have oil. The desire for land is to control the area so they can direct any attack those people decide to do.
I mention this for the House of Saud is on its last legs. It may last another ten years, but sooner or later it will collapse. This is typical of general rulers. The First generation (King Saud I died 1952) dominates his country and makes sure his sons will succeed him. The next generation then take over at the death of the first generation and rules collectively, for they grew up together and while there is in fighting, no one reverts to knives unless most of the second generation agrees it is necessary. The problem occurs in when the third generation takes over, they have NOT grew up together, instead their grew up in the household of their parents. They loyalty is to their parents (and thus as long as the second generation is alive, the third generation is held in check) and their siblings NOT their cousins. Thus once the second generation died out the third generation pulls out the knives and a lot of in fighting occurs, often leading to the collapse of the ruling house as the cousins are so concentrated on each other, they miss the fact the country is sick of them and their infighting.
Stalin had eliminated almost everyone who had participated in the 1917 Red Revolution by 1938. Stalin wanted control and these were potential challengers to his control. He replaced them with bureaucrats, who he also had a habit of killing if he thought they MIGHT be a threat (Khrushchev commented that he survived one plot of Stalin to kill him, by saying it was to important for him to stay on the front line to support the troops then to go to Moscow and see Stalin).
With Stalin's death in 1953 (1953 was a good year for the deaths of tyrants, both Stalin and Saud I were tyrants) opened up Russia to be ruled by its "Second Generation", bureaucrats picked by Stalin as opposes to his son, but still second generation. These bureaucrats had come of age under Stalin and worked together for their had one thing in common, they survived Stalin. In many ways they were more like brothers then just bureaucrats, for they had gone through a crisis together (the Crisis being Stalin). The mass killings of Stalin ended with Stalin's death and he was replaced by a collective leadership lead by Khrushchev. Khrushchev had been picked for he had an idea of where Russia should go and tried to implement it. It took ten years, but the bureaucrats slowly became more confident and wanted to protect their own situations, decided Khrushchev's leadership was wrong for Russia and collectively the bureaucrats decided to remove him, Khrushchev being a member of the same group accept that change, like the House of Saud has accepted the various changes in who is King of Arabia since the death of King Saud. Both King Saud II and Khrushchev lost power in 1964, a bad year for reformers who were also members of a second generation of rulers.
Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev and ruled till his death in the 1980, then in rapid succession the survivors of the second generation took over and then died. Now one of the Characteristics of the Soviet Post Stalin leadership is all had seen WWII service. Stalin like promoting people with SOME experience. King Saud I, just moved his sons into position of power, even of they were teenagers. Thus the Soviet Union saw its end with the death of its last WWII leaders. Gorbachev was the first NON-WWII veteran and the first leader of the Soviet Union who had NOT meet Stalin. It was a generations shift. This was complicated by a drop in the price of oil (and drop in oil production and thus a drop in oil exports and revenue). Anyway, the knives came out. People tend to forget, but almost all of the leaders of Russia since Gorbachev had been members of the Communist Party prior to 1989. This include Putin AND Yeltsin. It has been 23 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and today you are finally seeing politicians who had NOT been members of the Communist Party (or one of its associations, which included most youth organizations in the former Soviet Union). If a politician is over 40, he had been a member of the Communist party, if over 30, a member of a Communist youth group to the party itself, below 30 maybe neither.
I bring this up, for the subsequent actions within the Soviet Union saw the knives come out. There were massive checks on these knives, first was the people of Russia wanted someone to solve their problems and not fight among themselves. Thus Gorbachev had the support of the Russian people (and maybe even most of the people in the other Soviet States) till the attempt to overthrow him. Gorbachev was out of position to do anything. Gorbachev was on the Black Sea Coast away from Moscow. Yeltsin was in Moscow and took charge of the Russian Parliament in opposition to the coup attempt. Yeltsin was NOT pro-Gorbachev, but he was clearly anti-coup. The Coup plotters then ordered the Army to destroy Yeltsin, and the Army said no, they supported Gorbachev. You had a standstill. Yeltsin was to weak, Gorbachev could not reach the Army to order it to do anything, and the Coup Plotters saw the people slowly come around to Yeltsin. It was the Coup that destroyed the Soviet Union. Without Gorbachev the Army would not obey anyone, but no one was going to the Black Sea to get him to Moscow. Within a Few days it was clear the whole command structure of the Soviet Union had been destroyed. Gorbachev did return to Moscow, but only to officially dissolved the Soviet Union, but he had lost all power.
A few years later another coup attempt was attempted, but Yeltsin was able to get the Army to put it down.
In many ways the reason for the failure to go into Civil War was that Russia had a Universal Military Service Army (if you male, you are in the Army when you turn 18, worse, both males and females are given military training in high school, so when they go into the service, they have already had their basic training). Such an Army is lousy at suppressing your own people, yet it was the most powerful MILITARY force in Russia. It could be used against what the people want it to be used against, but not against things the people do NOT want it to be used against. Thus no one had the forces, to go to Civil War if the Army opposed them AND that meant not only the officers but the enlisted ranks.
I mention the Soviet Union for it is the most recent example of a Generational Change in leadership and how that lead to massive changes within that country. I also pointed out why the in fighting did not lead to Civil War (beside the fact the people of Russia did not want a Civil War, this is best seen in an old joke of the time period. A Russian who was an optimist taught his son Russian, a Pessimist taught his son English, a Realist taught him how to use an AK-47 for the upcoming Civil War. Jokes like that tends to show a people can see what is coming towards them. Once a people see what is coming to them, they can address it and in Russia it was a preference for dissolution to Civil War, bad ruler to Civil War, bad times to Civil War).
Saudi Arabia has two armies, both recruited by enlistments, i.e. they are paid to be soldiers NOT something they have to do like paying taxes which is how men in Russia view Military service (i.e. they serving in the Army is like paying taxes). Now, Russia does have a full time army, with full time army units, but it is relatively small compared to the main Russian Army. That is NOT true of the Regular Saudi Army and the Saudi National Guard. Both contain professional forces (with the National Guard getting German Leopards II tanks, the Regular Saudi Army use American M1 Tanks) and some reserves, but the main purpose of the Army is to maintain internal security NOT to protect from an outside attack.
Worse the two armies are under different branches of the House of Saud. The present King of Arabia has long Controlled the National Guard (and that may be why Saudi Arabia purchased the German Leopards II), while the family of previous King Faud controls the Regular Saudi Army. Unlike Gorbachev who actually was cutting back military spending when he was head of the Soviet Union, the House of Saud is expanding its military. I suspect this is NOT 100% coordinated, for countries try to keep the different model of any weapon to a minimum, thus why buy Leopard IIs when you have M1 tanks already? One is not that much better then the other. The M1 tank is design to float on water (Due to American Experiences in Vietnam), but Arabia is mostly desert., The Leopard II was designed to operate in the North European theater in the mud and snow of the Eurasian plain (Based on German WWII experience) not the desert of Arabia. In Arabia neither is better or worse then the other, thus why opt for a new tank UNLESS you wanted it in a hurry, i.e. need it TODAY, not next year and thus willing to accept the complications of having more then one type of tank, just to have more tanks.
The next question is who is the tanks aimed at? It is not Israel, Israel has a very strong military but it lacks a "tail" i.e. it can take Jordan and maybe even Northern Saudi Arabia, but it can NOT hold it, nor take over all of Arabia. Iraq? Similar problems, while Iraq had the population to hold Arabia, it had no tanks to take Arabia. The Persian Gulf Nations? No population to man a large enough army to occupy Arabia, and professional armies designed to keep their own peasants down not to attack Arabia. Same with Jordan. Syria in under Civil War, thus not a threat at the present time. That leaves Iran,
Iran has the population to occupy Arabia (Iran has done so in Ancient Times). Iran has a decent military but any invasion will have to come over the Gulf Persian (Which means through the US fleet in the Gulf) OR via Basra in South East Iraq. With no threat of a US attack on its supply lines, possible, but with such an attack not only possible but probably, makes such an attack unlikely.
Ethiopia and Somalia have attacked Arabia in the past, but right now neither can and as long as Somalia is more a geographical expression then a nation-state that will remain so. Turkey has also attacked Arabia in the past, but for Turkey to attack Arabia it has to take Iraq or Syria over first, something Turkey is not even trying to do at present. Egypt has also attack Arabia, but that means going through Israel (Which is not that impossible, Israel may prefer Egyptian Troops in Arabia then al Queda in charge of Arabia, i.e. Israel leave the Egyptian Army through, if they do not lead the charge).
Now the above can attack Arabia, but none appear willing to do so at present or the near future unless something happens to the House of Saud. At that point anything is possible (thus my mention that Israel may lead an Egyptian attack). Thus why the new tanks for the Saudi National Guard? Once you remove foreign threats that leave domestic threats, and that is the real fear of the House of Saud. If infighting starts, I can see a popular rebellion occurring at the same time. The rebellion grows and grows for the cousins are more concerned about who rules in the Capital then putting down the rebellion (this is how the Mongols lost China, they were so busy infighting among themselves, the Ming had the time to firm up a peasant revolt against the Mongols, for the Mongols were fighting over who would rule in Beijing. As such less then adequate troops were sent against the Ming, while most of the troops stayed around Beijing to fight over who was to be Emperor. By the time who was Emperor was decided (and it never really was decided) the Ming had defeated the Armies sent against it AND itself had taken Beijing and destroyed it (The Ming would build a new city on that cite and called it by its present name Beijing, the Mongols technically used a different name for the city).
Thus the new tanks is to help put down any peasant revolt (at least on paper) but also intended to strengthen the family of the present King of Saudi Arabia in any future infighting among the House of Saud.
Sorry, the Middle East is a mess due mostly to the House of Saud. The House of Saud is set for a generational change in rule, but it may take years before we see if they were ready for it. You do not have Universal Military Service to act as barrier to the Army being used in the infighting. You do not have the Orthodox church (and the Communist party) with its tradition of encouraging people to help their fellow humans in times of trouble. The Tradition in Arabia is to support your family, then your clan, then your tribe. The checks that prevented a Soviet Civil War do not exist in Arabia and thus it is possible for a nasty Civil War.
What is happening in Syria is most likely like the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, A move to make an area within the rule of the Second Generation more like the "Homeland" (in Afghanistan, Afghanistan more Communist, in Arabia more Arabian). As such is it the first shoots in in fighting between the cousins of the third generation as that generation tries to show it is capable of leading the country by making it "Better" by eliminating outsiders (to the Communists, Afghanistan, which was within the Soviet Sphere of influence should also be communistic). This move into Syria is an attempt to show that the Third Generation can expand the influence of the House of Saud to include Syria. It is part of the infighting that will become more clear as the Second generation slowly dies out. In many ways it is the first shots in that fight (which also included the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya and the suppression of the Shiites movement for more rights in the Persian Gulf States).
Just a comment that Kissinger is back to being normal, half right but for the wrong reasons, that that is also why he is half wrong. Syria had its generational change when the present Assad took over at the death of his father. Qaddafi in Libya was in a generation change. Unlike King Saud I and Stalin Qaddafi does not seem to have built around him enough loyalist to survive a revolt by his own people as the coalition he ruled by collapsed over the last few years of his rule. This collapse of his coalition and the support for the revolt by the West in the form of total control of the Air over Libya and Saud Arabia by supplying guns, ammunition and other supplies basically killed him off.
Kissinger ignores Libya and advocates breaking up Syria for it is clear the coastal and mountain people will NOT accept rule by the House of Saud, but those who reside in traditional Bedouin areas will accept rule by Arabia, for many of them travel into Arabia all the time, just to graze their herds. This is also true of those areas around the Euphrates river (Which starts in Turkey and flows through Syria and then into Iraq). That is not a real division of the Country into the groups that makes up the country, but a division between two, Assad and the House of Saud.
