At the official request of the Syrian government, the Russian Air Force (RUAF) began conducting airstrikes against Islamist fighters, and their military assets, in September, 2015. Russia has also deployed special forces and military advisers to Syria, helping organize and train pro-government forces, and carry out operations on the ground.

Some analysts believed that Russia was making a mistake by directly entering the Syrian conflict, with the failures of the Soviet-Afghan War coming to mind. However, President Vladimir Putin, and his military advisers, have perfectly managed and limited their involvement, while still allowing the Syrian Army to score territorial gains.

Despite the Syrian Army’s progress, several key provinces remain under the control of terrorist organizations. A large-scale, Russian ground force would inevitably catalyze progress on the ground.

I recently conducted a small, 24 hour twitter poll, asking Should Russia Deploy Ground Troops to Syria (to Directly Fight Terrorist Groups?). 58% of the 1,653 votes were in favor of a large Russian force being deployed to Syria.

https://twitter.com/SulimanM98/status/822910012112732162

It seems that many people wanted Russia to scale up its involvement, as it would end the Syrian conflict in a shorter period of time – they probably weren’t considering the escalation from a Russian strategic position.

Ultimately, airstrikes and a small, specialized ground force, has proven to be a potent combination, which has successfully decreased the power of Islamist groups in Syria, while limiting Russian causalities.

Author’s Twitter Username: @SulimanM98

Share this article:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
ALSO READ  Kurdish YPG destroy technical vehicle belonging to Turkish-backed rebels in Afrin (video)

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Daeshbags Sux
Guest
Master
Upvoted
Rookie Mentor
Commenter
Escalating the air operations would be more than enough. Let’s analyse the armament of Su-34 : I think anyone can notice the options : AB-500 : either 12 or 16x500kg bombs, according to the used racks AB-250 : 22x250kg bombs AB-100 : 34x100kg bombs Since 2015, Russia produces the KAB-250 250kg guided bomb : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/kab-250.htm And the KAB-100 100kg guided bomb. http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-news-2015/october/2008-russian-company-tactical-missiles-co-develops-kab-100-small-caliber-smart-bomb.html Thus, the average 37 strikes per day Russia has done since the beginning of their intervention could nearly be done by a single Su-34 mission. Actually, it’d also be possible to carry 120 S-8 or 30 S-13 rockets… Read more »
Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted

Theoretically yea – but not during foul winter weather.

Member
Regular
Commenter

THEIRS WOULDN’T HACK IT,ON THE OTHER HAND RUSSIA’S BEST EQUIPPED WHEN IT COMES TO WINTERS,EVERYONE’S COVERED FROM THE ARCTIC AND BENEATH (PERIOD)

Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted

Foul winter whether in Syria can mean sand storms and rain. (And even Arctic storms will prevent what You claim.)

Neither Russia nor US coalition nor Syria were able to interdict or even predict the winter offensive of IS to Palmyra.

p.s. Stop shouting. (PERIOD)

Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
What is perhaps a serious failure on the Russian part , is the lack of preparedness to ”welcome” the 14000 ISIS members coming from Iraq , although the signs were all there , from late October , that they were abandoning Mosul , and coming in small units through the borders. FM Lavrov and Russian military experts were aware and made public their concerns. In late October. Armed flying patrols , with S-8 or S-13 rockets , and helicopter reconnaissance over the border areas should have prevented the massive attack on Palmyra and the subsequent fall of the city ,… Read more »
Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted

IMHO the local Syrian commander at Palmyra failed to fortify his positions against suicide car bombs like the Kurds always do. Result: vital check points lost at the beginning of the IS offensive. p.s. You can always have bad weather and get surprised – that is no Russian fault or design.

Member
Newbie

I think there is much more behind this. Think again, would Russia really tolerate something like this, if they would not get any advantage of this? I think the isis maneuvers where allowed on purpose. According to different sources the recent major attacks could have been their last ones. Furthermore the total collapse of these terrorist could sped up due to Trump. Trump is a new player on this field but his administration members are not, so we are driving into an unforeseeable future.

Member
Newbie

According to the current economic situation, Russia can not afford more military ground forces. If Russia would really deploy ground troops to Syria, this could end in a bad manner.

Member
Regular
Commenter

When it comes to 21st century manufacture of supplies + rearms russia are most prepared along with china to fight the fight for what’s right endlessly without fail!

something to consider+ the worlds largest oil+ gas producers,argiculture,top 3 gold miners,more robust + ethical economic platform without added zero’s hype
accustom to western severely in debted nations+ the message is clear,lesson’s learn’t from history,this time round the short n sweet strategy will be priority,
not the retarded concepts of last centuries,russians are wiser than nazis ye know!

Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted

IMHO the economic situation is not the main barrier. Russia does not want to redeploy existing ground forces to Syria. A democracy does not sent abroad forces ear marked for home defense.

Daeshbags Sux
Guest
Master
Upvoted
Rookie Mentor
Commenter

Not forcedly but again, it’s not so interesting : what would have real effect is to scale up the number of strikes and there are way to not have the spendings sky rocket.
Douma is simply not likely to say OK to a big deployment, not forcedly because of money, thus, Putin has been allowed to send drafted soldiers doing their mandatory military service, thus, it might have been a message : if it escalates, we can go full throttle.
Putin is playing chess.

Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted

Yes & possibly to show that Putin is committed to a negotiation solution. p.s. He sent Chechen police – that is like sending Foreign legion. Democracies currently do not like to send their own sons.

Daeshbags Sux
Guest
Master
Upvoted
Rookie Mentor
Commenter
Errr, not really : you don’t send French Foreign Legion to do police job… Let’s say that often, just knowing they are coming is enough to calm down everybody as their reputation precedes them… If not enough, well, some are known to shoot first and talk after. Let’s say the Legion will shoot then… shoot again and re-shoot and re-re-shoot, etc until nothing is still moving… Then they will talk and as nobody is answering, they’ll advance to next point, thus, they are likely to shoot again before… Now you’re a bit wrong about FFL : There is +50% of… Read more »
Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted

The Chechen are hired personnel no Sons of Matushke Russia. Like FL. And they are known as hard bones. Like FL. IMHO they are there to shot. Like FL. FL French? I know that – that is why they sing partly in German – at least one verse. Tongue out. They join to become French citizens and stay in France. Part of their deal.