"What has Russia gained from five years of fighting in Syria?" Topic

"On September 30, 2015, the Russian Federation formally entered the Syrian civil war as President Bashar al-Assad's rule was increasingly under threat.

Since 2011, intense fighting and mass desertion had weakened the Syrian Arab Army. Even the support of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the deployment of Iranian militias and Russian mercenaries, and regular shipments of Russian weaponry had not been enough to stop the advance of the opposition and radical armed groups.

In March 2015, the Syrian government lost a second provincial capital, Idlib, when Jeish al-Fattah, a loose coalition of various armed groups, led a successful offensive on the city in the country's northwest…"
Main page
link

Imho…aside from a naval and air base in a country that is now nothing more but a failed state. So…Nothing.

Amicalement
Armand

Agreed … Syria like many in that region are a failed or failing state. But I think all the Russians really wanted were the naval and air bases. They got what they came for …

They know as we now know[again!], you can't "fix" a failed or failing state generally. They have to want to do it and become a useful member of the world. But it is easier to keep killing each other. Over differences that go back centuries in many cases.

And still blame the West/Crusaders/Infidels for all their problems. Again it is easier, than to look within and see their continued failings, etc.

The war is not over, Russian involvement is not over. They may still achieve something.

Let's see….

Very poor gains so much effort and blood …

Amicalement
Armand

One thing they have achieved is establishing a reputation for putting their asses on the line and sticking by their friends. Would that we could say the same…

Geopolitically speaking, the warm water port at Tartus alone is worth the investment as it's Russia's only naval base beyond its traditional sphere-of-influence and provided access to the eastern Med.

Russia had taken the bitter lessons from its failed 1980's involvement in Afghanstan to heart. Its aims and objectives are limited to backing a horse (Bashir al-Assad) that will accommodate its geopolitical aims. It harbored no illusions that Syria can return to her former "glory."

And it's also easy for the West to ignore or dismiss the pivotal role Russia (and Iran) played in the destruction of ISIS because they're our adversaries. The impact of their anti-ISIS campaign may have been even greater than the western coalition's on-and-off efforts in concert with the Kurds.

1. According to the Russian General Staff, about 35,000 Islamic militants have been killed in Syria (including a considerable number of immigrants from Russia and the CIS). These people will never appear in arms in the Caucasus or Central Asia. Well, the very existence of the Islamic Caliphate promised an unequivocal increase in terrorist activity on the territory of Russia.
2. Control over possible overland transit of oil and gas to Europe from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Iraq.
3. Demonstration of the capabilities of Russian weapons. Arms exports bring Russia considerable income.
4. Securing Russian exports. Dependence on Turkish control over the exit from the Black Sea is decreasing.

Actually, having a good, warm water naval base, or bases, and an airbase, or airbases to help protect it/them ARE significant improvements for the Russians. They'd literally kill to get that, AND they have.

My guess is that's why they're also actively engaged in Libya too.

Also, their troops and pilots have and are gaining some "ultra-modern", real world military experience as well, which is useful. Not sure this is worth the losses, but if you're President for Life, I suspect you don't worry about "little" things like that in Syria, Eastern Ukraine, Libya, and other theaters, like far off Central and South America (Nicaragua and Venezuela).

about 35,000 Islamic militants have been killed in Syria

Hopefully more. It seems in the short run this may be the only way to get some sort of control over these types. As I posted on other threads here. … just as long as they kill each other off and not try kill us in our modern 21st Century nations. They can wantonly slaughter each other over age old religious, ethnic, tribal, etc., differences. Until they run out of bullets or bodies whichever comes first. …

By killing their leaders, reducing their ability to resupply, killing as many as possible as often as possible seems to have worked to a point. As again the govt's of those states/regions are not generally strong or effective.

These types will only move into the 20th Century let alone the 21st when they want to.

Actually, having a good, warm water naval base, or bases, and an airbase, or airbases to help protect it/them ARE significant improvements for the Russians. They'd literally kill to get that, AND they have.

As I said, I think all the Russians really wanted were the naval and air bases. They got what they came for …