Putin orders withdrawl from Syria

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/world/middleeast/putin-syria-russia-withdrawal.html?_r=0
Says that their "goals have been achieved"
Pretty sure this is deserving of its own thread.

 

[millais]

 

[Splendid]

So what were their goals? Because as far as I know, they haven't really done shit.
We, the public, don't really seem to have the whole picture here.

 

[SpessCaptain]

With Russia stepping on a few toes globally I think this was one of the best things they could do. Best not overstay either.

 

[Splendid]

With Russia stepping on a few toes globally I think this was one of the best things they could do. Best not overstay either.

Yeah, like Putin's given a shit about stepping on other people's toes globally at any point in his political career.
The only possibility that I can think of where this explanation makes sense is that he finally just went a little bit too far and realized that Russia isn't a superpower anymore and he really didn't want to piss off a country that is (USA) and one of its close allies (EU).

My theory: it's got something to do with Russia's horrible economy. This entire thing could be one giant cost saving measure.

 

[KatsuKitty]

So what were their goals? Because as far as I know, they haven't really done shit.
We, the public, don't really seem to have the whole picture here.

Prop up the Assad regime. They have been significantly re-strengthened and are taking back ISIS territory as well as territory held by the FSA.

 

[millais]

So what were their goals? Because as far as I know, they haven't really done shit.
We, the public, don't really seem to have the whole picture here.

Bomb the FSA and al-Nusra Front enough to allow the Assad regime to consolidate its position in the coastal provinces and thereby give the Assad regime enough leverage to negotiate from a position of standing in the peace talks.

tl;dr- keep Bashar al- Assad in the game and weaken his opposition to the point that he is guaranteed a leading role in post-war Syria

 

[AN/ALR56]

Kinda sad, wanted to see more of Turkey getting fucked by Russians.
I hope for turkey's sake that erdogan is not retarded enough to see this as a opportunity for any of his Ottoman dreams.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I think that this is a smart move because 30 years ago they encountered bad problems from staying in afghanistan too long and 12 years ago the united states had similar problems in afghanistan and iraq

 

[millais]

My theory: it's got something to do with Russia's horrible economy. This entire thing could be one giant cost saving measure.

The Russian intervention in Syria was actually done on the cheap. They had a minimal military presence. Less than fifty aircraft (with the exception of a few modern fighters, all Soviet-era bombers which are cheap to maintain and operate), only enough air crews to keep them in service, and only enough boots on the ground to provide security detail for their airbases at Latakia and elsewhere, with the Syrian government actually chipping in for a fair share of that. They fly out of existing Syrian airbases that require only a minimum of sprucing up to be made serviceable, so minimal expenditure there. The Russians dropped a lot of bombs over Syria in their +2000 air strikes, but the vast majority were "dumb" gravity bombs that were probably drawn from Soviet-era munitions stockpiles. No vast expenditure of the expensive "smart bombs" that the West uses to minimize collateral damage. The Russian bombing strategy of blowing up everybody in rebel-held cities and territories doesn't really require smart bombs since the risk of civilian casualties simply doesn't factor into their decision-making process. They simply contest the veracity of all casualty reports issued by third party humanitarian observers or blame civilian casualties on Coalition air strikes (to date, the Russian air force spokesman in Syria claims the Russian bombing campaign has killed/injured a grand total of zero civilians in Syria)

NATO and American observers in particular were all envious of how cheaply the Russians managed to pull off their intervention in Syria, largely because of how the Russians set themselves some very limited and achievable objectives (namely keeping Assad in power and his enemies weak) whereas the Coalition has a very poorly defined set of goals that keep changing in nature and expanding in scope as the political situation in the region evolves. The Coalition can't declare success, pack up, and go home until it decides what its victory conditions are in the first place, and there is still a lot of disagreement between the US, EU, and the Gulf states about what those conditions should be.

 

[Hyperion]

The entire thing was a potential powder keg of conflict between the U.S. and Russia. I'm glad another source of conflict between us and the Russians is over with.

 

[AnOminous]

The Russians dropped a lot of bombs over Syria in their +2000 air strikes, but the vast majority were "dumb" gravity bombs that were probably drawn from Soviet-era munitions stockpiles. No vast expenditure of the expensive "smart bombs" that the West uses to minimize collateral damage.

It might even have saved some money. It actually often costs more to demilitarize old munitions so they're no longer dangerous than it does to drop them on something.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Even with all the "on the cheap" talk here, the Russians really don't have the ability to sustain themselves in any sort of "global" reach for prolongued periods. Observers have been saying for years that they are a regional power and it's likely they've finally realized it. Hence why the Syrian Mission was so limited.

Deploying any armed forces not within your own nation (unless specifically geared for it) is really bloody expensive which is why so few nations on earth are actually capable of it. The Russians have actually struggled when following their "bite and hold" strategy on neighboring states, let alone being able to push that to a nation on the other side of Turkey several thousand miles from home.

That being said, the main purpose of the Russian presence was to augment the Syrian airforce with fighter-bombers and to allow the Assad regime the local air superiority it actually needed.

There was little risk of Coalition-Russian clashes as the strategic aims of both overlapped enough for it not to matter thanks to everyone being opposed to Al-Nusra and ISIS.

 

[Captain_Asshole]

Some seem to think that Putin's actual purpose was to overwhelm Europe with the refugee waves he helped create in order to break up relations and instigate war between European nations. I wouldn't put it beneath him to attempt that, but it is still kind of contrived isn't it?

 

[CWCissey]

I think fucking up Turkey was his aim, seeing as they're a NATO member.

 

[Strelok]

Some seem to think that Putin's actual purpose was to overwhelm Europe with the refugee waves he helped create in order to break up relations and instigate war between European nations. I wouldn't put it beneath him to attempt that, but it is still kind of contrived isn't it?

It's retarded conspiracy tier thinking is what that is. If the same plan was put foward to instead strain european economies and make them less likely to continue the sanctions and embargos of Russia, maybe I'd believe it. Maybe.