UpFront Politics: War Strategy

Putin VS Obama

Obama-VS-Putin-strategy-(2)
Posted: May 16, 2016 at 4:40 am   /   by   /   comments (0)

Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin are fighting over what military strategy is best for their nation’s interest in Syria. Putin and Obama have argued in the U.N., about which policy would be best for Syria and the Syrian people. Both leaders, of course, have their own master plan to beat each other in Syria. So let’s take a look at each leader’s strategy in detail.

The Obama Strategy:  It seems Obama’s plan is to remove President Bashar Hafez AL-Assad from power in Syria. The reason Obama and his administration wants to remove Assad from power is to remove a Russian stronghold in the Middle East. Syria is a key Russian ally, which allows Russia to project its stealth.

The removal of Assad will greatly benefit the United States, by allowing America to install a pro-western government, which will put an American stronghold in the Middle East. In theory, this will allow the US to project its stealth throughout the Middle East.

As of now, Russia is using a sea port and airbase in Syria, for strategic military purposes. This port allows the Russian military to dock ships in the port city of Tartus. This allows Russia to send military ships into the Mediterranean Sea, but also a fueling stop for military ships to the Black Sea. This is Russia’s only one naval base in the entire Mediterranean Sea, which is warm water though out the year. The other base’s Russia has is in cold water, which freezes at different times of the year. This base allows his military to pass through the Mediterranean Sea to enter the Atlantic Sea.

Without this port, it would be difficult for his naval forces to enter the Atlantic Sea. In theory, if Obama is successful in removing Assad, then Russia might lose the port and cannot enter the Mediterranean Sea. This strategic move does not allow him to enter the Atlantic Sea either, which leaves Russia only the Pacific Sea and the North Pole bases to enter the Atlantic Sea for military ships and subs, basically, cutting his naval forces to the Pacific Sea and the North Pole. This means Russia would not be a threat to NATO nations in the Mediterranean Sea anymore. This still leaves the Russia airbase.

The Khmeimim airbase is located in Latakia. This airbase can also threaten NATO members too. The Russians have put the (S-400) air defense systems to defend Syrian airspace from Turkey. This (S-400) has the capability to enter into NATO’s airspace. This airbase can provide military assistance to Russian military aircraft.

In theory, if relations become worst between the United States and Russia, this airbase can be used for defensive and offensive operations. Instead, of a defensive missile system, the Russians might put an offensive missile system to threaten NATO members.

The naval port, airbase, President Assad, and control of diplomatic talks in the Middle East, can threaten NATO nations like Turkey, Greece, Italy, and American foreign policy. The Obama administration does not have a high priority to defeat ISIS because ISIS might be able to remove Assad from power while Assad is continually losing ground in the war in Syria. So, the Obama administration is in no hurry to defeat ISIS or other terrorist networks in Syria, because they hope this will remove Assad from power. This will allow America to step in and destroy the terrorist after Assad is removed. This is the main goal of the Obama Strategy.

The Putin Strategy:

Vladimir Putin’s plan is to keep Assad in power in Syria to make sure Russian influence is kept in the Middle East. The Russian’s want to keep control of their port and airbase to make sure military superiority is kept in the region. By ensuring these bases, this allows Russia to control parts of the Mediterranean Sea and threaten NATO nations. Vladimir Putin wants to defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups to ensure Russian influence in the Middle East. This is why Russia is building an alliance’s with Iran and Syria. Together, they will work together to defeat ISIS and other terrorist networks. This will help to restore power to Assad while also maintaining Russian influence in the Middle East.

Fail Strategy

Both plans’ can be a failure for both leaders. The Obama plan will remove Russian influence, which will make NATO safer from a Russian threat. By removing Russia out of the Mediterranean Sea and removing a Russian ally in the Middle East, this might allow terrorist groups to become stronger and more powerful in Syria. The downfall of the Assad regime and no functional government can lead to terrorist organizations taking control of the country. This possibly can lead to more terrorist’s attacks in NATO.

The terrorist will enter through Turkey because Syria has fallen. In theory, if Vladimir Putin loses control of the Mediterranean Sea, Putin might still benefit. NATO could be attacked by terrorists every day, which might allow Putin to do other military advancements in Europe. He might do his military advancements while these terrorists’ attacks are weakening NATO.

The other problem NATO nations might face is the refugee crises, which can spark civil unrest in Europe and damage European economies. The price of oil can increase, because of the conflicts in the Middle East and Europe, which could benefit Putin.

Vladimir Putin’s plan will help Russia’s credibility in the world by fighting terrorism. If the Russian plan is successful, by removing terrorists out of Syria and keeping Assad in power, this will make sure Russia has influence in the Middle East. This will also threaten NATO nations, by controlling parts of the Mediterranean Sea.

On the other hand, the war can be costly for Russia if it turns to be a quagmire. The Russian economy is being harmed by NATO sanctions and low oil prices. The Russians best option to achieve success was to team up with Iran and Syria to keep the cost down for Russia and end the war quickly, if not it can damage the Russian economy.

Solution

American foreign Policy has been a disaster in the Middle East. Iraq and Libya are two prime examples of failed foreign policy in the Middle East. Terrorists now occupy these lands. Most likely if Assad does collapse, terrorists will occupy Syria and will seriously threaten NATO more than the Russian threat in the short-term. This could possibly create terrorist attacks inside NATO nations, creating civil and economic problems in NATO.

Both leaders should examine what situation they are in and find a solution to this problem. The best solution for both leaders is to allow Assad to stay in power. The Russian threat will continue to be there and possibly threaten NATO nations, but it will be a cold war situation with Russia in the long-term. For example, the war tactics between these two countries could be Economic warfare, Cyber warfare, and small conflicts in the world with Russia. The best place to look for an example is the war in Syria.

So, instead of removing Assad, both leaders should sit down with Assad and have diplomatic talks. This will benefit Russia, but might benefit America, if America can find diplomatic ties.

The best course of action is for Russia and America to work together to defeat terrorists in Syria. As you seen both countries have something to gain and lose. The best thing that can happen is if America and Russia talk to find diplomatic grounds and end the fighting with each other.

Please Leave Comment Below – Scroll Down
 
Disclaimer:

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/25/russians-syrians-and-iranians-setting-up-military-coordination-cell-in-baghdad/
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-russia-gambles-syria-ramping-involvement-193909435.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmeimim_airbase