Current song: Loading ...
Is Russian Long Term Intent In Middle East Really Negative Or Positive ? - AustraliaLatestNews.com | Australian News and Analysis Is Russian Long Term Intent In Middle East Really Negative Or Positive ? - AustraliaLatestNews.com | Australian News and Analysis

728x90 AdSpace

  • Latest News

    Friday, 9 October 2015

    Is Russian Long Term Intent In Middle East Really Negative Or Positive ?




    Russia is making moves as we know, they are making news as well. Do they factor western media reach and furthering ? Of course.

    It appears their plans seem to be they interject in this Syrian war - That we already know.

    Recently Russia fired cruise missiles an extremely long way from Caspian Sea - though why would they go to such length when simply their jets could do much the same job ?

    I presume this is all part of a plan to not only improve their public's thoughts of Russian power, to resonate a greatness/power under such sanctions and seen by public tyranny from. These missiles were of an effecting to reverberate through world news.

    Is this Russian plans to face the western public to a greatness, the public has always been under thoughts of Russian critical and war stances, very much so to perceptive of power - to span their reach of and influence.

    It appears Russia is not just testing the waters, Example: interjection military intervenes nearing other countries borders - England (jets), US/Alaskan (jets), Baltic (ship) etc. - the overlay is simply aggravation - to have western powers think Russia is on the move, psychological warfare, the aggravation leaves for example as seen, UK considering : 'Russian jet is testing the waters near our border', the optional resulting is defensive 'do we arm ? are they serious with intents ?' the second resulting is of course 'we better be prepared' causing western nations to not only spend that bit extra, but to hold a perceptive Russia is intentful towards western democracy - this causes a defensive frictive of worry about Russian intentions and the media is relaying these very fearful factors directly for Russian objectives, furthering. It also secures their defensive stance in perspective's in western eyes to Russian standing/forces in Ukraine itself.

    Now we see the UK sending troops to Baltic's almost in a falsely seen belief or fear Russian forces are going to take back this land as well, but obviously defensively they really have no choice - counter-movements.

    This in order creates a fear elevation, and western and countries in the middle east are of a greater fear to defend against Russian power, which we seen in Ukraine, literally annexed regardless of the fact of these citizens requesting Russian defensive's to Kiev ruling - a fear aggravation at root thought level that subjects countries into being extremely careful about response, thereby enabling Russia to intervene where they please and this is backed up by interjection's seen (a span of controlling, timing to create exacting of thought outcomes exacted by media and reflective of their wishing)

    It appears Russia is creating danger - to influence media into perceived danger and representations of war like power. - this enables them to assert a dominant of control, heightened into Russia is doing the wrong thing, destroying the very US aided rebels and at same time ISIS, this creates media furthering and political furthering of Russian forces are 'on the loose sporadically' - dangerous to perceived western elements, dangerous to rebels - and at same time dangerous to IS which is perceived by public in terror idealism displayed in media as being not all that bad, and lets admit it frankly we are all sick of war in the middle east simply -

    At this stage the outcome (hopefully this small site mentioning does not affect it) but impacts on all those fighting in this bloody war - a force of reach intervening which lets admit it, even ISIS is probably too scared to rebel against because of perceived ruthlessness and Russian forces will engage in war where the west will not - to create a plasmatic of perceived a major power taking over the scenes to high extents - the outcome of this and bombardment is weakening resolve perceptions of fighting the war in those fighting it itself - of course the rebels are worried when they were fairly stable against Assad's forces, by weakening the structuralism of rebels, they effect the whole, the effective reach and plausibility of combatant itself - DE-stablisation of forces involved -

    I do not really see that strong of a connection between Russia, Iran and Assad regime - yes they are supportive of each other in goals; defensive's to western oppression of these countries/regimes - perhaps even a needed repellant factor to western sanctioning itself and western powers asserting dominant, well lets just say - 'orders' (Iran nuclear, sanctions etc.)

    Not many are going to actually intervene with Russian forces in military action, Russia has calculated this western fear of avoiding conflict escalation to be it greater regional wars of be it nuclear resolves starting. -calling the western bluff and the only possible resolve for western forces against be it a power of such military of nuclear defensive height, is distant counter-measures not directly opposing Russian forces or be it helping Kiev take back their country - an easy calculation of 'west is not that game' simply.

    You can not just look at the overlay as Russia, Iran and Assad are our enemy like the media represents, there is no wrong or right - there is only each powers goals and how they go about influencing their goals. At moment Russia is in quite a strong position, as the west is opposing Chinese moves so if war breaks China will most likely be on Russian side, which simply sways a balance to certain extent of holding a standing defensive capability.

    The world can be simply divided if war breaks into western and anti-western (or be it eastern) - a divide between the world, a single barrier with powers on different sides - luckily for us Russia is at least rebelling against IS, be it advantage to western goals.

    I live in a highly Western country so not going to praise this seeming plan to disperse fighting forces, or sub-mute them slowly, but realistically if you take out the fact (from my perceived country of Australia) of Russia fighting for Assad, the resources' bombardment is going to nonetheless long term restrict war capabilities in the middle east itself - it appears western media is telling us that it is all negative - though it appears they either do not hold military knowledge (politicians) or are simply lying through their teeth. It's not as simple as just propping up Assad's forces : Ex: west complains about Russia bombarding rebels fighting Assad, Russia launches further attacks against ISIS with frightful/delightful perceived long distance missile capability, which is simply powerfully threatening to many countries regardless of sides. (a heightened capability that was not anticipated)

    -These capabilities are going to have both ISIS and the Assad opposing rebels into defensive measures, simply taking caution with exposure therefore slowing down a directly confrontational war, which itself - is not a bad thing.
     
    Assad is none the less probably never going to be of a military power or political reach/control height - so saying Russians are propping up Assad like he is the next regional power, is just not accurate as his power has crumbled and there is really not a way out of that into holding an assertive power in region.

    We can only stand by and see what Russian real intentions are long term, unlikely at this stage its escalation to anti-western conflict or annexation of their prior territory continuing, as annexing another state will be calculated as sparking the western intervene and they are calculative enough to know this, especially with the known opposing force building up in opposing to Russian movements in repellent defensive positions in Europe.

    Personally I will state this, I have not personally perceived Putin to be as bad a person as western media is calculating - he is mentally not of that level believe it or not of war strength in opposing the west (he maintains ethics, both Chinese president (Xi Jinping) and Putin have even visited the US, they would simply not do this if were simply failed of humane ethical) -many others would simply be kicking the storm so to speak with economic sanctions to that leveling of effecting on their country, this is more Russian proof that they can control a peace or preventative of war I see regarding middle east any ways - an almost child like (governmental) height of 'we can be an asset as well' -

    Do they have a choice after Ukraine ? Not really.





    [Image above was obtained through Pixabay.com]



    Messages

    Scroll to Top