Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts

Monday, September 9, 2013

Payback Time?

With global diplomacy playing its part and an army showing signs of resilience, the Assad regime in Syria seems to be regaining its composure once again, says Saurabh Kumar Shahi

While the world was focussing on the goings on in the Middle East, the Syrian Arab Army under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad, achieved a major tactical victory this week in its fight against a mishmash of home grown rebels and foreign mercenaries. The Syrian army successfully captured the tactically important town of Qusayr. And by doing so, it has reopened the transport route between Damascus and Lebanon, something which was closed for more than six months now, while denying it as a resupply line for the insurgents in Homs Governate. There are several versions of how the rebels lost the battle and the town and none of them give a definitive story of what actually happened in northSyria this week. However, there appears to be a growing consensus on why they lost it and are poised to lose further.

The single biggest reason that appears to have started turning the tide is that even after months of fighting, the morale of Syrian Arab Army remains very strong and there is no visible cracks in the military itself. This is an extremely important sign. The army has been stretched thin in the initial 14 to 15 months of unrest. It was also stretched because it had failed to concentrate on key areas.


Also, in the initial days the opposition opened several fronts, especially those where training was being provided by Jordan and Turkey. And that is why deployment was stretched to its optimum to stop these leaks. However, this was less affective as the opposition resorted to hit and run tactics that bled the army quite profusely. This strategy has been changed at several fronts. Broadly the new strategy appears to be on these lines.

First, the Syrian Arab Army decided to withdraw from those areas that were not tactically important or are at least less important than others. This was followed by the consolidation of important areas, which gave the army a chance to mount coordinated attack on the opposition strongholds. It has also helped them withdraw and consolidate arms and weapons in their strongholds and stopping them from falling into opposition’ hands, as was the case in the past. This three-pronged strategy has helped the Syrian Arab Army in not only retaining their strongholds from falling into the hands of highly motived and armed rebels but also recapturing some of those territories it has lost in the last few months.

Apart from this there are other aspects that are very visible. The biggest of them is the army's ability to strongly withstand pressure from the opposition. After months of small and big scale defections and desertions, the Syrian Arab Army has now stabalised and have dropped to a trickle. Sources close to TSI say that during the second half of 2012, an average of 400 to 700 soldiers from the army were defecting every month. That figure has now dropped down to 10 to 12 defections every month, which the sources added, are `very manageable.'

Also, unlike 2012, there is little discontent amongst the officers corps - evident in decreasing number of defections while all such occurences are now limited to the level of soldiers and that too in the logistics department.

It is also very interesting to note here that the core of the conscription of the Syrian Arab Army that is still very Sunni in its formation, has remained consolidated to this day and there has been no apparent crack in that support base although the rebels have tried to project the unrest as a Sunni versus Alawite conflict.

Similarly, the minority conscripts as well as the officers, drawn from Christians, Druze and Kurds, have stuck it together displaying solidarity and camraderie. 

While the insurgency continues to retreat slowly but steadily, Russia's maneuvering has been successful in deterring any chance of an outright western intervention which was rated high on the cards at one point of time not too long in the past.

“According to the Geneva plan the United States and Russia will convene a conference with the aim to finding some consensual new Syrian government with each side promising to bring its supported party to the table. For Russia that will be easy to do. The Syrian government has always agreed to such talks and is willing to send a delegation that will discuss the various issues and compromises, where required.

But the United States itself has a huge problem on hand. It has little leverage over a large disjointed Syrian opposition. How can it then deliver on the promises it made? There are two identified groups the US is interacting with: the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) and the Free Syrian Army through General Idriss. To these groups the US can give or withhold money, equally it can give or withhold arms. But what is the SNC's leverage on ground and who, except the Muslim Brotherhood, does it really represent? And if the U.S. withholds money from them, will Qatar and other sources do the same,” questions noted Middle East expert Bernhard, who has kept a close eye on the Syrian crisis.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2013.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles
IIPM’s Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri – A Man For The Society….
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman

ExecutiveMBA

Thursday, March 7, 2013

INTERVIEW: THE AMBASSADOR OF GEORGIA

B&E: Keeping in mind the current scenario, do you think that Russia will ever agree for negotiations?
ZK:
Georgia is ready to talk with Russia, but only under one condition – full respect of Georgian territorial integrity and sovereignty. Knowing the position of current Russian leadership, we have little hope. This is because Russian leaders, namely Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev, have expressed unwillingness to discuss, enter into a relationship and negotiate with the present Georgian leadership. This once again confers that the objective of Russian incursion to Georgia is not only meant to occupy but also reverse the political regime of our nation. Regarding the Russian military presence in the region, it does concern us and seems to be a threat. But I would say it is not only a threat for Georgia but also another attempt of Russia to show the rest of the world that they are running the show in Caucasus region. It is also a demonstration that Russia is averse to peaceful political solutions of any problem arising in the region.

B&E: Is it the reason why you wish to join NATO? And do you think NATO can help you?
ZK:
Joining NATO had been a long term objective for Georgia. It is not something new. Referendums held in Georgia a few years ago demonstrated that more than 70% of the population was supporting Georgia’s aspiration to join NATO. Needless to say that becoming a member of NATO will immediately make us feel that we are a part of the large Euro-Atlantic family. And it would also make us feel safer. By the way, one more reason for Russia to wage war on us in the year 2008 was that Georgia and Ukraine were denied NATO membership because of Membership Action Plan (MAP). Russia took it as a signal that the West is not supporting Georgia any more. At least, the West will not militarily support Georgia if Russia attacks. And this is what unfortunately happened during the 2008 war. But I repeat, we never wanted to join NATO with a view of initiating any military actions to recover the territories. So, Russia perceived European countries joining NATO as their military weakness – especially members of the NATO. Till date, Georgians continue to support our endeavour to join NATO. We will eventually become a member of the NATO family. And thus, we are continuously undertaking major reforms to be compliant to meet the necessary demands of NATO. For example, Georgia participated in the peace keeping operations in Afghanistan with an extended military unit. The Day when all the members of NATO will consider Georgia ready to join, we will be given the green signal.

B&E: You cannot win a war with Russia. Do you have alternative ways to secure that 30% land?
ZK:
You are absolutely correct. One has to be a fool to think that Russia can be defeated militarily by any of its neighbours. Also, 2008 war demonstrated the weaker sides, which are quite important. The alternative is very simple – peaceful, diplomatic ways. You can always achieve what you aim for. It only takes more time. For example, you saw Russia retreating from Afghanistan; you have also seen reunification of Germany. However, we are dedicated to find solutions of long term disputes peacefully in order to recover those territories.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles

Friday, November 23, 2012

Animal index!

India would surely rank high on it

According to a recent report released jointly by Assocham and PwC, India is still way behind other BRIC countries when it comes to public spending on social sectors like health, education, providing access to healthy water, sanitation, schemes for elderly population et al. While India’s public spending on education and health was about 6% and 5% respectively according to the latest Indian Economic Survey, the same for its BRIC counterparts like Brazil, Russia and China is around 7.9% and 5.2% and 4.9% on health, and 12.8%, 12.9% and 10.2% on education respectively. The low public spending by India on health is visible by high mortality rate and growing health problems.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

And the Kremlin smiled...

Yanukovich wins, but his ‘women’ problems have just began

The way time flies, and fortunes change in politics is often quite baffling. Ukraine’s pro-Russia opposition leader Viktor Yanukovich won a slender victory in a closely fought general election in February. The country’s juvenile democracy is juxtaposed between Russia and the West – as was evident in the Orange Revolution in 2004, when the emotionally charged junta took to streets to ensure victory for the pro-American Yushchenko. However, that emotive outcry is all but buried for now, as the hero of that saga Yushchenko stands at a humiliating 5th position in the current elections.

Moscow detests Yushchenko for his attempts to join NATO and his pro-West nationalist policy. Obviously, the Kremlin is pleased with the current results. Russia’s importance to Ukraine cannot be undermined – the former supplies Ukraine’s entire gas requirement and also maintains its naval base in the Black Sea – critical for Ukraine’s stability. Yushchenko’s Orange Revolution was then backed by another lady protagonist in Ukrainian politics – Yulia Tymoshenko – who became the Prime Minister – but their tie-up soon fell apart as Yuschenko tried to move Ukraine radically away from the orbit of Russia’s influence whereas Tymoshenko followed a more pragmatic path, despite playing a diplomatic and tactical gas war with Vladimir Putin.

With the current victory of the evident Russian proxy Yanukovich, Putin is expected to change various laws to his advantage, including one which would have otherwise have forced the Russian Black Sea fleet to be withdrawn from Crimea, Ukraine, by 2017. But Putin hadn’t counted on dame Tymoshenko, who now is protesting the election of Yanukovich, as she feels it is not a legitimate victory with the slim margin.