3 ms·

But I think that Russian and US military policy sometimes is similar. Let's take Syria as an example. Syria had good relations with Russia and as a trustworthy

But I think that Russian and US military policy sometimes is similar. Let's take Syria as an example. Syria had good relations with Russia and as a trustworthy and reliable ally allowed to build a Russian base there. I guess that US didn't like the idea of having a foreign military base in the Middle East so they supported the opposition trying to overthrow the government. And Russia didn't like the idea of losing a base and a good ally so they supported the government. Am I wrong here? It looks like nobody really cared about Syrian people and that's what's similar in US and Russia foreign policy. Wars are usually waged for land or for power, not to protect someone's liberties. You are right though that America recently didn't annex land; but they did so earlier, see history of Panama Canal Zone for example [1]: > In March 1902 Colombia set its terms for such a treaty: Colombia was to be sovereign over the canal, which would be policed by Colombians paid for by the United States. The host nation would receive a larger percentage of the tolls than provided for in earlier draft treaties. > The draft terms were quickly rejected by American officials. > A Frenchman who had worked on his nation's canal efforts, Philippe Bunau-Varilla, represented Panamanian insurgents; he met with Roosevelt and with Secretary of State John Hay, who saw to it that his principals received covert support. When the revolution came in November 1903, the United States intervened to protect the rebels, who succeeded in taking over the province, declaring it independent as the Republic of Panama. > negotiated a treaty, giving the United States a zone 20 miles (32 km) wide and full authority to pass laws to govern that zone. The same trick that US, USSR and Russia have repeated multiple times since: support the opposition against the government; get something valuable (like land or permission to build military bases) in return. Repeat if the opposition you have helped stops being grateful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone

acdha 5y ago
> But I think that Russian and US military policy sometimes is similar. Let's take Syria as an example. Syria had good relations with Russia and as a trustworthy and reliable ally allowed to build a Russian base there. I guess that US didn't like the idea of having a foreign military base in the Middle East so they supported the opposition trying to overthrow the government. And Russia didn't like the idea of losing a base and a good ally so they supported the government. > Am I wrong here? It looks like nobody really cared about Syrian people and that's what's similar in US and Russia foreign policy. Wars are usually waged for land or for power, not to protect someone's liberties. It's a bit more complicated than just “nobody really cared” — the U.S. was already bogged down in two wars of choice with no end in sight so a third one was going to be a very hard sell. The U.S. did provide aid to some groups and actively attacked ISIL but the latter was the primary combat goal because there was no interest in occupying Syria and accepting the massive requirements in personnel and casualties that would require. That's one of the key differences with the current situation in the Ukraine: Russia has made it clear that their goal is to rebuild the historic empire and are willing to accept large death counts to do so.

acdha 5y ago

> But I think that Russian and US military policy sometimes is similar. Let's take Syria as an example. Syria had good relations with Russia and as a trustworthy and reliable ally allowed to build a Russian base there. I guess that US didn't like the idea of having a foreign military base in the Middle East so they supported the opposition trying to overthrow the government. And Russia didn't like the idea of losing a base and a good ally so they supported the government. > Am I wrong here? It looks like nobody really cared about Syrian people and that's what's similar in US and Russia foreign policy. Wars are usually waged for land or for power, not to protect someone's liberties. It's a bit more complicated than just “nobody really cared” — the U.S. was already bogged down in two wars of choice with no end in sight so a third one was going to be a very hard sell. The U.S. did provide aid to some groups and actively attacked ISIL but the latter was the primary combat goal because there was no interest in occupying Syria and accepting the massive requirements in personnel and casualties that would require. That's one of the key differences with the current situation in the Ukraine: Russia has made it clear that their goal is to rebuild the historic empire and are willing to accept large death counts to do so.