There have been rumors circulating on the internet recently about Putin sending "thousands of troops" to Syria to fight alongside the Syrian Arab Army. These rumors appear to have originated with the Zionist rag 'YNet' and there is no evidence they have any basis in fact. However, said rumors have brought to the surface what I believe to be a very important question -- Has Vladimir Putin done enough to assist his 'ally,' Bashar Al Assad? In scouring the internet the past few days trying to gather as much information as I can on the subject, and taking into account many different arguments and view points, it's clear there are very legitimate reasons why Putin has offered only limited support. Still, it is beyond dispute that, even after over four years of steadfast resistance, the government of Bashar Al Assad is in jeopardy (The overthrow of Assad's government has been revealed to be official US policy and in the cards for a very long time). With that being the case and no real reconciliation to the situation in sight, it's safe to say these are becoming somewhat exceptional circumstances and I must admit I am left wondering why Putin has not done more to aid his Syrian counterpart. The ultimate goals of the US and its Zionist overlords in regards to Syria and the greater Middle East are well-known, and the overthrow of Assad is not the endgame, but only another step in the bigger plan. Iran, of course, would be on the chopping block next, and it would be foolish to think Vladimir Putin is not fully cognizant of this fact. Should the US and their Zionist Jew masters succeed in toppling Assad, and subsequently the Islamic Republic of Iran, this would present a grave threat to Russia, would it not? To that end, serious and important questions emerge about Putin and what his angle truly is. Which, put in a greater context, begs even more questions. In my opinion, these are the possible explanations for Putin's half-hearted approach to situation in Syria.
1) It is logistically impractical and ultimately to the detriment of the Russian Federation to take a larger or more direct role in the Syrian conflict. Or to put it another way, the risks of doing so and saving the Assad government far outweigh the benefits. As I said, I've read fairly compelling arguments for this. -- The Russian military is not equipped to undertake conflict more than 1,000 km from its borders; Russians overwhelmingly do NOT support the idea of military involvement in Syria, and Putin speaks for the Russian people; Even if Assad's rule was ensured and the conflict brought to an end, it is not a winnable situation due to the state of chaos of the greater Middle East/North Africa region, so the venue for the conflict would just move elsewhere; Russia simply does not express itself militarily unless its own borders are directly threatened. -- I fully understand and can appreciate all of this. However, it does not take into account the long-term prospects and implications of the broader situation. As I mentioned before, Assad himself does not represent the endgame to the sociopaths responsible for this destruction. Russia's interests in Syria may be worth sacrificing in order to avert a larger and much more dangerous conflict, but what about its long-term interests elsewhere? Namely, within Iran and even at home? Does Putin truly believe, even if the government in Damascus ultimately falls, that some sort of understanding can be had with an American entity that (at least on the surface) has his very government in its cross hairs? It would seem beyond belief, at least to this observer, that a continuation of the conquests cannot be easily foreseen by Mr. Putin if the assault is not only brought to a halt, but reversed so that Assad's 'legitimacy' as the president of Syria is fully and indisputably restored. One wonders, therefore, in what manner Putin seeks to assure the existence and stability of not only the government in Damascus, but also the one in Tehran and even the one in Moscow... Perhaps at this stage of the game Putin has a better picture of the situation on the ground in Syria than the lot of us, and has reason enough to believe that the conflict is still winnable in the hands of the Syrian army, Hezbollah and whatever Iranian forces are currently directly involved in combat. It cannot be entirely ruled out. But, there are other possible explanations to consider.
2) The military might and overall geopolitical fortitude of the Russian Federation has been greatly exaggerated. Mainstream and alternative commentary on the 'new Cold War' scenario all pretty much agree on one thing: Russia represents a formidable challenge to the United States -- from not only a geopolitical standpoint but also a military one. It is generally agreed upon that the military capabilities of Russia are potent enough that a deterrent to aggression on the part of the US is in place. This notion is true insofar as it pertains to avoiding nuclear war of apocalyptic proportions. Anything short of that remains to be seen because, as we've seen, Russia is getting bullied left and right with little to no real counter-measures. Again I ask, is Putin really just an overly peaceable and optimistic individual who thinks these indirect attacks on Russian interests will eventually just play themselves out with little noticeable consequences? I highly doubt it. That hyping the might of the Russian Federation and its competency as an opponent of the US serves both the former and the latter well is certainly a reasonable assertion. But in reality, if the warmongering neocons in Washington and their NATO cohorts take their absolutely reckless and provocative behavior up a notch, will we see a response from Putin that sends a real message? It is more likely that the purely defensive character of Russia's counter-measures are indicative of major vulnerability rather than a reluctance to express its might. From that point of view, it is entirely conceivable that taking a larger, more direct role in the fight to preserve the Assad government is not something that would bode well for Russia. Yet, all the bluster about Russia's status as the one, true challenger of US hegemony coming out of both the pro and anti-Putin camps could lead one to believe otherwise. None of us can be certain how the US would respond to direct Russian intervention in Syria. Could it set off a conflict unlike any we've ever seen, ultimately leading to the end of life as we know it? It's possible. But it's also possible that such a clear and decisive measure on Russia's part would finally put the Western warmongers in check. Indeed, it is not unimaginable that such an unprecedented act on their part would cause those warmongers to start re-evaluating their approach and policies when it comes to laying waste to hostile enemies of the Zionist regime. Is Putin doing the world a solid, preventing a catastrophic global war scenario? Is it a risk he's just not willing to take? Or, have we all been misled on the true nature of the US - Russia 'showdown?' Which brings me to my third possible explanation...
3) The 'new Cold War' scenario is pure theater. This is where things get much more complex, and many other factors, including ones of an historical nature, must be borne in mind. First and foremost, a factor that cannot be overlooked (as is always the case) is the money factor. Who benefits tremendously from a supposedly looming conflict between the world's two most powerful nations? Weapons manufacturers, of course. It was revealed in June that during the same week the EU voted to extend sanctions against Russia, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were doing deals with the Russian Federation, with the Pentagon lobbying hard to have sanctions eased for this purpose. In this context, we can see plainly how such a purported conflict takes on a whole different dynamic. Needless to say, Boeing and Lockheed, among others, stand to gain enormously in the midst of a 'new Cold War.' As we know quite well, special interests such as these have more influence over government policy than any 'elected' representative operating within the official governmental body.
Also of importance when examining this ostensible standoff is the historical roles of the US and Russia in regards to Zionism and the creation of the 'state' of Israel. Here, if we are to conclude that the current standoff is mostly or purely fictional, we must also conclude the same of the Cold War standoff of the century past. From where I'm sitting, this is absolutely plausible. Let us not forget that it was Russia where the headquarters for Talmudic world Jewry existed prior to the creation of Israel. What followed the establishment of this headquarters of Talmudic Jewry by Khazars in Russia was the Bolshevik revolution first, followed by a mass migration of the Ashkenazim to Palestine under the "leadership" of Joseph Stalin. Were it not for these developments, and the crucial role the played by the Soviet Union, the creation of Israel would not have been possible. It was from the Soviet Union that so many who made up the savage Zionist terrorist organizations came. The Bolsheviks, being brought to power as part of the Talmudic Zionist conspiracy that was being devised and nurtured in Russia, could not be anything but inherently friendly to the Zionist cause. (In actual fact, they were parallel movements.)
Then you have the American-Israeli "special relationship." If Russia is to be (rightly) viewed as the bearer of Zionism, America would be its procurer. Russia and the US are united in their unique relationship to the Zionist entity. One gave birth to it and the other sustains it. This entity, now surviving on the blood of American taxpayers, has gotten its tentacles into the working machinery of governments spanning the world, with only a handful of exceptions. If Russia is one of those exceptions, I have not seen convincing evidence of it. For all the rhetoric about Putin "kicking out the Jewish oligarchs," I have had no success verifying this alleged crusade. The fact of the matter is, Russia's entire historical legacy is tied inseparably to Zionist conspiracies, Zionist-instigated wars and Zionist mythology about those wars, which to this very day are enforced by law. The bearer and procurer of the Zionist entity operate in absolute harmony alongside one another in keeping the world subservient to the Zionist order of things. Russia is obviously not beholden to the cult in Tel Aviv in the same manner which the US is, but it operates safely within the cult's architecture and sphere of permissible narratives. To break with the Zionist entity and cast aside as inconsequential its cultivation inside Russian borders, the Russian Federation as it exists today would also have to break with the legacy it prides itself on. They are two parts of the same process, and without the completion of that process, the two nations remain synchronized where it counts.
I am compelled also to invoke America's last (and possibly only) real president. While the enemies he accumulated and his transgressions against TPTB are both extensive, it's imperative for the purpose of this analysis to recall the president's efforts to improve relations with the Soviet Union. Maintaining such a conflict, real or imagined, is paramount in shaping the perception of the masses and directing their attention and energy away from what must remain hidden. The absence of Cold War drama and fear-mongering leaves an enormous void of collective energy that could be harnessed for purposes detrimental to the established order. Furthermore, it applies to the world configuration an absolutist essence; a sort of 'good cop - bad cop' depiction which serves to conceal the true machinations of the power structure. This simple routine has yielded wildly successful results as a tool of public containment, and it cannot be ruled out in this particular context.
In order to take this 'standoff' at face value, you must accept as fact that there are certain individuals who are so raving mad that they are willing to risk an extermination-level fallout -- and therefore their own lives -- in their quest for arbitrary power and dominance. In light of the fact that I am not an absurdly wealthy, power-wielding psychopath, I cannot say for certain whether or not utter disregard for one's own life is a trait someone in that position can pick up along the way. Though, admittedly, it is somewhat difficult to grasp when you set aside all the posturing and hyperbole.
Getting back to the original topic at hand...
It remains to be seen, of course, whether Russia does ultimately insert itself into the conflict in a more direct way. Though this seems extremely unlikely at this juncture. Truth be told, it's anyone's guess as to what Putin himself is thinking and what his intentions are -- not just as it pertains to Syria, but in general. There is an awful lot of mystery, legend, hyperbole and sycophancy surrounding this figure and while I'm personally still somewhat unsure of where my assessment will ultimately lead, I'm finding myself leaning towards explanation number three. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to believe that Putin the anti-hegemonic-ambition renegade would be willing to sacrifice his ally in Syria in the hope of the US being content thereafter. From an outside, unbiased perspective, there appears to be a significant lack of urgency on the part of the Russia with regards to Syria. Exactly why is up for debate, but what is beyond question, in my opinion, is the damaging effect this lack of urgency is having on Putin's reputation as the unquestioned challenger of American imperialism.