a fan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:51 am
....and you've still dodged answering the professors question.
It's simply not possible that you can't name several potential and/or actual downsides to Putin's moves in three separate countries.
What's the point in speculating about potential downsides until/unless they happen ? They will be driven by events.
The US & EU are already sanctioning Putin to the max their business interests will tolerate & it hasn't slowed Putin down.
NATO won't react militarily unless Russia engages a member militarily. Putin is engaged in an escalation which costs NATO much more than him.
He has demonstrated that he can intervene in former Soviet Republics & maintain frozen conflicts in Russian ethnic enclaves there, at minimal cost, with no real penalty . He is executing his strategy of undermining western unity, while maintaining trade with them, China & other nonaligned nations which resent US dominance. So far, Putin's strategy is working & will continue. His domestic support is strong & unwavering.
I'm done wasting time debating willfully obtuse faux questions.
Google --> [Military Occupation] & [Military Intervention], then note the differences.
How many casualties has Russia suffered in Syria ?
Russia had 1 fighter jet mistakenly shot down by Turkey, prompting Erdogan to go to Moscow to apologize.
Erdogan's now buying their S-400 & endangering the F-35's tactical advantage, in a standoff which might split NATO.
Russia's intervention in Syria has been, by any standard, a resounding success.
They are filling the vacuum we left in the ME, without the expense of occupation or reconstruction.
His bailout of Obama on Assad's CW red line was a propaganda coup.
He helped negotiate an Iran nuc deal, with flaws he knew would scuttle it when a (R) was elected & further divide NATO.
If only our interventions had been this successful.
I offer this assessment with regret & frustration.
Take it or leave it. Tell yourself whatever gets you through the night.