On Thursday, the city of Qamishli, north of Hassakeh, witnessed an intense security alert of the Russia-backed National Defense Forces militia and pro-Iran militias affiliated with the IRGC. This came after armed clashes took place between the two sides.
Syrian government forces used automatic weapons to attack a military checkpoint in the village of Kozliya in the northern countryside of al-Hassakeh governorate. The outpost was run by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which is backed by the Washington-led International Coalition.
The attack resulted in the death of a government officer and soldier and two SDF fighters.
A legendary Syrian rebel fighter has offered his expertise to the Ukrainian army in helping them roll back a Russian invasion. Suhail al-Hamood – nicknamed Abu Tow after the anti-tank missile – is said to have destroyed more than 100 Russian-made tanks in Syria during the Free Syrian Army’s battles against Assad regime forces.
Zaman al-Wasl learned that Iran supplied allied militias in Syria, particularly the Syrian desert with quality weapons, including anti-armor machine guns amid mounting attacks by the Islamic State on Wednesday.
A well-informed source told Zaman al-Wasl that the IRG delivered advanced weapons to its points and to the Afghan Fatemiyoun militia based in the Palmyra and Arak desert in the eastern countryside of Homs province.
The War in Ukraine is occupying all the headlines. Seen as the downfall of the European state system, its repercussions are believed to be mostly focused inside the old continent. However, the repercussions of the Russian war extend to Syria as well through many channels. Among these, it provides a perfect opportunity for Iran, Russia’s partner, to gain some ground in the country.
Russia’s Invasion Could Unleash Forces the Kremlin Can’t Control
Russian forces have struck targets across Ukraine and seized key facilities and swaths of territory. The Ukrainian military is no match for this Russian juggernaut. Although some reports suggest Ukrainian troops have rebuffed attacks in certain parts of the country, it seems more likely that Russian President Vladimir Putin will decide just how far Russia goes into Ukraine. As a retired Russian-speaking CIA operations officer who served in Central Asia and managed agency counterinsurgency operations, I did not think Putin would have attacked Ukraine unless he had already devised a reliable end game, given the costs of an intractable conflict. But Putin’s best-laid plans might easily unravel in the face of popular Ukrainian national resistance and an insurgency.
How Sergey Shoygu Paved the Way for Russia’s Ukraine Assault
On February 25, barely 24 hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian forces reached Kyiv. Even accounting for Russia’s vastly superior firepower, the speed of the military advance has been startling. But it also has highlighted something else: the extent to which the Kremlin’s entire pressure campaign on Ukraine has been driven by the Russia military. In contrast to many previous efforts by Moscow to achieve political goals in the West—or to exact retribution on a perceived enemy—the Ukraine offensive has not been driven by the Federal Security Service (FSB), Russia’s security agency, which has often drawn the lion’s share of Western attention. Instead, it has been shaped from the outset by old-fashioned military power projection: first by amassing an overwhelming force on the border and then, with the world watching, quickly and efficiently putting that force to use.
Dictatorships Look Stable—Until They Aren’t
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine has been a clarifying moment. Since he came to power in 2000, various Western leaders have tried to cooperate, accommodate, or negotiate with him. But by embarking on a war of choice against a country he claims doesn’t have a right to exist, Putin has forced the international community to see him for what he is: a belligerent leader with a remarkable capacity for destruction. The result has been sweeping new measures designed to constrict and constrain him—punishing sanctions against Russia’s financial institutions, bans on Russian planes over EU airspace, and increased weapons shipments to Ukraine. Even Germany, long reluctant to confront Putin, agreed to exclude Russian banks from the SWIFT financial messaging system, reversed its long-standing prohibition on providing arms to conflict zones, and substantially increased its military spending. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has sparked nothing less than a sea change in international perceptions of Putin and what must be done to confront him.
A Defeat for Moscow Won’t Be a Clear Victory for the West
Russian President Vladimir Putin has made a strategic blunder by invading Ukraine. He has misjudged the political tenor of the country, which was not waiting to be liberated by Russian soldiers. He has misjudged the United States, the European Union, and a number of countries—including Australia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea—all of which were capable of collective action before the war and all of which are now bent on Russia’s defeat in Ukraine. The United States and its allies and partners are imposing harsh costs on Moscow. Every war is a battle for public opinion, and Putin’s war in Ukraine has—in an age of mass-media imagery—associated Russia with an unprovoked attack on a peaceful neighbor, with mass humanitarian suffering, and with manifold war crimes. At every turn, the ensuing outrage will be an obstacle to Russian foreign policy in the future.
With signs that Moscow’s initial invasion strategy has not gone according to plan, the crisis in Ukraine has reached a critical moment.
It has not been a good five days for Vladimir Putin. Ukrainian resistance has been much stronger and more effective than he could have imagined. His own forces have been much less effective, sometimes almost absurdly so. And he has awakened a united Western response which none of us could have imagined would happen until very recently.