Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
Russia's direct intervention in Syria represents the first conflict since the end of the Cold War that Russia deployed its armed forces outside of the former Soviet Union and Communist Bloc. I think there's little risk that this will turn out to be a repeat of 1904/1905 for Russia.

Notwithstanding continued technical problems (growing pains so to speak), this is an indication of an increasingly assertive and capable Russia; inspired by its own growing confidence but also by the opportunity presented by American retreat. The Russians have to this point been fairly conservative in military campaigns by embarking on limited objectives. Let's see if this continues to hold true as temptations increase.
The Russian intervention is so limited and so poolry executed that I'm not sure it can be taken too seriously.

Despite some partial attempts at modernizing and professionalizing the Russian Armed Forces, Putin is forced to resort to stunts in order to convince the world that Russia still is a great power conventionally.

Remember that Iran is what keeps Assad in power, and so the Syrian Civil War is not Putin's to lose.

Technically, they've done little other than enrage Sunni Syrians by dropping mostly dumb bombs in built-up areas.

In the Ukraine, they went to war with an army that could only mobilize less than 10,000 soldiers at the outset, and which lacked equipment, training, logistics, arms and ammunition, etc.

Georgia was a walk-through only because the Georgians lost their nerve and quite frankly weren't ready.

Russia has improved since Chechnya, but it's a very low bar...