are russian airstrikes justified?
Debate Rounds (2)
also what Russia is doing is giving rise to a situation of war in the middle eastern region. what would happen next is that IS would get more money more weapons through illegal oil trade illegal human trafficking and so on. Russia can only directly attack the IS but not counter its mechanisms through which it gets its funding. what usa did was a complete isolation of the IS from all regions. whether it be to stop oil trafficking whether it be to restrict the donors from giving donations.
another aspect to be looked at is that can Russia alone end this terror. the answer is NO. it is seen to be doing operations because of its publicity stunts but it is nothing with the actions of usa ,of france, of Germany ,of Qatar and so on.
Russia may say they are in there to attack ISIS which is partially true however; they're are more in there to support Bashar Al-Assad. The reason why they won't partner with the US in the fight is because they both support different sides, Russia wanting Assad and the US not wanting him.
That being said the air strikes are also for political leverage. Russia offered the US a deal, Assad to step down in return for sanctions to be lifted. Obviously the US declined and Russia started it's campaign in order for leverage at the negotiation table.
The actual short term gains of the air strikes are also good for Russia and Assad as the Syrian government has been able to gain ground under Russian air strike support.
To conclude justifiable just means they have a reason, Russia's reasons are to support Bashar Al-Assad and gain political leverage around the world.
Kaluka forfeited this round.
Kripto forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.