Well, Arab Militaries...

 ... I want to remind AGAIN about the article by Colonel Atkine--Why Arabs Lose Wars. If one disregards the nonsense Atkine writes about Soviet Armed Forces, of which he has about zero knowledge, his delving into the nature of Arab militaries is valid, as are testimonies of a majority of Soviet/Russian military advisers who trained, as an example, Iraqi and Syrian militaries. I knew a few of them really well. 

Allegedly, these are "opposition" forces already in Presidential Palace in Damascus. 

Now, classic Arab apologetics starts with blaming everybody but themselves. Here is a classic Middle Eastern Army--selling itself to the highest bidder. 

The Syrian Army command announced on Sunday that President Bashar Assad’s 24-year rule has come to an end, according to a Syrian officer who spoke to Reuters. The announcement follows a rapid offensive by jihadist forces in the capital. The jihadists claim that Damascus is “now free of Assad” and are expected to make their first public statement via state TV, Reuters reports, citing two anti-government sources. In response to the political uncertainty, Prime Minister Mohammad al-Jalali stated that he is “ready to cooperate with any leadership chosen by the people,” as quoted by Al Jazeera. He added that he remains at home and is inclined to support the continuity of government.

The question always is how much is worth Arab military high ranking officer(s) for betrayal. Evidently, as early as the  last week Iran (if to believe WSJ) told official Damascus about reducing its military aid and started removing command of some of its forces from Syria. Syrian Girl reports that SAA "was ordered not to fight". I don't doubt for a second that there was a high level military-intel treason, but let's also face the fact that if not for Russian and Iranian forces in Syria it wouldn't have survived by now. In other words--it takes outside forces to prop up most of regional militaries.

Now about hysterics re: Russia, especially by all kinds of "concerned citizens". If to believe reports about Assad family flying to Moscow (big if, though)--it becomes clear that Russia knew what was afoot. Fast advancement of the HTS forces and cowardly abandonment of Syrian towns and cities by SAA was not due to HTS military prowess but due to SAA ceasing to exist as a viable fighting force due to corruption, military incompetence, cowardice and treason--all classic traits of such militaries. But as I repeat ad nauseam--Russian bases in Syria ARE NOT there to "defend" Syria, let alone fight the war for Syrians... again. If Syrians do not want to fight for their country, neither does Russia, nor does Iran, as it should be. Is it bad? For Syria it certainly is, for Russia--let's wait and see. Because Syria for Russia is not a priority. 

Were Russian lives lost in Syria in vain? Absolutely, as far as the Syrian statehood is concerned--it is an undeniable fact and it merely reinforces a well established pattern of backstabbing being one of the major traits of the region. So, we have to wait and see how it plays out for Russia, but it is clear that Russia made a decision not to support official Damascus anymore, but Russia can reinforce her bases in the region if need be. The situation is very fluid and we need to be patient and very cautious in making conclusions before clearer picture emerges.