This was rather poor book from Tom Cooper whom I like as an author of numerous other books from the same publisher.

Problem is what permeates this book and in general majority of work related to Russia operations abroad. Namely how can you write about Russian operations abroad as justified/with-cause or (oh my) successful in any way? In short apparently you cannot. Why, I do not know.

I laughed out loud reading introduction where author discusses how Russia got involved in the Syria in the first place - apparently current government had no right to do it and decision to do it is analyzed in such a detail it is amazing. I assume weapon deliveries and air strikes from the west (Turkey included) had every right to be done because opposition demanded it? Right...

And then to mix all up you have hell-on-earth place called war-torn-Syria. Place in which multiple fractions and militias are fighting each other, changing alliances and playing outside world for support. In here author's bias is also strongly on pro-west side but it is so inconsistent in portraying west-friendly armies it borders with ridiculous.

For example look at Syrian war fraction called JAN (or later known as HTS - according to everyone very pro-terrorist Al Nusra) - in the beginning of the book JAN is fraction formed from reactionary fundamentalist elements released from prisons by Assad's government to mess up with the opposition (here you would say Aha! that is how fundamentalists got reign of power). Very soon they end up fighting against Assad's government (what?) and then suddenly they work with Turkey fighting Kurdish fighters (there is sentence here that goes like - Turkey is accused of working with fundamentalists which is not true. I mean if JAN is fighting for them then ... what is going on? Does author truly want to say that Turkey that knows all that goes in its own backyard does not know what JAN is?). And then JAN disappears and suddenly new formation, HTS, pops up as part of pro-Turkey FSA under attack by Assad's government and Russians, and yup HTS is actually one of many re-incarnations of JAN- which begs the question is author at least trying to be consistent? First they are released by Assad's government and in this case they are big bad wolf but when attacked by that same government due to their actions and affiliations it is a bad move by Assad? and throughout the book there is no mention of JAN/HTS fighting anyone else but Assad's government and Kurdish fighters.

Not to mention that according to the author Russians played no role at all and did not help at all but used all the ruckus to come out as power-players. This was second "what?" moment for me followed immediately with information that Russia's air forces actually has less than 50 modern planes - all the others are from the 70's/80's. Well ... what to say.....

And yes they cannot afford the better equipment - their AWACS is little better than E2C Hawkeye, they do not have radar coverage beyond the horizon and they are so plain dumb to put radar monitoring stations in such a position that mountains obstruct them, have no intelligence on the ground whatsoever, they cannot afford modern missiles at all and mostly use steel no-guidance (dumb) bombs in action (whoever read any book on Russia's military knows that they are very indiscreet when it comes to use of firepower in general (as in volley of missiles to level the city before occupation) - this is their way of doing things, unfortunately) although how would use of pin point ammunition lessen civilian casualties in dense urban areas is little bit beyond me (these same type of things are horrors for every western army but that is where collateral damage term so ... collateral damage is I suppose term only to be used with mention of precision munitions?).

So all in all Russians are incompetent, with very old equipment and ran around by Iranian RG troops.

It almost begs the question why is every western power worried about Russia in the first place. I mean after reading this book they are not just toothless bear but also claw-less and in general spineless and not able to survive on their own if there weren't fot Iranian and Assad's troops. Same troops by the way that were on the brink of total collapse before Russians came in. So somewhat of a paradox, right?

When author's bias is suppressed and he presents objective facts it is clear that Syria was used by Russia to test their operational procedures and weapons. Did they take losses, sure did and they are behind western powers in terms of application of power, use of precision munitions and what might be called expeditionary forces in general. But to say that they did not play any role, are rag-tag group led around by Iranians and Assad and working with obsolete equipment is bloody ridiculous. Russians came in with specific goal in mind and avoided as much as possible any shooting match with western powers. Even when Russian planes were shot down, Russians attacked their militia allies in Syria and restrained from attacking any western power directly. Isn't this an interesting fact.

I think author was aware of the above because in introduction he clearly says that some readers will be puzzled, angered or critical of the work but true details (since a lot of things he used were presented by word of mouth - and yes, online forums and BBS boards are in this category) wont be unknown in the immediate future.

In my opinion author should present facts in the objective matter. Unfortunately he failed in this perspective completely for this book.

Even with all the down-sides book does give good enough picture of fighting in Syria (accent is air-warfare here) and roles played by Russians and Iranians in the conflict.

So as a starting point for anyone interested in this long-running and disastrous conflict it is a solid book. ( )