Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

What percentage of the Russian forces in Syria are mercenaries?

 

[iceaura]

The more dangerous thing is actually the increasingly irrational behavior of the US. Looks like the warmongers have won and taken over the White House, there are some signs that one has to expect escalation toward a new Cold War.

That's old news - you missed that? Trump won the election of 2016, and the Republican Party kept control of both houses of Congress - that was over a year ago.

The consequences of the US citizenry electing fascist governance and giving it control of the US military are no surprise to anyone familiar with fascism - this is normal, for fascist governance. As with the election of W&Cheney in 2000, pretty much anyone with any sense saw "increasingly irrational behavior" and "warmongering" as inevitable. Also "failure" - fascist governance is not competent governance.

Prediction: The US behavior in Syria is going to continue to make perfect sense to anyone who views it from that perspective. As is Russia's - mercenaries and all.

 

[Schmelzer]

What percentage of the Russian forces in Syria are mercenaries?

Nobody knows. And nobody cares.

One of the applications of mercenaries is simply support, like the defense of some buildings or so. And the other one is to do things which the state is not allowed to do or simply does not want to acknowledge actually. Given that Russia is in Syria openly, there is no point using them for such things. Look for Libya or Sudan if you want to see Russian mercenaries. Regarding mercenaries the Russians are simply following the US.

That's old news - you missed that?

I look at what on the ground happens, and it looks a little bit different now than last year. Namely, a return to the level of confrontation which was standard during Obama time. So, ok, looks like you have won.

Prediction: The US behavior in Syria is going to continue to make perfect sense to anyone who views it from that perspective. As is Russia's - mercenaries and all.

I don't predict anything. If the Clintonoids have succeeded, then everything is possible up to a nuclear war. Which deep state faction has won the hidden war behind the scene is nothing one can read in the NYT, you can see it only in reality. And actually, it looks not very nice.

 

[Vociferous]

Where and from whom did you "hear" this nonsense?

Sorry, wasn't air force, was air defenses.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-iran-20180211-story.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...of-more-surprises-in-syria-idUSKBN1FX198?il=0

 

[iceaura]

I look at what on the ground happens, and it looks a little bit different now than last year. Namely, a return to the level of confrontation which was standard during Obama time.

You missed the big increase in drone strikes, the extra soldiers and mercenaries, the extra money, the big flashy bomb, the dismissal of the diplomats, all that stuff that started immediately upon Trump's inauguration (and some even before)? You didn't notice?

and now - as predicted by those who know fascism when it's spread out in front of them - Trump wants to expand Gitmo, increase military funding, and have a military parade for himself in Washington. People are taking bets on whether he's going to have a military uniform made for himself, to wear while watching the parade - and the odds are not that long against.

I don't predict anything.

I did. I predicted Trump was going to behave as a typical fascist strongman and push standard Republican policy, as soon as he took office.

Which deep state faction has won the hidden war behind the scene is nothing one can read in the NYT, you can see it only in reality.

Well that's going to present a problem for you - so far you haven't been able to identify or describe even one deep state faction, let alone various squabbling ones, so even a remarkable rehabilitation of your ability to see reality will not suffice to connect it like that.

Which deep state faction is responsible for the increase in drone strikes starting from Trump's first days in office, for example? - is it the same one that arranged for the betrayal of some Kurds, and the refusal to enforce sanctions against Russia as Congress had required of the Executive Branch, much later?

 

[CptBork]

The point of the Israeli fighter was not that it was successfully shot down - but that Moscow has given the ok for shooting it. http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2018/02/12/israel-gets-bloody-nose-in-syria-what-next/ gives a nice summary what it is about. This was prepared step by step before, Israel could have understood that this will be the next step, but did not want to understand, now they have, maybe, understood the point.

...

Feel free to believe this. We will see. There were over 100 such Israeli attacks per year, so, we will learn in short time if something has changed or not.

Israel's activities in Syria will almost certainly continue as before, unless Russia is able to hold Iran back from encroaching on its borders. If Syria attempts once again to shoot down Israeli planes, Israel will eliminate the missile defenses and possibly even the airbases which it refrained from targeting in the past. All very easy targets to hit if it so chooses.

My guess is that Israel will not stop everything, but restrict itself to less dangerous things - cruise missiles from Golan Heights or rockets shot from planes over Lebanon, where they feel yet safe. This will be accepted by Russia for some time, but not forever.

Israel only cares what Russia is willing to accept, when Russia is simultaneously taking action to address its security needs. When Russia fails to do so, we see events such as the recent exchange in which Israel lost a single fighter jet and claims to have wiped out half of Syria's air defenses in retaliation. Israel's not going to listen to Russia when its security is guaranteed to be jeopardized whether it listens or not, and it feels it has nothing to lose by acting.

Forget about Israel attacking the Russian airbase. Even more, forget about nukes, they will certainly not be used against Russians, the retaliation would be the end of Israel with certainty. Of course, Russia takes into account Israeli interests.

I was talking about Israel's options in the event Russia chooses to attack them or backs such an attack by one of its allies. Israel has more than enough firepower to clean out Russia's current presence in Syria and to leave Assad's regime nearly defenseless against the rebels. It also (theoretically) has enough nukes to make sure Russia goes down with it, in the event that Russia were to retaliate for losing Syria by initiating such an exchange.

The more dangerous thing is actually the increasingly irrational behavior of the US. Looks like the warmongers have won and taken over the White House, there are some signs that one has to expect escalation toward a new Cold War. The US attacks against the Syrian troops are one such sign. The revival of the last hospitals and the gas attacks propaganda another. So I'm not optimistic about near future.

Tell you what, how about you show me a source debunking the rebels' hospital claims which doesn't contain any of the factual errors I previously referred to and which you have already admitted to? Otherwise if you mention this topic again, I'll report you for repeatedly and deliberately referring to a falsified information source.

 

[Schmelzer]

You missed the big increase in drone strikes, the extra soldiers and mercenaries, the extra money, the big flashy bomb, the dismissal of the diplomats, all that stuff that started immediately upon Trump's inauguration (and some even before)? You didn't notice?

No. I have simply seen contradictory evidence, you, as expected from an ideologue, see only one direction. So, I have seen evidence for a cut of the money for terrorist mercenaries in Syria. And, as explained many times, US "diplomats" are not diplomats in the usual meaning, but organizers of regime changes or points to deliver orders to vassals. So, I see what I have predicted - unpredictability, inconsistency, irrationality.

Well that's going to present a problem for you - so far you haven't been able to identify or describe even one deep state faction, let alone various squabbling ones, so even a remarkable rehabilitation of your ability to see reality will not suffice to connect it like that.

Of course, it is very difficult to identify such things. So, this will remain speculative. But this is not a reason to follow simplifying ideologues who have only one ideological pattern - Trump is fascist - which, of course, explains everything.

Israel's activities in Syria will almost certainly continue as before, unless Russia is able to hold Iran back from encroaching on its borders.

We will see.

When Russia fails to do so, we see events such as the recent exchange in which Israel lost a single fighter jet and claims to have wiped out half of Syria's air defenses in retaliation. Israel's not going to listen to Russia when its security is guaranteed to be jeopardized whether it listens or not, and it feels it has nothing to lose by acting.

Given that there is no reason for Israel to change their information policy, we can, of course, expect that whatever bad happens with Israeli planes will be either not acknowledged by Israel (and therefore not known by you) or will be followed with Israeli claims of heavy retaliation (which you will believe).

I was talking about Israel's options in the event Russia chooses to attack them or backs such an attack by one of its allies.

Feel free to speculate what happens if the aliens attack the Earth. Russia has no reason at all to attack Israel. There is, btw, a large Russian-speaking community in Israel, and a lot of them have connections to Russia.

Tell you what, how about you show me a source debunking the rebels' hospital claims which doesn't contain any of the factual errors I previously referred to and which you have already admitted to?

How about you show me a source debunking the claims that you rape small children, which I have heard somewhere? If you believe such claims, so be it. I couldn't care less. I simply tell you that I'm sure they are fake. Especially the 21. of them.

If you have not recognized the point, I have given in the whole threads about Syria almost no information about casualties, for the simple reason that claims about casualties are the least reliable information in wartime, always, everywhere. Same for various war crime accusations. With some exceptions for those openly admitted by the perpetrators and their supporters, like https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/761248812254031872 which combines the child head cutting filmed and distributed by the perpetrators themselves, and the US openly supporting them even after the fact became well-known. And the point is not that all the pro-Syrian forces are nice and follow in all details the human rights convention. This is a civil war, with cruelties to be expected from all sides, and in modern civil wars even more than in the past. It is simply the point that usually the only side which distributes information about cruelties is the enemy, and the reliability of such claims made by the enemy is below zero. And it was below zero already during WW I, and is in no way new to the Syrian war.

So, feel free to believe such propaganda claims.

In Munich, security conference or so (I translate informally from German) the director or so, cold warrior Wolfgang Ischinger, has made a statement along the line

von einigen "Anzeichen", dass sich die Dinge etwas beruhigt und in den USA die Kräfte die Oberhand gewonnen hätten, die auf Kontinuität setzten. Insgesamt aber mache sich bemerkbar, dass mit dem weltpolitischen Rückzug der USA eine Ordnungsmacht, eine Weltpolizei, fehle.

that there are signs that in the USA the forces which support continuity have won. But, in general, after the retreat of the US from world politics, a world policeman is missing. So, he has, looking from the other side, a similar impression: A quite obvious retreat of the US, but actually a takeover by those who support the US world rule.

About Syria, the only interesting information appeared to be a fake - namely that there was an agreement with the Kurds that the Syrian forces come to Afrin to defend it from the Turks. The Syrian government did not agree - they made the condition that the Kurdish forces give the full power to Syria, with the Kurdish forces giving away their weapons. The Idlib operation seems finished, and people speculate about the place where the next operation starts.

 

[iceaura]

So, I have seen evidence for a cut of the money for terrorist mercenaries in Syria.

So? He's increased funding for other mercenaries everywhere - why would a couple in Syria be more important?

And, as explained many times, US "diplomats" are not diplomats in the usual meaning, but organizers of regime changes or points to deliver orders to vassals.

So? Getting rid of them, and boosting the military and mercenary and CIA-associated violence instead, is what you were talking about above - the "deep state" stuff that you seem to think is a takeover of Trump instead of Trump's obvious and predicted influence from day one.

Of course, it is very difficult to identify such things. So, this will remain speculative.

It is impossible for you to identify such things by now, because you have at one time or another excluded all possible membership. There's nobody left to be in your deep state factions except Trump's (Republican's) corporate capitalist influence - the big oil guys, et al - that characterize fascist governance.

But this is not a reason to follow simplifying ideologues who have only one ideological pattern - Trump is fascist - which, of course, explains everything.

The Republican Party is fascist. Not just Trump.
And that does explain his - and his Party's - governance. No need to invent and speculate about what you can never identify - it's right there, as predicted.

And that's what you are dealing with in Syria - Turkey, US, Russia, Assad, Israel, etc.

 

[CptBork]

How about you show me a source debunking the claims that you rape small children, which I have heard somewhere? If you believe such claims, so be it. I couldn't care less. I simply tell you that I'm sure they are fake. Especially the 21. of them.

Well, whoever told you that I rape small children, it wasn't the police, nor Medecins Sans Frontieres, nor Amnesty International or the United Nations. I'm actually starting to think that neither you nor just about any other Russians actually believe in the crap the Kremlin puts out. The trolls were absolutely livid when their elite, "battle"-hardened mercenaries got shredded up, called them "defenseless" as if the US was only supposed to chuck spears at them. I guess a lot of Russians think that as long as they can project an image of victory and global domination on TV, it's just as good as the real thing, at least until they can find some way to successfully murder and thieve from the big boys.

If you have not recognized the point, I have given in the whole threads about Syria almost no information about casualties, for the simple reason that claims about casualties are the least reliable information in wartime, always, everywhere. Same for various war crime accusations.

No, you've been throwing all kinds of accusations against people who resist your rule, and nations that are better and more successful than yours, while practically giving blow-by-blow accounts about numbers killed by your friends. You merely restrict yourself to reporting stuff when it makes you feel like you're from a great and mighty nation, and pretend to be a neutral observer when the numbers don't look good on you. Try getting a pet dog, they're great at making people feel special.

With some exceptions for those openly admitted by the perpetrators and their supporters, like https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/761248812254031872 which combines the child head cutting filmed and distributed by the perpetrators themselves, and the US openly supporting them even after the fact became well-known. And the point is not that all the pro-Syrian forces are nice and follow in all details the human rights convention. This is a civil war, with cruelties to be expected from all sides, and in modern civil wars even more than in the past. It is simply the point that usually the only side which distributes information about cruelties is the enemy, and the reliability of such claims made by the enemy is below zero. And it was below zero already during WW I, and is in no way new to the Syrian war.

If you really believe all that nonsense you just wrote, you would apply it to Assad's propaganda machine just as readily, but apparently people who use foreign forces to displace half of their own country are heroes to you.

In Munich, security conference or so (I translate informally from German) the director or so, cold warrior Wolfgang Ischinger, has made a statement along the line

that there are signs that in the USA the forces which support continuity have won. But, in general, after the retreat of the US from world politics, a world policeman is missing. So, he has, looking from the other side, a similar impression: A quite obvious retreat of the US, but actually a takeover by those who support the US world rule.

Tell that to all the screaming, crying Wagner retards currently dying in your Moscow military hospitals from pieces of metal that say "Made in USA".

 

[Schmelzer]

The next big operation seems to be in East Ghouta. Of course, it may be fake, but there have been already shown a lot of pictures of a lot of military equipment (tanks, artillery), and a lot of people coming into the region during the last week. So, an offensive will probably start in the next days. There were some claims today that the preparation with artillery has already started.

And there seem to be negotiations between the Afrin Kurds and the Syrian army of taking over of Afrin.

Iceaura repeats the usual tantra and CptBork is so happy about the "news" about 100500 Russian Spetznaz killed by the heroic US airforce that he really believes this and presents his fantasies about dying Russians - he obviously likes this. Both as expected and nothing worth to comment.

That CptBork cannot argue without lies is also as usual:

while practically giving blow-by-blow accounts about numbers killed by your friends. .... pretend to be a neutral observer

LOL, I would never pretend to be neutral about that murderous empire of evil named USA. Interesting, will he be able to find at least one post where I give a "blow-by-blow accounts about numbers killed"? It's not impossible, I think there may have been some cases where I have given some information about claims of numbers killed. I think about the SOHR numbers of civilians murdered by evil Russian bombs, with the man/woman relation of 9:1 or so I have written something.

but apparently people who use foreign forces to displace half of their own country are heroes to you.

Once the terrorists get help from a lot more and more powerful foreign states to murder and displace peaceful Syrian people, it is quite normal for the Syrian government to receive some help from more civilized countries.

 

[CptBork]

Iceaura repeats the usual tantra and CptBork is so happy about the "news" about 100500 Russian Spetznaz killed by the heroic US airforce that he really believes this and presents his fantasies about dying Russians - he obviously likes this. Both as expected and nothing worth to comment.

I'm not happy that people had to die in general, but if anyone's going to die, Russian rapists are definitely near the top of my list, and I'm very happy that they all ate shit while the US and its allies didn't suffer a single casualty. If some drunken droopy-eyed retard went after me with a bat, I'd have no problem running their stupid asses over with my car, and I'd be a hero for it because the world would instantly be that much better off, as long as they don't survive to suck up taxpayer dollars in hospital. Hopefully in time, Ukraine and Georgia will eventually feel so bold, and the US will be there to back them up just like it backed the Kurds against these dumbass Russkie mercs, just like it will back Germany on its eastern flank if you ever try to start shit there.

LOL, I would never pretend to be neutral about that murderous empire of evil named USA. Interesting, will he be able to find at least one post where I give a "blow-by-blow accounts about numbers killed"? It's not impossible, I think there may have been some cases where I have given some information about claims of numbers killed. I think about the SOHR numbers of civilians murdered by evil Russian bombs, with the man/woman relation of 9:1 or so I have written something.

Schmelzer is so busy rambling about the unrivaled might of his master race that he forgets what he posted on the first page of this very thread, in addition to all the countless other propaganda puff pieces he posts on a near-daily basis:

An interesting point is that, despite the fact that a whole network of tunnels have been already destroyed, there are, yet, some tunnels. Which is the other interesting news from this area: A serious infighting among joepistole's comrades has started, with already more than 100 dead as the result. The fighting is about some depots, but also about the access to the remaining tunnels, and actually the situation is that all the remaining tunnels to Qabun are controlled by one of the factions.

Comrade, you really need to lay off the Stolichnaya.

Once the terrorists get help from a lot more and more powerful foreign states to murder and displace peaceful Syrian people, it is quite normal for the Syrian government to receive some help from more civilized countries.

If the rebels are the ones receiving most of the foreign assistance, how come they don't have any aircraft, airbases or even quality air defenses? The best weapons in their arsenal are anti-tank missiles from the 1980's. I know you already secretly agree with me that Assad receives far more foreign support than anyone else, but I'd like to see what lies you come up with to justify your bullshit to the public at large.

 

[Schmelzer]

The offensive in East Ghouta seems to start with artillery preparation. The West reacts with heavy information warfare, inclusive twitter girl Bana, destroyed last hospitals, new pictures of the series "White Helmet holding bloody kid before a background of ruins", and during the next days, there will be probably "Assad gas attack" fakes.

The situation in Afrin is completely unclear now, it looks like some Syrian forces are now in Afrin, but not clear how many and on which base.

If the rebels are the ones receiving most of the foreign assistance, how come they don't have any aircraft, airbases or even quality air defenses?

Because the US airforce wants to fly there too, without being shot. So they cannot risk giving their even their best friends good air defenses. They know that what they give to their best "friends" will be sold to ISIS too. And even if ISIS is supported by the US, it is not under complete control. And giving aircraft to terrorists does not make sense, they don't have pilots and support teams and all this. Moreover, this could be easily destroyed.

Fine that you have found a quote. As I have written, It's not impossible, "I think there may have been some cases where I have given some information about claims of numbers killed". Unfortunately, even this quote does not prove your claim:

while practically giving blow-by-blow accounts about numbers killed by your friends

My quote is

A serious infighting among joepistole's comrades has started, with already more than 100 dead as the result.

Joepistole's comrades are not my friends. So, you have yet to look for at least one which fits. Some cases there probably will be, but they are exceptions.

 

[sculptor]

recent news
The ypg has asked the Syrian government to step in and help fight the invading Turks And the Syrian government has agreed.............It now seems that US backed forces and Russian backed forces will be fighting the invading Turks together.

 

[CptBork]

Because the US airforce wants to fly there too, without being shot. So they cannot risk giving their even their best friends good air defenses. They know that what they give to their best "friends" will be sold to ISIS too. And even if ISIS is supported by the US, it is not under complete control. And giving aircraft to terrorists does not make sense, they don't have pilots and support teams and all this. Moreover, this could be easily destroyed.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, even you don't believe that. The US has hit Assad and his allies only a handful of times in the entire war, small slaps in the big scheme, each time in response to a particularly sensitive red line being crossed. On the other hand, it has struck at ISIS thousands of times and coordinated these operations with Russia. If the US were backing ISIS against Assad, why would it hit them hundreds of times harder than it has hit the latter, while leaving them almost completely exposed to massive Russian and Syrian aerial bombardment? Why would the US not simply smuggle quality anti-air missiles and other defenses to ISIS, thus enabling them to virtually shut down Syria's skies and deny the Russian side from its biggest advantage?

It's clear then, by your own logic, that the US does NOT support ISIS, and that Assad is therefore, by orders of magnitude, the greatest recipient of foreign military aid, and consequently he is the least dependent on the support of the Syrian people.

 

[Schmelzer]

recent news
The ypg has asked the Syrian government to step in and help fight the invading Turks And the Syrian government has agreed.............It now seems that US backed forces and Russian backed forces will be fighting the invading Turks together.

The negotiations between Kurds and the Syrian government are complex and difficult, but there will be no Syrian/Turkish conflict. The Syrians insist that if they come, they have to be given full control, and in this case, Turkey will not attack the Syrian-controlled region. All that I have seen yet are claims about successful negotiations of type "tomorrow, ..." with nothing following tomorrow on the ground and some Kurdish instance claiming there was never such an agreement. All the same during the last week. Today I also saw the same "tomorrow" claims.

After the artillery preparations for the offensive in East Ghouta, a proposal for giving up the whole enclave was made and has been rejected.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, even you don't believe that. The US has hit Assad and his allies only a handful of times in the entire war, small slaps in the big scheme, each time in response to a particularly sensitive red line being crossed.

A lie. The most serious strike was against the Syrian defenders of Deir Ezzor, in preparation of an ISIS offensive, which allowed them to control some decisive heights near the airport and lead to the splitting of the Deir Ezzor enclave into two parts. It was explained by the US as simply an error. Sorry, sort of friendly fire or so. Nobody believed that story. The most plausible explanation was that the Pentagon opposed the result of negotiations of the State Department (Kerry) with Russia.

On the other hand, it has struck at ISIS thousands of times and coordinated these operations with Russia.

There was not much coordination, except some sort of subdivision of type "here you can fly, here we will fly". Anyway, the Russians have made, with a much smaller force in the region, much more flights. So, either the US airforce was unable to make a comparable number of flights, or did not want. Your choice.

If the US were backing ISIS against Assad, why would it hit them hundreds of times harder than it has hit the latter while leaving them almost completely exposed to massive Russian and Syrian aerial bombardment?

They did not fight ISIS seriously, the region of attacks was quite clear: They were hit only for attacking the Kurds. The message of the attacks was quite simple: "If you attack Assad, fine. But don't attack the Kurds." Then the Russians came, this changed a little bit, and when it became obvious that the Russians would destroy ISIS anyway, the US decided to take the ISIS-controlled regions under SDF control, and those ISIS gangs under US control simply (or for enough money) changed their flag from black to yellow, the others were fought.

Why would the US not simply smuggle quality anti-air missiles and other defenses to ISIS, thus enabling them to virtually shut down Syria's skies and deny the Russian side from its biggest advantage?

Learn to read, I have already explained this. They would have been used, predictably, against the US airforce too. Imagine US planes shot by US quality anti-air missiles. This would not have been fun for the administration, and already one case not hidden from the public would have been sufficient for something more serious than Iran-contra or so.

So, there are good reasons for the US not to give the terrorists any quality anti-air missiles. Everything else is unproblematic. Whatever the terrorists do with the weapons, it creates bad things somewhere on the ground in some Arab country, not for the soldiers of the exceptional nation, so who cares.

 

[CptBork]

A lie. The most serious strike was against the Syrian defenders of Deir Ezzor, in preparation of an ISIS offensive, which allowed them to control some decisive heights near the airport and lead to the splitting of the Deir Ezzor enclave into two parts. It was explained by the US as simply an error. Sorry, sort of friendly fire or so. Nobody believed that story. The most plausible explanation was that the Pentagon opposed the result of negotiations of the State Department (Kerry) with Russia.

Even if that were all true, which is merely speculation on your part, it would still constitute a tiny event in a 7-year war with hundreds of major battles. The US air force has hardly touched Assad, and you've repeatedly claimed that Russia would take shots at them with its shiny new S-400's if they did. So if the US's main goal was to stir chaos in Syria, they would have caused far greater damage by simply forgoing airstrikes and giving ISIS area denial capabilities instead; in the face of the Russian air force and Putin's complete lack of regard for civilians, anything less would be a useless waste of time and money. Several rebel factions already have anti-air capabilities captured from Assad's arsenals and possibly provided by Turkey as well, thus the dangers to US interests further abroad already exist with or without extra such arms being provided, and the other weapons you claim it provides to ISIS would be capable of damaging its foreign interests just as severely by other means.

There was not much coordination, except some sort of subdivision of type "here you can fly, here we will fly". Anyway, the Russians have made, with a much smaller force in the region, much more flights. So, either the US airforce was unable to make a comparable number of flights, or did not want. Your choice.

By your own admission then, US air operations have had a far lesser impact on Assad's position as compared to Russian operations. You already acknowledge that the US has mostly stuck to its deconfliction agreements with Russia, which means little interference with Assad's forces especially west of the Euphrates, and you also claim that Russia has carried out far more sorties, which once again means the US has hardly touched him when you consider that nearly all of its "limited" airstrikes have been against ISIS-related targets.

They did not fight ISIS seriously, the region of attacks was quite clear: They were hit only for attacking the Kurds. The message of the attacks was quite simple: "If you attack Assad, fine. But don't attack the Kurds."

You have no way of ascertaining any such motive on America's part, because ISIS was already attacking the Kurds from the very beginning. You offer no insight here other than purely self-serving speculation. I didn't see any Syrian army troops protecting Kobane, did you?

Learn to read, I have already explained this. They would have been used, predictably, against the US airforce too. Imagine US planes shot by US quality anti-air missiles. This would not have been fun for the administration, and already one case not hidden from the public would have been sufficient for something more serious than Iran-contra or so.

So, there are good reasons for the US not to give the terrorists any quality anti-air missiles. Everything else is unproblematic. Whatever the terrorists do with the weapons, it creates bad things somewhere on the ground in some Arab country, not for the soldiers of the exceptional nation, so who cares.

If the US was interested in using ISIS to fight Assad, why did it permit them to sell him electricity, water and natural gas? Were they planning to use the profits to pay off their national debt? Once again, it would have been far easier to just give anti-air capabilities to ISIS and let them loose to wreck everything, since by your own acknowledgement the US air force hardly did anything more than scratch Assad in any case. It's simply impossible to deny that Assad has received more foreign assistance in every single category than all of his enemies combined, whether it be in the form of airstrikes, UN vetoes, foreign fighters, financing, training, and supplies of equipment, parts, and munitions.

 

[Schmelzer]

What is now happening on the ground is that the Kurds are handing over control over either all neighborhoods of Aleppo they had some control over or all except the main Kurdish one (Khan Sheikhun). This was probably in exchange for letting the fighters in these enclaves go to Afrin. Videos showing a lot of people with Syrian flags celebrating, quite natural for the not really Kurdish parts up to now controlled by Kurds (taken from the terrorists during the time of the liberation of Aleppo). But I would not exclude at least some part of the Kurds celebrating that too - Kurds are split into many different factions, some factions may prefer Syrian government.

There is also now an increasing amount of information that Syrian forces have entered Afrin. Initially, it looked simply like some militias, which may mean nothing (there are some militias under Syrian control consisting mainly of Kurds, in particular in Aleppo I have heard about this). But it sounds now like it is really the Syrian army, and today also Russian military police.

Even if that were all true, which is merely speculation on your part, it would still constitute a tiny event in a 7-year war with hundreds of major battles.

Which major battles? There have been none between Syria and US, this was the greatest conflict so that your "each time in response to a particularly sensitive red line being crossed" was a primitive lie.

The US air force has hardly touched Assad, and you've repeatedly claimed that Russia would take shots at them with its shiny new S-400's if they did.

Another lie. The Russian side will be very careful with a decision to strike back. So, there is no obligatory, automatical strike back. But, of course, the S-400 is there for the purpose of having the possibility to strike back, and not for defense from the IS airforce. IS airforce exists only in the form of US airforce, as well as Israeli air force.

So if the US's main goal was to stir chaos in Syria, they would have caused far greater damage by simply forgoing airstrikes and giving ISIS area denial capabilities instead;

Which "area denial capabilities" you have in mind? Mines are widely used by the IS.

Several rebel factions already have anti-air capabilities captured from Assad's arsenals and possibly provided by Turkey as well, thus the dangers to US interests further abroad already exist with or without extra such arms being provided, and the other weapons you claim it provides to ISIS would be capable of damaging its foreign interests just as severely by other means.

None of the anti-air capabilities are able to hit planes at 5000 m height. So, they are no problem for the US with their carpet bombing strategy. But for the Russians too, they have now the possibility to bomb from 5000 m with an accuracy of 10 m or so with cheap aerial bombs.

By your own admission then, US air operations have had a far lesser impact on Assad's position as compared to Russian operations. You already acknowledge that the US has mostly stuck to its deconfliction agreements with Russia, which means little interference with Assad's forces especially west of the Euphrates, and you also claim that Russia has carried out far more sorties, which once again means the US has hardly touched him when you consider that nearly all of its "limited" airstrikes have been against ISIS-related targets.

The point being?

You have no way of ascertaining any such motive on America's part, because ISIS was already attacking the Kurds from the very beginning. You offer no insight here other than purely self-serving speculation. I didn't see any Syrian army troops protecting Kobane, did you?

How is this in conflict with the US using the airforce to attack ISIS mainly if they fight the Kurds, but not at all if they fight the Syrian army?

If the US was interested in using ISIS to fight Assad, why did it permit them to sell him electricity, water and natural gas? Were they planning to use the profits to pay off their national debt?

????? What do you have in mind here? ISIS made its money from selling oil via Turkey. With large truck convoys, easily visible to the US airforce, but not attacked at all, going through Kurdish controlled territory. Putin came and stopped this, and after this, the fate of ISIS was sealed.

Once again, it would have been far easier to just give anti-air capabilities to ISIS and let them loose to wreck everything, since by your own acknowledgement the US air force hardly did anything more than scratch Assad in any case.

As they, essentially, did, but only without the anti-air capabilities which would be dangerous for US and Israeli air force. Imagine Hamas with US anti-air capabilities?

ISIS is not a 100% US-controlled entity. The US has helped to create it, supported, directly and indirectly, they have a lot of influence agents there, but they don't have complete control, thus, they could not prevent that anything given to ISIS would not be used by some ISIS fighters to fight US and Israel. For both, the air force is the main, decisive force, where they have superiority. So, they will certainly not risk giving the terrorists those weapons which would be especially dangerous for them. (Moreover, in case this would not be sufficient, I think the Russians have explained to them that in such a case Hizbollah will also get modern Russian anti-air capabilities.)

It's simply impossible to deny that Assad has received more foreign assistance in every single category than all of his enemies combined, whether it be in the form of airstrikes, UN vetoes, foreign fighters, financing, training, and supplies of equipment, parts, and munitions.

After the Russians came, possibly. But not before. And in terms of money spend, not that clear even after the Russians came. In particular, the US airforce in that region is much greater than the few Russian planes. And to pay terrorists is much more expensive than a regular army, because of lack of control - they can take the money and weapons and run away, without delivering anything but selling the weapons on the black market.

 

[CptBork]

Which major battles? There have been none between Syria and US, this was the greatest conflict so that your "each time in response to a particularly sensitive red line being crossed" was a primitive lie.

So you're admitting then that the US has hardly made a dent in Assad's efforts, and indeed other than a few slaps here and there, it has hardly even tried. This means the US has not made a priority of eliminating Assad, which in turn means both that it would make no strategic sense for the US to support ISIS despite your accusations (not the same thing as ignoring it), and that Assad has received far more assistance rather than hindrance from the international community as a whole.

Another lie. The Russian side will be very careful with a decision to strike back. So, there is no obligatory, automatical strike back. But, of course, the S-400 is there for the purpose of having the possibility to strike back, and not for defense from the IS airforce. IS airforce exists only in the form of US airforce, as well as Israeli air force.

You've threatened multiple times in the past that Russia would use the S-400 if America started openly striking Assad or his allies in Syria. Russia hasn't used it, so once again from your own positions and claims we see that the US has barely touched Assad.

Which "area denial capabilities" you have in mind? Mines are widely used by the IS.

I'm talking about anti-air missiles, including larger, more sophisticated varieties, truck-mounted radar systems and whatnot. Not as easy to hide as Manpads, still relatively easy to hide just like all the other heavy equipment ISIS has smuggled and continues to use.

None of the anti-air capabilities are able to hit planes at 5000 m height. So, they are no problem for the US with their carpet bombing strategy. But for the Russians too, they have now the possibility to bomb from 5000 m with an accuracy of 10 m or so with cheap aerial bombs.

Ok, so if the US supports ISIS against Assad and only worries about having control of the skies, and you are now saying that US and Israeli aircraft aren't threatened by ISIS Manpads, why would it not provide ISIS with more of those Manpads to shoot down helicopters, Assad air force planes, and low-flying Russian planes such as the one which was recently downed over Idlib? Why not provide them with hundreds and thousands of drones to carry out attacks like the recent ones on Russia's Khmeimim airbase?

The point being?

The point being that Assad receives more foreign support than all of his opponents combined, which means that any short or long-term victory for him implies absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether the majority of Syrian people actually support him, despite your past claims to the contrary.

How is this in conflict with the US using the airforce to attack ISIS mainly if they fight the Kurds, but not at all if they fight the Syrian army?

You claim that the US sponsored ISIS to bring down Bashar Assad at the onset of the conflict, then changed its tune when ISIS started attacking the Kurds instead. The reality is that ISIS started attacking the Kurds from the very first moments that it became a factor in the conflict, which makes your claim chronologically impossible. You also ignore that ISIS spent 10 years operating from eastern Syria against American troops in Iraq with nearly no disruption whatsoever from the Syrian government, and ISIS' own leaders claim that they received direct assistance from Assad while they were doing so.

????? What do you have in mind here? ISIS made its money from selling oil via Turkey. With large truck convoys, easily visible to the US airforce, but not attacked at all, going through Kurdish controlled territory. Putin came and stopped this, and after this, the fate of ISIS was sealed.

We have already discussed this issue before. I asked why Assad was buying oil, electricity, natural gas and water from ISIS, if they're supposedly his worst enemies. You didn't attempt to deny this at the time, you instead gave the excuse that Assad needed the resources. If the US was using ISIS to fight Assad and supplying it with the necessary finances to do so, there would be no sense in allowing it to engage in such transactions, which would rather suggest the opposite with Assad using ISIS to fight his own enemies instead.

As they, essentially, did, but only without the anti-air capabilities which would be dangerous for US and Israeli air force. Imagine Hamas with US anti-air capabilities?

Anti-air capabilities, especially the more sophisticated radar-based ones, would be very easy targets for their own part. It's not like planes can't shoot back or detect and target these systems in advance. Same thing with the S-400, it's only a threat insofar as it's not being targeted in advance as would be done in a full-scale conflict. I therefore see no reason why anti-tank weapons in ISIS' hands would be considered any less harmful to US interests than the anti-air weapons you acknowledge the US and Israel are not supplying, whereas they would greatly hinder the otherwise unimpeded air operations of Russia and its allies.

ISIS is not a 100% US-controlled entity. The US has helped to create it, supported, directly and indirectly, they have a lot of influence agents there, but they don't have complete control, thus, they could not prevent that anything given to ISIS would not be used by some ISIS fighters to fight US and Israel. For both, the air force is the main, decisive force, where they have superiority. So, they will certainly not risk giving the terrorists those weapons which would be especially dangerous for them. (Moreover, in case this would not be sufficient, I think the Russians have explained to them that in such a case Hizbollah will also get modern Russian anti-air capabilities.)

Actually, Russia already has given Hezbollah advanced anti-air capabilities, which is why Israel bombs those Syrian-Lebanese convoys so often and Putin keeps calling for "restraint". Russia's own top general went to Israel not so long ago and openly stated that they don't consider anyone to be a terrorist unless they attack Russian interests, which technically means Al Qaeda would not be a terrorist group for him unless ethnic Russians died in the 9/11 attacks.

ISIS is not even 1% US-controlled and never has been. Do you really expect anyone to believe that the US made Assad let ISIS operate for almost 10 years out of eastern Syria, to attack American troops occupying Iraq? Even that stupid "Syria Girl/Partisan Girl" slut who gets all the attention on Youtube and Russian troll media for backing Assad's regime with lies and bullshit, she was making internet posts cheering ISIS on for bombing Americans (and Iraqi civilians) during the Bush era, before ISIS suddenly became an "American creation" and an enemy of the Syrian people.

After the Russians came, possibly. But not before. And in terms of money spend, not that clear even after the Russians came. In particular, the US airforce in that region is much greater than the few Russian planes. And to pay terrorists is much more expensive than a regular army, because of lack of control - they can take the money and weapons and run away, without delivering anything but selling the weapons on the black market.

Before Russia started its bombing campaign, Assad received billions and billions of aid dollars from Russia in military equipment, training and financing (loaning money and then forgiving debts is equivalent to just handing it over), and Lebanese Hezbollah was in the thick of it too. Despite having a total monopoly on air activity in the skies and Russian shelter from chemical weapons charges at the UN, all that aid still wasn't enough. Assad was on the verge of total collapse when Russia started bombing, and Russia wouldn't have stepped into the quagmire if it wasn't urgently necessary. Now you admit that Russia has since provided more assistance to Assad than all his enemies have received in total, which thus makes any victory on his part completely independent of his local domestic support.

You should therefore retract your past assertions that Assad's survival somehow reflects on his domestic popularity; rather, the fact that billions of dollars in assistance, a total monopoly on the skies west of the Euphrates, and Hezbollah sending thousands of troops to help were all insufficient to stop the rebels from nearly sweeping through the whole country, proves that Assad is only backed by a small minority at home.

 

[Schmelzer]

So you're admitting then that the US has hardly made a dent in Assad's efforts, and indeed other than a few slaps here and there, it has hardly even tried. This means the US has not made a priority of eliminating Assad, which in turn means both that it would make no strategic sense for the US to support ISIS despite your accusations (not the same thing as ignoring it), and that Assad has received far more assistance rather than hindrance from the international community as a whole.

No, it simply means that the US has not yet started an open war. The US priority was eliminating Assad, all the time, and the US has used almost everything except starting an open war. Assad has not received any assistance at all from anybody in the West, instead, there are sanctions against Syria. The US and the EU have massively and openly supported a lot of terrorist gangs, and there is even more hidden support.

Ok, so if the US supports ISIS against Assad and only worries about having control of the skies, and you are now saying that US and Israeli aircraft aren't threatened by ISIS Manpads, why would it not provide ISIS with more of those Manpads to shoot down helicopters, Assad air force planes, and low-flying Russian planes such as the one which was recently downed over Idlib?
Why not provide them with hundreds and thousands of drones to carry out attacks like the recent ones on Russia's Khmeimim airbase?

Ask the CIA, they will explain you. I don't know all the details of what is provided and what not, and even less how much of what. Drones have, of course, the same problem - they could be used against US bases too.

The drones used against the Russian airbase contained, by the way, top high tech, these have not been the simple drones ISIS has been able to build themselves.

You claim that the US sponsored ISIS to bring down Bashar Assad at the onset of the conflict, then changed its tune when ISIS started attacking the Kurds instead.

No. The US did not change any tone. The official tone was always anti-ISIS, and the support was always top secret. And the rule of engagement was always the same: If ISIS attacks Kurds, the Kurds get air support. If ISIS attacks the Syrian army, the US is happy. If ISIS smuggles oil, the US and the Kurds and the Turks are happy.

You also ignore that ISIS spent 10 years operating from eastern Syria against American troops in Iraq with nearly no disruption whatsoever from the Syrian government, and ISIS' own leaders claim that they received direct assistance from Assad while they were doing so.

I ignore information which I do not consider as reliable.

We have already discussed this issue before. I asked why Assad was buying oil, electricity, natural gas and water from ISIS, if they're supposedly his worst enemies.

The war is a civil war, even if a lot of foreigners fight there. All forces have the interest to control territory to make money, and not to destroy it completely. So, nobody will destroy working things on the ground which are important for both sides. So, you think that the population of Aleppo should better be left without electricity completely, simply because the power plant is controlled by the IS? Or without water? I understand that Americans would not care at all - and they have, btw, bombed some infrastructure under IS control without any military reason. But the locals have to live, to survive. And so they sometimes have to buy things even from IS.

If the US was using ISIS to fight Assad and supplying it with the necessary finances to do so, there would be no sense in allowing it to engage in such transactions

And you wonder why I think you - and all the American warmongers - are even crueler and more fascist than even the IS?

Anti-air capabilities, especially the more sophisticated radar-based ones, would be very easy targets for their own part. It's not like planes can't shoot back or detect and target these systems in advance. Same thing with the S-400, it's only a threat insofar as it's not being targeted in advance as would be done in a full-scale conflict. I therefore see no reason why anti-tank weapons in ISIS' hands would be considered any less harmful to US interests than the anti-air weapons you acknowledge the US and Israel are not supplying, whereas they would greatly hinder the otherwise unimpeded air operations of Russia and its allies.

If they would be easy targets, they would be easy targets for Russia too. So, this is not really a point. There are no such anti-air capabilities the US could provide which would not be dangerous for US and Israel, but dangerous for Russia.

Actually, Russia already has given Hezbollah advanced anti-air capabilities, which is why Israel bombs those Syrian-Lebanese convoys so often and Putin keeps calling for "restraint". Russia's own top general went to Israel not so long ago and openly stated that they don't consider anyone to be a terrorist unless they attack Russian interests, which technically means Al Qaeda would not be a terrorist group for him unless ethnic Russians died in the 9/11 attacks.

You are about Hizbollah, not? It has started as a terrorist group, but that was long ago. Today it is part of the government of Lebanon and was strong enough to force Israel to leave Lebanon. And, no, Israel is using the Lebanon airspace without any hesitation, which indicates that Hizbollah does not have the ability to shoot them down. What the Israelis shoot in Syria are transports not from Russia but from Iran.

ISIS is not even 1% US-controlled and never has been. Do you really expect anyone to believe that the US made Assad let ISIS operate for almost 10 years out of eastern Syria, to attack American troops occupying Iraq?

I don't care what you believe. I explain what I believe.

Before Russia started its bombing campaign, Assad received billions and billions of aid dollars from Russia in military equipment, training and financing (loaning money and then forgiving debts is equivalent to just handing it over), and Lebanese Hezbollah was in the thick of it too.

And Russia is so rich that it has paid much more than the US, Saudi-Arabia and poor Qatar together. LOL Of course, Iran and Hizbollah were there already before - there are a lot of Shiites in Syria too, and the US-paid "moderate rebel" liked to genocide them, so that was a quite natural reaction.

Assad was on the verge of total collapse when Russia started bombing, and Russia wouldn't have stepped into the quagmire if it wasn't urgently necessary. Now you admit that Russia has since provided more assistance to Assad than all his enemies have received in total, which thus makes any victory on his part completely independent of his local domestic support.

Yes, the situation was bad for Assad, mainly because Turkey has also started heavy support for the Turkmen gangs in the North, and the result of this was that they were able to control Idlib. And, no, I have not admitted anything. I simply do not have more detailed information, that's all. I think your thesis is fantasy, but I have no numbers. For the time before the Russians came, it is bs so obviously that there is no necessity in any numbers (which you, btw, don't have too). But after this I can give your thesis a 5% plausibility, not more. It is increasing in time, given that some of the main terrorist supporters have stopped or decreased their support.

You should therefore retract your past assertions that Assad's survival somehow reflects on his domestic popularity; rather, the fact that billions of dollars in assistance, a total monopoly on the skies west of the Euphrates, and Hezbollah sending thousands of troops to help were all insufficient to stop the rebels from nearly sweeping through the whole country, proves that Assad is only backed by a small minority at home.

Nonsense. Before the Russians came, there was no total monopoly on the skies, the Israelis, as well as the US, did what they liked - there was no war, that's all, and therefore not much reason to fly there. Then, no, the situation was bad when the Russians came, but nonetheless, even at that time, the great majority of the population lived in regions under Syrian army control.[/QUOTE]

 

[Schmelzer]

The ground offensive in East Ghouta has started.

A first sufficiently important town - Nashabia - has already been taken. This is quite impressive for the first day, given that around this place there has been a lot of small fighting during the last months, without any gains. So, these were now deeply entrenched defenses.

There was a UNSC resolution, which tells the following:

1. Demands that all parties cease hostilities without delay, and engage immediately to ensure full and comprehensive implementation of this demand by all parties, for a durable humanitarian pause for at least 30 consecutive days throughout Syria, to enable the safe, unimpeded and sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and services and medical evacuations of the critically sick and wounded, in accordance with applicable international law;

2. Affirms that the cessation of hostilities shall not apply to military operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al Qaeda and Al Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the Security Council;

Given that Al Qaida associates are excluded, this does not endanger the operation in East Ghouta. Al Qaida itself is not strong, but it is there and has cooperated with them all in the recent attacks against the Syrian army in Harasta.