Yazata
Valued Senior Member
They are idealists, not realists. They see the world in terms how how they want things to be, not how things really are.
Syria September 2015 ~ What's up?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
They are idealists, not realists. They see the world in terms how how they want things to be, not how things really are.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Quite a lot of details on Russia's 9 air sorties of today here: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015-10/05/content_22108083.htm
Most interesting to me is the tone of approval in the article without any hint that Russia may be attacking rebel groups the US supports.
In many ways, Russia and China are growing closer together, and definitely resisting a US dominated "unipolar world."
Most interesting to me is the tone of approval in the article without any hint that Russia may be attacking rebel groups the US supports.
In many ways, Russia and China are growing closer together, and definitely resisting a US dominated "unipolar world."
Sorry, but if some of you guys are butthurt about most countries choosing to align themselves with the United States, the non-fascist answer is to offer them an alliance that actually serves their needs better, not to slaughter people and impose tyrannical mass-murdering dictators more favourable to your personal egos.
Russia's actions not only make life more difficult for the moderate rebel factions who posed the only viable democratic long-term resistance against ISIS, but they also consequently make life easier for ISIS and other extremists. The goal is clearly to ensure that ISIS and Al Qaeda outlast the moderate US-backed opposition, so Russia can then pretend to the world that the Nazis they support are the only viable solution in Syria.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The target of Russia is IS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. This is completely openly declared. As well as the other main aim, the support for the legal government, Assad. So, Russia openly tells what it is doing. Assad is ready to negotiate with moderate forces, no problem. But those not ready to negotiate will be destroyed. This is a completely normal behavior if there are military formations which fight against the government.
And it is also completely natural that the order of destroying such terrorist groups follows usual military considerations. That means, one has to start with securing the backcountry and the transport routes. So, for every reasonable military guy it would be the first priority to destroy the enclave of terrorists between Homs and Hama to control the M5 highway. Similar high priority has the region near the Turkish border which endangers Latakia. The third most important point is the surroundings of Damask.
The IS is, of course, attacked too, but not first priority now. This second priority task has already forced the IS to stopp their Friday prayers in their Syrian capital Racca, too dangerous (strangely they have not thought it is dangerous as long as only US has "attacked" them), and to forbid all its members even to talk about their casualties.
It is the West who thinks the rest of the world is dumb and buys that the US is fighting IS.
The main reason for the Russian action was, BTW, a different one: The plans of the US and Turkey to start a non-UN-backed no-fly-zone in Syria. Of course, people know what no-fly-zone means in NATO Newspeak, namely, unrestricted bomb attacks, as in Libya. So, the most important thing which is provided by the Russian airbase and the Russian ships is the S 300 air defense and the interceptors which protect the other planes. Even if the US wonders why they are necessary, given that the IS has no own airforce - they are useful for preventing US and Israel bomb terror against Damask, Homs, Latakia and other Syrian towns which would have been named "no-fly-zone".
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
I would add that air power alone cannot win a war, cannot conquer territory.
All air power can do is to degrade the enemy.
You need "boots on the ground" to win.
The west's choice for boots on the ground has been to arm every damned loonie who claims that they will fight for the goals of the supplier.
The problem with damned loonies, is that they do whatever they damned well please.
What we(the west) have done so far has been ill conceived and damned counter productive.
Russia seems to think that Assad's army will be able to regain territory, and thereby stabilize the country, if Russia degrades the rebel forces with air power.
Which means that they will work from Assad's strongholds out.
As far as plans go, theirs seems superior to "ours".
................
Any news on the Chinese presence in Syria?
All air power can do is to degrade the enemy.
You need "boots on the ground" to win.
The west's choice for boots on the ground has been to arm every damned loonie who claims that they will fight for the goals of the supplier.
The problem with damned loonies, is that they do whatever they damned well please.
What we(the west) have done so far has been ill conceived and damned counter productive.
Russia seems to think that Assad's army will be able to regain territory, and thereby stabilize the country, if Russia degrades the rebel forces with air power.
Which means that they will work from Assad's strongholds out.
As far as plans go, theirs seems superior to "ours".
................
Any news on the Chinese presence in Syria?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
I have read a chinese aircraft carrier has arrived. (Link not saved, it was anyway a Russian one).
The 500 Mio $ program which has given 5 guys in action ... The Russians have openly made fun of that, some top level army guy said that, given that Russia starts its action, they had recommended the US to take out of the country not only their consultants, CIA guys, and airplanes, but also these "highly valuable specialists, who have been trained for a lot of US taxpayer's money".
Yes. But there is also another point, namely Iran. Iran is a little bit engaged in Iraq, but has been not much, only with consultants, engaged in Syria. A reason for this is that they had to be afraid of US airstrikes on the ground, as well as of diplomatic isolation if they would act alone. With Russia openly engaged and providing air defense, the situation is different, and AFAIK they redeploy now real army forces to Syria. At least there have been claims about this in the Runet, not very clear how reliable they are.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
IS is now moving many of its weapons and forces into towns and especially near mosques. This is shown on a video: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Two points: 1.) Why they start to do such things now? The most powerful military power of the World, the United States, is fighting them already a long time with airstrikes, supported by almost the whole world. Now, only an irrelevant regional power also starts to make airstrikes against IS, moreover, they do not really hit IS but only good terrorists. Thus, it seems, no reason to react.
2.) Of course, it is more safe in towns and especially near a mosque, because killing them would cause, with high probability, collateral damage, and this would be used, immediately, by their Western allies, in the informational war. But I would not be sure that this really helps. If the Russians are sufficiently sure that their bombs are accurate enough - which is what they find out now, based on less dangerous targets - it seems the parking lot near the mosc, hit with an appropriately sized bomb, may not endanger nor the mosque, nor living buildings.
The Russian media have commented this with claims that this happens because these guys know that Russia will never hit a mosque. In particular, they have claimed today that one action which was already on target has been stopped because the IS has dislocated the target too close to a mosque. But this may be, as well, a trap. They do not say that they will never hit a parking lot near a mosque. We will see. I think they will evaluate in a very careful way how accurate their bombs are in real life. And, if they are sufficiently sure, ...
Two points: 1.) Why they start to do such things now? The most powerful military power of the World, the United States, is fighting them already a long time with airstrikes, supported by almost the whole world. Now, only an irrelevant regional power also starts to make airstrikes against IS, moreover, they do not really hit IS but only good terrorists. Thus, it seems, no reason to react.
2.) Of course, it is more safe in towns and especially near a mosque, because killing them would cause, with high probability, collateral damage, and this would be used, immediately, by their Western allies, in the informational war. But I would not be sure that this really helps. If the Russians are sufficiently sure that their bombs are accurate enough - which is what they find out now, based on less dangerous targets - it seems the parking lot near the mosc, hit with an appropriately sized bomb, may not endanger nor the mosque, nor living buildings.
The Russian media have commented this with claims that this happens because these guys know that Russia will never hit a mosque. In particular, they have claimed today that one action which was already on target has been stopped because the IS has dislocated the target too close to a mosque. But this may be, as well, a trap. They do not say that they will never hit a parking lot near a mosque. We will see. I think they will evaluate in a very careful way how accurate their bombs are in real life. And, if they are sufficiently sure, ...
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
A combatant hiding behind religious buildings and woman and children................
hmm...........
Gee, I sure would
......................
On anther note:
It seems that most of the Iranians in country in Syria are revolutionary guards(dedicated to a specifically Shia Muslim state).
Though they have been largely instrumental in keeping him in power:
Assad seems to have grown wary of their zeal.
......addendum...
Israel seems to think that carrier based Chinese Shenyang J-15 warplanes will conduct overlapping air campaigns with the Russians.
................
aside from backing out or coordinating with the Turks, Russians, and Chinese air sorties...
what other options has the west?
hmm...........
Gee, I sure would
......................
On anther note:
It seems that most of the Iranians in country in Syria are revolutionary guards(dedicated to a specifically Shia Muslim state).
Though they have been largely instrumental in keeping him in power:
Assad seems to have grown wary of their zeal.
......addendum...
Israel seems to think that carrier based Chinese Shenyang J-15 warplanes will conduct overlapping air campaigns with the Russians.
................
aside from backing out or coordinating with the Turks, Russians, and Chinese air sorties...
what other options has the west?
Last edited:
Possibly the Russian offensive , not being hamstrung by political BS as the West is, has exposed ISIL affiliations by targeting all anti Assad forces. Forcing those affiliated groups and ISIL by default into a more defensive posture.
It is worth noting that Putin launched his campaign shortly after there appeared a softening towards Assad by the West. That the West was actually considering changing it's approach to the Assad government. Possibly Putin saw this as a way into the conflict with least risk of a major East West conflict developing.
Softening the "Assad must Go" cry for the West is all Putin needed.
"The enemy of thy enemy" reality might make a huge difference. Certainly a game changer for Syria. IMO
Last edited:
And you think the solution to this whole mess is to support the loonie who's killed more of the civilians he claims to protect than all the other loonies combined?
It's been half-assed and overly cautious, pretending that Syria isn't already under foreign occupation and spiralling towards extremism even without US intervention.
Yeah well George W.'s Iraq plans sounded great to a lot of people too. The only way Russia succeeds more than the West against ISIS is if it kills millions of civilians and turns the entire country into a no-man's land, otherwise they're going to break the bank on this adventure while making generations of new enemies around the globe. If millions of civilians are indeed killed, it sounds like you'll just pass them off as colonial savages who had it coming to them all along anyhow.
Once again it's clear that Russia wants to eliminate any viable opposition to ISIS that doesn't come from dictators under its own control, and that's just going to prolong the conflict for many more years to come.
Hezbollah does it every time they pick a fight with Israel, so why shouldn't their under-equipped opponents in Syria have the same privilege?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
IMHO this is completely reverse. The stop of "Assad must go" talk came after Putin's action. As a reaction. Because it is now obvious that "Assad must go" would require war with Russia.
Instead, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cee6fcba-69bf-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a.html (unfortunately behind paywall, so I know only a Russian summary https://www.vedomosti.ru/newsline/top/politics/news/2015/10/05/611442-sirii-bespoletnoi-zoni ) claims that a no-fly-zone against Assad was planned, and the main aim of Putin was to prevent this.
Or do you have other information?
No... just thinking about the sequence of events leading to the Russian deployment and then eventual air strikes. But I may be mistaken... ( news here can be a bit uhm ...)
I heard (sequence):
- Australia agrees to be included in USA air strikes.
- Australian Prime Minster is replaced ( hence change of attitude perhaps)
- Australia launches first strikes
- Foreign Minister speaks at UN about the possible need to soften approach to Assad.
- Russia starts to deploy
- Putin makes speech
- Russia starts air campaign.
I may be mistaken ( I wasn't really listening - thinking that it was just more hot air) and will need to check the record to verify...
There was some discussion about how IS was no going to be removed whilst the West sought Assad's removal as well and that supporting Assad may be the only way to seriously degrade IS in Syria. Prior to Russia's deployment. I will need to check
Last edited:
This is how I see it, abet most likely in error.
The USA had a firm commitment to the removal of Assad from Governing Syria. ( allegations of crimes against humanity) The USA had funded and trained opposition to Assad.
Russia could not offer too much support for it's ally ( Assad ) with out directly conflicting with the USA agenda.
USA agenda in Syria is distracted by IS. Obama mentions all options are open and on the table.
Russia steps in to support it's commitment to Assad knowing that the USA is now somewhat politically indecisive on Assad and most likely will step aside and allow Russia to assist Assad. (which the USA has done)
This Russian development has caught IS off guard and I believe is totally unexpected hence their apparent disarray since Russia started it's air campaign. ( How many Russian hostages do they (IS) have? Probably none)
The greatest hope that IS would have had and probably still does have is that there would be a major conflict between Russia and the West over them ( IS) thus we would be doing their job for them. Fortunately this has not happened... yet...
If USA and Russian forces go into conflict with each other IS wins...
The USA had a firm commitment to the removal of Assad from Governing Syria. ( allegations of crimes against humanity) The USA had funded and trained opposition to Assad.
Russia could not offer too much support for it's ally ( Assad ) with out directly conflicting with the USA agenda.
USA agenda in Syria is distracted by IS. Obama mentions all options are open and on the table.
Russia steps in to support it's commitment to Assad knowing that the USA is now somewhat politically indecisive on Assad and most likely will step aside and allow Russia to assist Assad. (which the USA has done)
This Russian development has caught IS off guard and I believe is totally unexpected hence their apparent disarray since Russia started it's air campaign. ( How many Russian hostages do they (IS) have? Probably none)
The greatest hope that IS would have had and probably still does have is that there would be a major conflict between Russia and the West over them ( IS) thus we would be doing their job for them. Fortunately this has not happened... yet...
If USA and Russian forces go into conflict with each other IS wins...
Last edited:
Hee hee I wouldn't be surprised, if later, we find out that Russia's air campaign is being secretly funded in part by the USA as well.... (only Joking lol)
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Hm, using a sequence of official declarations does not make much sense, because the critical date is the buildup of the Russian base, inclusive its air defense. Here all one can find out is when the West officially admitted that it became known to him that there is an effective air defense at the base. Which is, of course, a little bit later. That there will be a Russian engagement I have known, simply based on open internet sources, several days before Putin's speech.
Some days, I imagine you have no clue what democratic governments do or how they operate. You can accuse America of supporting ISIS all you want; it was Assad who cultivated them during the US occupation of Iraq, it was Assad who let several of their leaders out of his prisons without explanation at the beginning of the civil war. It's Assad who continues to buy oil, gas, water and electricity from ISIS and pump money into their coffers, while generally avoiding them on the battlefield in favour of exterminating the remaining moderates. And it's Russia that allows thousands of battle-hardened Chechens to stream into Syria, with the excuse that it would prefer to dump its garbage there rather than deal with it at home.
Yet here you sit back and accuse the US of colonialism while Assad gases and barrel bombs hundreds of thousands of civilians to death, tortures tens of thousands more to death in his prisons, runs his army and government almost entirely on Russian weapons and cash, and foreign sectarian militias from Iran and Lebanon run entire neighbourhoods in Damascus. How very enlightened and pacifist of you; really, you have no business calling the American government "your leaders", because you clearly have no interest or desire to participate in your own nation's democracy or to stand for its basic principles.
News flash: chaos is already happening in Syria, it happened because a dictator decided to use extreme violence to repress the peoples' right to demand greater freedoms, the decision to use violence backfired and created a civil war, and now Russia is intervening to turn the country into an imperial playground. America has barely made one lick of a difference one way or the other, aside from taking pressure off Assad having to deal with ISIS so he can focus on killing everyone else who stands in his way.