Syria September 2015 ~ What's up?

[Quantum Quack]

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.

I think it is worth noting that there is a big difference between clandestine orchestrations and conclusions and what is dished up into the public arena.
Both Putin and Obama know all too well that it is more about "global public perception" than about rational and sound military behavior.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the Russian offensive becomes second or fourth page news and how it will justify the expense of it's campaign when the terrorist groups inevitably re-spawn all over Syria again.

Terrorism can not be beaten, it can only be degraded, I think is the principle.

The only way to win against terrorism is with sound government by the people and for the people. Both of which Assad is seriously lacking.

 

[sculptor]

Some days, I imagine you have no clue what democratic governments do or how they operate. ... .

I'm a tad confused:
Could you please name at-least one of the "democratic governments" which you would reference?

 

[Yazata]

I have to say that I'm basically a supporter of what the Russians are doing. They are trying to bring stability to Syria by supporting its government in its battle against what in effect are forces of anarchy. They are trying to prevent Syria from devolving into a failed-state power-vacuum, by supporting the only force (apart from ISIS) with hopes of exerting control over the whole country, namely the Syrian army.

I don't support the Obama administration's and the Europeans' (and the Turks and the Saudis) attempts to overthrow the government of Syria.

Obama, Cameron and company are making precisely the same mistake that Bush and Blair made in Iraq. They are hypnotized by their dreamy visions of the 'Arab Spring' into imagining that most Syrians are modern progressives, little images of the West who will behave precisely as we want them to behave. (To even think otherwise would be 'bigotry'.) They imagine that if the dictatorial tyrant Assad can just be overthrown, that everything will crystalize into precisely the form that we favor. Of course that didn't work each time it was tried previously (Saddam, Qaddhafi, Mubarak, in Yemen) but surely it will work this time.

So the only force strong enough to keep a lid on Syria is removed and a power vacuum created. People will immediately set about violently settling scores and getting payback for no end of resentments. (Do people imagine that the Syrian civil war hasn't created red-hot anger and resentment?) No end of militia groups (there are more than 1,000 in Syria) will battle to defend their autonomy and their local power. The stronger among them will eliminate the weak and will compete among themselves for control of the entire country. And in Syria, the strongest are the radical Islamists, most notably ISIS along with the Islamic Front coalition and the Nusra Front.

In this 'Mad Max' all-against-all anarchy, what makes Washington so certain that its semi-illusory 'Free Syrian Army' will be the ones who end up in control of Damascus and be able to rally the whole country under its banner? Where will the 'moderate rebels' find the numbers and the necessary muscle? What will prevent ISIS from marching into Damascus, promising to reestablish the rule of law (even if it's dark-ages Shariah law)? Who will protect Syria's many religious minorities that currently support Assad in exchange for his protection (mainly because he's a religious minority himself)?

It seems to me that the road from where we currently are to a tolerable outcome in Syria is murky at best if Assad is overthrown and the Syrian army destroyed. It's a lot clearer if the Syrian rebels are defeated.

 

[Schmelzer]

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Russian offensive becomes second or fourth page news and how it will justify the expense of it's campaign when the terrorist groups inevitably re-spawn all over Syria again.
Terrorism can not be beaten, it can only be degraded, I think is the principle.

One thing is terrorism which is based on an essentially anarchistic society organized in clans and families with no tradition to submission under a central government at all, like Afghanistan. Of course, in Syria there is also a strong element of family- and clan-based organization of the society, but there were long peaceful periods, thus, this is not an impossibility. So, I think in Syria it is more the external support of terrorism which is the problem.

The only way to win against terrorism is with sound government by the people and for the people. Both of which Assad is seriously lacking.

Maybe, but such things are relative. He is the only secular force on the ground, thus, the choice is secular vs. a fundamentalistic islamic state (irrelevant if created by IS, Al Qaida or other fundamentalist groups) vs. Libyan chaos.

 

[sculptor]

and now, a word from our sponsor:

 

[CptBork]

I'm a tad confused:
Could you please name at-least one of the "democratic governments" which you would reference?

How's about the one that happens to operate on the same land you call your home, which attempts to represent the aspirations of the majority who participated in electing it? Or maybe you're thinking the US government sits around and comes up with colonial conspiracies all day, but that's what Putin does all day and you seem to like him well enough.

and now, a word from our sponsor:

Oh you poor little thing, left out to be a wallflower at America's grand economic prom. Let me guess, you could write a textbook on mathematics or programming in your sleep if you wanted, but no one wants to hire you or millions of fellow highly skilled dynamic employees at senator's son wages, right? Well fear not, I'm sure Putin and his $100 billion + in secretly embezzled financial assets will help you out, or if not him personally, perhaps one of the dozens of humble oligarchs who runs the USSR with his blessing could spare a yacht for you.

 

[CptBork]

One thing is terrorism which is based on an essentially anarchistic society organized in clans and families with no tradition to submission under a central government at all, like Afghanistan. Of course, in Syria there is also a strong element of family- and clan-based organization of the society, but there were long peaceful periods, thus, this is not an impossibility. So, I think in Syria it is more the external support of terrorism which is the problem.

Oh yes, let's harken back to sunny days when the Alawites ran Syria for themselves, and there was no such thing as tribalism or clan loyalty.

Maybe, but such things are relative. He is the only secular force on the ground, thus, the choice is secular vs. a fundamentalistic islamic state (irrelevant if created by IS, Al Qaida or other fundamentalist groups) vs. Libyan chaos.

I think you read from the Sputnik International report scheduled for February 2016, not the one currently being published. Russia hasn't yet removed Assad's remaining secular opponents, that's a work in progress which only began a week ago.

 

[Schmelzer]

Russia hasn't yet removed Assad's remaining secular opponents, that's a work in progress which only began a week ago.

Of course, it would be difficult to catch these 5 guys. But, no, Russia is not even trying to catch them. Instead, it has openly recommended the US not only to take out of the country his instructors and advisors, but also its very valuable specialists, which have been trained on US taxpayer's money.

 

[CptBork]

Of course, it would be difficult to catch these 5 guys. But, no, Russia is not even trying to catch them. Instead, it has openly recommended the US not only to take out of the country his instructors and advisors, but also its very valuable specialists, which have been trained on US taxpayer's money.

Don't worry, by the time Russia flees Syria in bankruptcy with hundreds of millions of Sunnis determined to blow up Moscow, you'll have wasted far more cash and wished you'd been as cautious as the Yankees. On the bright side at least you'll have one less expensive naval base filled with drunken retard sailors to maintain, and perhaps eventually NATO will even relieve you of Sevastopol too for even bigger savings- imagine how many peasants you could feed with all the money you won't be able to spend on submarines and carriers.

You do however make a good point that the Americans have wasted their efforts in Syria to date, because only 10% of Syrians are interested in fighting ISIS without fighting Assad too.

 

[Schmelzer]

Don't worry, by the time Russia flees Syria in bankruptcy with hundreds of millions of Sunnis determined to blow up Moscow, you'll have wasted far more cash and wished you'd been as cautious as the Yankees.

Funny fantasies, but in fact throwing bombs on the US-paid terrorists will be rather cheap. The Russians have developed a quite cheap system of throwing bombs, not based on smart bombs but on throwing cheap dumb bombs in a very accurate way, 4-7 m accuracy from 5000 m high. So, if you want to hit them, MANPADs are not sufficient, you have to give Al Qaida rockets able to shoot planes at that high. You really want to do it? I would not recommend you to do this, they will try this out on NATO planes too. But if you don't hit the planes, the whole thing is rather cheap, one simply uses old bombs close to the expiration date, don't worry, there are a lot of them in Russia from Soviet times.

By the way, Afghan general Dostum came to Kadyrow for consultations, to learn from him how to fight terrorists, once the American's seem unable to teach how to do this.

 

[CptBork]

Funny fantasies, but in fact throwing bombs on the US-paid terrorists will be rather cheap. The Russians have developed a quite cheap system of throwing bombs, not based on smart bombs but on throwing cheap dumb bombs in a very accurate way, 4-7 m accuracy from 5000 m high. So, if you want to hit them, MANPADs are not sufficient, you have to give Al Qaida rockets able to shoot planes at that high. You really want to do it? I would not recommend you to do this, they will try this out on NATO planes too. But if you don't hit the planes, the whole thing is rather cheap, one simply uses old bombs close to the expiration date, don't worry, there are a lot of them in Russia from Soviet times.

I guess it's understandable then why 4 of the missiles fired from the Caspian Sea landed in Iran- Russia wanted them to see first-hand how effective this cheap new doctrine is.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34479873

If the goal is to terrorize millions of civilians into hating everything to do with Moscow, nothing works better than carpet bombing. As far as responses go, you're correct about the risks in providing MANPAD's and other anti-air equipment. Good thing NATO has several options in its arsenal to respond to Russia's provocations. They could choose to bomb a Hezbollah or Assad target every time Russia bombs one of the US-allied factions, or they can also establish safe zones along the Turkish and Jordanian borders in which moderates will have the chance to establish alternative governments in preparation for Assad's eventual downfall.

By the way, Afghan general Dostum came to Kadyrow for consultations, to learn from him how to fight terrorists, once the American's seem unable to teach how to do this.

You're actually proud of that? Dostum, the man who likes to squash his insubordinates under tank tracks, getting lessons from the personality cult Mafia goon whose brutality is making Chechnya's independence more inevitable by the day? That's like a pedophile taking child porn lessons from Jared Fogle.

 

[Schmelzer]

I guess it's understandable then why 4 of the missiles fired from the Caspian Sea landed in Iran- Russia wanted them to see first-hand how effective this cheap new doctrine is.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34479873

That's because BBC is too stupid to distinguish CNN fantasies from facts.

If the goal is to terrorize millions of civilians into hating everything to do with Moscow, nothing works better than carpet bombing.

Nobody plans carpet bombing. I see you have not understood the point. The Russian military has now a device for throwing an old classical dumb bomb in such a way that it hits the target from 5000 m high with a 4-7m accuracy. So, no need of carpet bombing to hit the target one wants to hit.

Good thing NATO has several options in its arsenal to respond to Russia's provocations. They could choose to bomb a Hezbollah or Assad target every time Russia bombs one of the US-allied factions,

Only if they want war. If they hit a target Russia does not allow to hit on Syrian territory, the plane will be hit. The appropriate air defense systems are installed. In fact, Syria has the right to hit them even if they simply appear over Syrian territory without Syrian permission.

or they can also establish safe zones along the Turkish and Jordanian borders in which moderates will have the chance to establish alternative governments in preparation for Assad's eventual downfall.

This is something they can do - on Turkish or Jordanian territory. Forget about any no-fly-zones on Syrian territory.

You're actually proud of that? Dostum, the man who likes to squash his insubordinates under tank tracks,

I have no reason to be proud of Dostum, vice president in the US vassal Karsai government in Afghanistan. That's you who should be proud of him, for successfully building US democracy in Afghanistan.

What I see is that the US in Afghanistan was unable to win the war against terrorism, while Putin in Chechnya was able. This is the difference. The liberal democratic qualities of their local vassals are similar - nor Putin's vassal Kadyrov nor Obama's vassal Dostum are really nice persons. But in Kadyrov's Chechnya we have peace, and the job of preserving peace is done by the Chechens. While the troops of your beloved Afghan vassals run away from local insurgents not supported by any superpower. And even the Americans themself tell us they will be finished if the US stops supporting them with airpower for bombing hospitals and so on. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1269.pdf

 

[sculptor]

Violating Syrian air space.
Arming and training Syrian erstwhile revolutionaries.

It seems that the USA, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, etc... are in violation of international law, and most certainly in violation of the UN charter.

 

[CptBork]

Violating Syrian air space.
Arming and training Syrian erstwhile revolutionaries.

It seems that the USA, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, etc... are in violation of international law, and most certainly in violation of the UN charter.

Oh, really? How's about Putin and Assad go pay a visit to the Hague and press charges, then?

 

[CptBork]

That's because BBC is too stupid to distinguish CNN fantasies from facts.

And you think Russian news agencies are reliable when they report whatever Putin says, even when he admits later to a deliberate deception such as lying about not sending drunks to occupy Crimea? Ok partner, enjoy your poverty, and when you can't afford nice things anymore and perhaps not even internet, remember that life is better anyhow because it said so in the local papers.

Nobody plans carpet bombing. I see you have not understood the point. The Russian military has now a device for throwing an old classical dumb bomb in such a way that it hits the target from 5000 m high with a 4-7m accuracy. So, no need of carpet bombing to hit the target one wants to hit.

The US has used devices like that to modify old bombs going back to the pre-Afghanistan days (I'm referring to the Afghanistan war which actually ended in a positive result, not the one which collapsed an empire of stupid). The difference is, American devices do what they're said to do and have been proven time and again in real combat, while Russian devices only work on TV, just like Olympic rings. Those bombs Russia's dropping aren't hitting militants most of the time, and when they are, it's almost never ISIS or Al Qaeda militants.

Here's a better, even cheaper invention that would help Russian pilots hit their targets: Alcoholics Anonymous.

Only if they want war. If they hit a target Russia does not allow to hit on Syrian territory, the plane will be hit. The appropriate air defense systems are installed. In fact, Syria has the right to hit them even if they simply appear over Syrian territory without Syrian permission.

Ok, and if you shoot at NATO assets, NATO will shoot right back. I'd rather see NATO bury Russia in Syria than wait for Putin to provoke something even worse elsewhere when it's convenient for him.

This is something they can do - on Turkish or Jordanian territory. Forget about any no-fly-zones on Syrian territory.

No, I think I'll very much keep them in mind on Syrian territory, since that territory rightfully belongs to the rebels who live there anyhow.

I have no reason to be proud of Dostum, vice president in the US vassal Karsai government in Afghanistan. That's you who should be proud of him, for successfully building US democracy in Afghanistan.

Last I heard, the US distanced itself from Dostum as soon as the Taliban were unseated, and I haven't heard much of any dealings with him since. Whatever he's done in Afghanistan with or without US assistance, it doesn't sound like Russia finds it in any way tasteless or unusual.

What I see is that the US in Afghanistan was unable to win the war against terrorism, while Putin in Chechnya was able.

What you see indicates that you need new glasses. Count the number of buildings that have been destroyed by terrorists on US soil since 9/11, and get back to me with your figure. Meanwhile, I hear Chechnya is as f---ed up as it's ever been and remains in a state of war; certainly seems to be a great breeding ground for ISIS, unlike oh... say, sunny prosperous Texas.

This is the difference. The liberal democratic qualities of their local vassals are similar - nor Putin's vassal Kadyrov nor Obama's vassal Dostum are really nice persons. But in Kadyrov's Chechnya we have peace, and the job of preserving peace is done by the Chechens.

If you have peace in Chechnya, then why the hell are Russian troops still fighting there? The difference between US vassals in Afghanistan and Russian vassals in Russia is that Afghanistan is not in America, whereas Russia is by definition contained inside Russia. Any chance you ever had to peacefully retain Chechnya as part of the Russian federation vanished a few thousand missiles ago, so have fun with that while we have fun watching you set quality food on fire.

While the troops of your beloved Afghan vassals run away from local insurgents not supported by any superpower. And even the Americans themself tell us they will be finished if the US stops supporting them with airpower for bombing hospitals and so on. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1269.pdf

Firstly, the insurgents in Afghanistan aren't supported by a superpower, but they are supported by a nuclear power called Pakistan, which unfortunately continues to enjoy relatively unrestricted trade relations with the superpowers in the US and EU. Secondly, things have seemed pretty quiet in Afghanistan lately; when's the last time a NATO soldier was killed there in combat? Or maybe NATO's done a horrendous job in Afghanistan, and it's only quiet there right now because Russia drew all the serial rapists over to Syria.

 

[CptBork]

I have to say that I'm basically a supporter of what the Russians are doing. They are trying to bring stability to Syria by supporting its government in its battle against what in effect are forces of anarchy. They are trying to prevent Syria from devolving into a failed-state power-vacuum, by supporting the only force (apart from ISIS) with hopes of exerting control over the whole country, namely the Syrian army.

I don't support the Obama administration's and the Europeans' (and the Turks and the Saudis) attempts to overthrow the government of Syria.

Obama, Cameron and company are making precisely the same mistake that Bush and Blair made in Iraq. They are hypnotized by their dreamy visions of the 'Arab Spring' into imagining that most Syrians are modern progressives, little images of the West who will behave precisely as we want them to behave. (To even think otherwise would be 'bigotry'.) They imagine that if the dictatorial tyrant Assad can just be overthrown, that everything will crystalize into precisely the form that we favor. Of course that didn't work each time it was tried previously (Saddam, Qaddhafi, Mubarak, in Yemen) but surely it will work this time.

So the only force strong enough to keep a lid on Syria is removed and a power vacuum created. People will immediately set about violently settling scores and getting payback for no end of resentments. (Do people imagine that the Syrian civil war hasn't created red-hot anger and resentment?) No end of militia groups (there are more than 1,000 in Syria) will battle to defend their autonomy and their local power. The stronger among them will eliminate the weak and will compete among themselves for control of the entire country. And in Syria, the strongest are the radical Islamists, most notably ISIS along with the Islamic Front coalition and the Nusra Front.

In this 'Mad Max' all-against-all anarchy, what makes Washington so certain that its semi-illusory 'Free Syrian Army' will be the ones who end up in control of Damascus and be able to rally the whole country under its banner? Where will the 'moderate rebels' find the numbers and the necessary muscle? What will prevent ISIS from marching into Damascus, promising to reestablish the rule of law (even if it's dark-ages Shariah law)? Who will protect Syria's many religious minorities that currently support Assad in exchange for his protection (mainly because he's a religious minority himself)?

It seems to me that the road from where we currently are to a tolerable outcome in Syria is murky at best if Assad is overthrown and the Syrian army destroyed. It's a lot clearer if the Syrian rebels are defeated.

So you're afraid of a power vacuum being filled by hundreds or thousands of disparate organizations and militias of questionable loyalty and intent, including the ones who've proclaimed from the start their desire for a secular democratic Syria representing all ethnicities and religions. How do you then conclude that the one faction responsible for murdering more Syrian innocents than all the other factions combined, which operates a full machinery of Nazist torture and extermination, is the one and only group capable of bringing stability to the country?

What sort of stability do you envision for Syria under Assad, one in which 90% of the country is emptied and millions of stateless refugees remain scattered throughout Europe for the rest of their lives? You're worried about the reprisals Sunni Syrians might exact against Russo-Shiite war crimes perpetrators and their supporters, but you think there won't be even more vicious reprisals if the Assad regime is handed control over areas where no one wants to see its presence and have fought its soldiers for over 4 years?

Your non-interventionist attitude is more appropriate for regions which presently enjoy peace, security and stability, not the ones where civil society was guaranteed to fall apart and already has. If the US and Russia both stayed out of the conflict or even departed tomorrow, the Syrian people would decide for themselves what they want, and everyone knows Assad would end up with a knife up his butt as part of that process.

 

[Schmelzer]

And you think Russian news agencies are reliable when they report whatever Putin says, even when he admits later to a deliberate deception such as lying about not sending drunks to occupy Crimea?

I have known from the start about the Russian speznas being there. And essentially all the Runet has known this. And, no, these speznas guys were not drunks, and Putin has not told any lies, he has simply refused to admit it.

Ok partner, enjoy your poverty, and when you can't afford nice things anymore and perhaps not even internet

Which poverty? The poverty of your knowledge? You know that one of the reasons that the majority on Crimea has voted for Russia was that they have reasonably expected that their income will increase, by factors?

By the way, I don't live in Russia, so, I don't also use Russian media except, sometimes, their internet presentations.

Those bombs Russia's dropping aren't hitting militants most of the time, and when they are, it's almost never ISIS or Al Qaeda militants.

Dream about it. And, of course, Putin will not care about which terrorists are the good, US-paid ones, and which are the bad ones. He especially cares about those coming from Russia and other former Soviet republics, and if he knows that some guys are US-paid, they may receive an extra bomb for this.

Ok, and if you shoot at NATO assets, NATO will shoot right back.

How? There will be no US planes over Syria.

No, I think I'll very much keep them in mind on Syrian territory, since that territory rightfully belongs to the rebels who live there anyhow.

Nobody cares about what you think. There is international law, and from point of view of international law the US is the aggressor, because the US violates it. If Syria would be alone, US could do whatever they want, based on law of the mafia. But with Russia, they can enforce international law.

Last I heard, the US distanced itself from Dostum as soon as the Taliban were unseated, and I haven't heard much of any dealings with him since. Whatever he's done in Afghanistan with or without US assistance, it doesn't sound like Russia finds it in any way tasteless or unusual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_Afghanistan

Count the number of buildings that have been destroyed by terrorists on US soil since 9/11, and get back to me with your figure. Meanwhile, I hear Chechnya is as f---ed up as it's ever been and remains in a state of war;

I was talking about Afghanistan, were terrorists have not only destroyed some houses, but taken a whole city, with the US vassals running away. The Taliban have always been only local guys, thus, as terrorists only a local problem. It was the Saudi-paid Al Qaida which was a problem outside Afghanistan too.

An what you hear about Chechnya is simply completely off.

If you have peace in Chechnya, then why the hell are Russian troops still fighting there?

They are not fighting there. Even if there appear some terrorists (instead of running away to Syria, where they had the possibility to do unpunished what they like to do under US cover), these terrorists are handled by the Kadyrow guys, without Russian troops.

Any chance you ever had to peacefully retain Chechnya as part of the Russian federation vanished a few thousand missiles ago, so have fun with that while we have fun watching you set quality food on fire.

Chechnya is a peaceful part of Russia today, live with this.

Secondly, things have seemed pretty quiet in Afghanistan lately; when's the last time a NATO soldier was killed there in combat?

As if they would participate in combat now. The combat troops are already run away home. What remains sits in a few US bases, is named "instructor" or "consultant", and is afraid to go out, except some US aircraft which sometimes bombs hospitals.

Or maybe NATO's done a horrendous job in Afghanistan, and it's only quiet there right now because Russia drew all the serial rapists over to Syria.

Your assumption that it is quite there is simply based on not knowing what actually happens there. The taliban have taken, with Kunduz, a province capital. Essentially after a quite long siege, because they control the whole province, except for the capital, already quite a long time. Ok, with a lot of US air support the city seems to have been taken by government forces again, but for long? I doubt.

During that time, the taliban have made a lot of small progress in other places, places you have never heard about in Western media, because if some district is taken by the taliban, it is not even mentioned in the media.

And, by the way, the IS became active in Afghanistan too. Once a moslem place is ruled by the US, it is not dangerous for the IS to act there.

 

[sculptor]

From USA Today:

The White House insists that Russia’s increasingly bold intervention in Syria is a sign of Russia's weakness. Obama administration officials will probably keep keep using this kind of double talk right up until Moscow declares victory.

Russia’s move into Syria forced the administration and its defenders to explain why this wasn’t the biggest intelligence failure since the Iraq war. The signs of an impending campaign were there: Russia asking for increased overflight permission from neighboring countries; runways in Syria being lengthened to accommodate large transports and bombers; and advanced fighter aircraft showing up in-country that the Syrians were not trained to fly. In response, the White House chose to “take a wait and see” approach, which is not really an approach so much as doing nothing.

The White House claimed not to have been caught by surprise, though House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Adam B. Schiff, D-Calif., says it would have been perfectly understandable if they had been.

“I don’t know, frankly, that [Russia’s president Vladimir] Putin knew that he was going to do that until he made the decision,” Schiff said. “I’m not sure even Putin’s inner circle would have seen it coming.”

If so, Putin's invasion is history’s first example of a surprise attack that surprised even the attackers.

From Winston Churchill:

I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.

So far, it seems that the Russian led coalition has been much more effective than the US led coalition and their various proxies.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"If so, Putin's invasion is history’s first example of a surprise attack that surprised even the attackers." ...a Captains pick as they say here in Australia... ( chuckle)

 

[CptBork]

So far, it seems that the Russian led coalition has been much more effective than the US led coalition and their various proxies.

Why do you suppose that? Because it says so on rt.com? Russia has indeed been successful so far, at creating roughly 100,000 new refugees in two weeks. Meanwhile ISIS continues to gain and hold territory in both Iraq and Syria, and Russia permits it to fill the vacuums left behind by the moderate forces it's bombing instead, so in fact Russia is actually making ISIS stronger at the expense of other rebels, which was part of the plan all along.