Yeah, but is there any real danger of that? Assad's been bombing & shelling non-IS rebels in Aleppo for years, & they've hung on. If left alone, what chance is there that they'd crumble under IS attack? IS gains in that region seem to have been on the tail of SAA defeats of non-IS rebels, weakening them enough so that they can't resist IS. Surely the best way to keep Aleppo out of IS hands is to attack IS, not further weaken forces which fight it.
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
Without Russian and Iranian (possibly especially Iranian) aid, there is a good chance that this is exactly how things would have gone. Between the weakening of the government forces and the other rebel groups, ISIS would have made the greatest gains. As is, the SAA has defeated both enemies, deblockading Kuweiris and establishing a significant area around it, threatening ISIS positions to the west of there. At the same time they've swung around south-west taking al-Hadr and reaching the Damascus-Aleppo highway. Quite an ambitious undertaking for a force that was described as "weeks from collapse" not too long ago (after losing their last oil field). As is they're making gains across the board against both ISIS and other rebel groups.
ISIS is bigger, stronger, holds more ground, and is less of an immediate threat, so naturally the focus initially is on the other groups. Given the deteriorating behavior of these groups (FSA using human shields, elements of the "moderate" rebels openly declaring for ISIS), there's hardly a case to be made for any of them at this point. So here we are. And let's remember, the goal is not to keep Aleppo out of ISIS hands. The goal is to re-establish regime control over Aleppo. Not quite the same. There's a reason the offensive to the south-west aimed for that highway. They're establishing control of the province more broadly.
In light of the suggestions that a deeper inland base is being set up by Russia, this current offensive seems more preparatory for the real fight against ISIS. And it doesn't take ISIS specifically to cause problems, murder people, kidnap and behead journalists, and traffic arms, slaves, and drugs.
There are obvious political considerations here on Russia's part you did not mention. Having rebel groups supported by US diminished, Assad would become the only guy in the field fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates, which makes his position (and consequently, Russia's position) much stronger.
Indeed. It's a fairly obvious strategy by Assad: eliminate the non-Daesh rebels with Russian help, & rely on Daesh's talent for making the rest of the world its enemies to create a wide coalition of outsiders to destroy it for him.
Daesh threatened the plan by destroying that Russian airliner, but the Turks have conveniently put it back on track.
If you're losing to the SAA & threatened with attack from the rear by IS when you're weakened enough, it could be seen as logical to head off that attack by declaring for IS. Another tactic of desperation.
Daesh threatened the plan by destroying that Russian airliner, but the Turks have conveniently put it back on track.
It shows desperation, & a common process in violent conflicts, of capture of leadership by more extreme factions.
If you're losing to the SAA & threatened with attack from the rear by IS when you're weakened enough, it could be seen as logical to head off that attack by declaring for IS. Another tactic of desperation.
That would be the logical goal on their part, but Russia, and Syria faces a plethora of problems still. Since Turkey is the main route fighters take to reach Syria, Turkey could easily flood the landscape with militants if they wanted to, even more than they are doing now. The men responsible for shooting the downed Russia pilot for example, are apart of an Ultra-Nationalist group known as the Grey Wolves.
The past few months, prior to this incident the Grey Wolves, and other Turkmen groups have beefed up strong-points around the border region in Latakia. SAA has been making good gains, since their offensive operations, but will have a terrible time closing the border in that area. This is the reason Russia has been striking those positions, and I'd venture it will be decimating air strikes on them now.
Also, there have been some losses on the SAA side. The Town of Morek was overran without a fight, that's a rather strategic town. So there are some considerable flanks that are exposed here. Plus, in the future, the SAA needs to get a good recruitment base for Sunni's in the country. Even though 70% of the Army is made up of Sunni fighters, the population has been torn, ripped, and displaced in such a way, it will be hard for them to replenish numbers in the future. Shia is just a vast minority compared to the Sunni. So, this is basically an all or nothing game now.
Sure, and one highly advantageous to Assad. It de-legitimizes those groups, turns them into targets for the US instead of objects of support, and makes the Russian case for a joint anti-ISIS coalition that much stronger. All of this having been said, the policy of arming questionable groups with questionable aims in the hopes of producing good results has backfired over and over again. Russian unwillingness to allow a distinction between "good" rebels and "bad" ones is understandable. After all this sort of policy of support has backfired many times in the past, including on Russia itself.
How so, on that last part? The downed airliner served as an excuse for Russia to redouble it's efforts, and the Paris attacks fueled the fire even more, with the French dropping buckets of ordnance on Raqqa, and accelerating the Charles de Gaulle's deployment. If anything the downed jet is a bigger problem because it could potentially cause a rift between Russia and the west.
Sort of. The other rebel groups were never really fighting ISIS. They either maintained a hostile neutrality, or at best fought in self-defense. They consistently refused offers to have a truce with Assad, to focus the fight on ISIS. And even with those groups gone, the biggest fighters against ISIS are still the Kurds and the Iraqis. Assad, while undoubtedly is fighting, is a secondary player at best.
gazzzwp
Member
Feanor do you happen to know what air defence systems Turkey has? I understand that the Patriot batteries were recently withdrawn by the US and Germany.
gazzzwp
Member
Surely this complicates Russia's attempts to create an air exclusion zone if 'friendly' players like France are making regular sorties in the area?
The Russian airliner posed the risk that Russian might want to change focus to Daesh, but the Turkish shooting down of the Su-24 ensures that Russia will want to give priority to the pro-Turkish rebels, which suits Assad in many ways as they're close to Alawite regions & he daren't provoke their backer too much - while Russia can.
The Paris attacks keep the West engaged against Daesh, & doubtless it will keep the pot boiling. It has no sense of self preservation. See the recent killing of a captured Chinese citizen.
So should they wait for them to hit the ground to shoot them?
That's war for you, there's nothing enobling about people killing each other as fast as it can be arranged. And those pilot were combatants, not doctors. And these Rebels have been getting pounded by Russian airstrikes with little recourse to take, looks like they just wanted some payback.
I think 250,000 dead is disgusting, but it's not up to me, it's just war, and war turns men into dogs.
Nick underscore
Member
No.
I agree it's war, but common sense or leadership would/ should have a tighter control of their 'troops'. A captured pilot/soldier holds far more value - even through back channels. Ironically, it can be heard in Arabic on one of the videos - 'to not shoot on the parachuting pilots'..
Just to note, I think beheading is a disgusting act also, but then I wasn't commenting on that, nor was I comparing one pilots life against that of 250,000.
On Syria. Turkey moving armoured units to its southern Syrian border, along with another F-16 sqdn. Would also seem that an 'Aid' convoy near Azaz, was hit by a Russian air-strike. Could be just fuel trucks being targeted, as part of the current phase..
Britain apparently has offered France the use of RAF Base Akrotiri in Cyprus
edit
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-...recording-warning-sent-to-russian-jet/6976156
the next issue is whether the russians were monitoring the guard channel - which they should have been
edit
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-...recording-warning-sent-to-russian-jet/6976156
the next issue is whether the russians were monitoring the guard channel - which they should have been
Last edited:
Well I think killing people who are defenseless is dishonorable, but I think we can all agree on that.
I agree, dead prisoners are dumb prisoners, but I'm just not sure how much command and control we are expecting to be exercised over the various militias and rebel groups, these aren't professional military forces we are dealing with. Also, they could've rightly assumed any flight crew would attempt to escape and evade, dead people don't do much escaping or evading. I've heard Syrian Rebels who used to be in the Syrian Army complain about a lack of discipline within their ranks, that soldiers/fighters don't always obey orders and disciplining them is also tough.
I just don't understand the outrage that the pilots were shot at as they decsended, they've been bombing those areas for a couple months now, what'd they expect, to be greeted on the ground with flowers? Imagine your home being bombed for an extended period and an enemy aviator was downed after months of being bombed, if it were me, if I had friends and family killed, I'd understand that blood calls out for more blood.
And that's why if Russia retaliates with force, it'll only escalate things, and pull NATO into a conflict against Russia. Latakia is a long way from Russia, but not far from NATO territory. France mentioned how some in Russia (understandable with emotions running high) want to shoot down some Turkish F-16's. If that should occur, I guarantee you that those Russian bases will be neutralized. And then we will really be up shit creek, excuse my language.
The French are pounding ISIS. A good thing as far as Russia is concerned. It gives Russian action additional legitimacy, and keeps ISIS distracted by multiple opponents.
You mean from Assad's perspective. I see, this makes sense.
You think Turkey will attack Russian bases, if a Turkish F-16 is shot down? It seems like a rather serious escalation, especially given the recently demonstrated long-range strike capability Russia has. Would article 5 protect Turkey, if one of their jets is shot down while allegedly violating Syrian airspace? (something they do routinely) Would it apply, if Turkey responded by a strike against Russian bases?
There is no way to predict Turkey's response. It has always been difficult and now with Erdogan being emboldened by his landslide victory in the elections and his growing megalomania (imo) it's even harder.
For example, I think most agree that this aircraft downing was a preplanned action. There was no panic or mistake involved, no weird circumstances. Tell me another NATO country that would ever do this.
For example, I think most agree that this aircraft downing was a preplanned action. There was no panic or mistake involved, no weird circumstances. Tell me another NATO country that would ever do this.
No, I think NATO would attack Russian bases if Turkish F-16's are shot down INSIDE Turkey.
Think in the context for Turkey-wether it's correct or incorrect-they claim that after numerous accidental incursions into their airspace (real or imagined) that they've delivered on their threat to use force. So with that said, if Russia retaliates against a Turkish F-16, it will only strengthen the line of "Russia is the agitator". And if Russia starts downing Turkish military flights over Turkey, I'd bet on a NATO response.
Honestly Feanor, I don't think NATO wants to carry out strikes of that sort (WW3 is in no ones best interest) but if Turkish aircraft are shot down, I see NATO as having to respond, they'd be backed into a corner. The viability of the alliance would be at stake, to do nothing could unravel NATO. It would be a serious escalation, and Russia does indeed have long-range strike capabilities, but so does NATO. We can trade blows until we wreak ourselves if we wish.
Now as you said in your scenario if Turkish F-16's were downed over Syria, I think that would be entirely different. Turkey would be the one who violated Syrian airspace so a shoot down would be justified and I don't see NATO getting involved, and the Turks would be insane to fight Russia on their own.
I was referring to an earlier post you made about members of the Russian public wanting payback, and I think that desire is more than understandable but one must remember, those aren't just Turkish F-16's, those are NATO F-16's. Especially with all the tensions between the Alliance and the Russian Federation, the possibility for a dramatic escalation IS there.
Is Russia prepared for war with NATO and the United States, because that's where that road goes.
The Turks had a F-4 shot down a few years back by the Syrians and they didn't retaliate, because they knew they had no right to, they were in someone else's airspace despite all the fiery rhetoric.
I think your right. Erdogan is a loose cannon and I think Turkey and the world would be better off without him, and the way this was done, this doesn't seem like a heat of the moment incident, this feels planned. I think the Turks were just waiting for the opportunity. Erdogan needs to go, maybe he and Assad can go into exile together. =)
I am also deeply concerned about Turkey's actions. Erdogan keeps trying to drag NATO into the Syrian conflict for years now and the way things stand now he may be able to.
I will give you a slight modified scenario. A Russian fighter briefly violates (or not, we are not sure about the first time yet) Turkish airspace again. A Turkish F-16 shoots at it from Turkish airspace. Moskva is watching and retaliates, taking down the F-16, inside Turkey. Is it an attack on Turkish (NATO) soil? Can Turkey invoke art.5?
I will give you a slight modified scenario. A Russian fighter briefly violates (or not, we are not sure about the first time yet) Turkish airspace again. A Turkish F-16 shoots at it from Turkish airspace. Moskva is watching and retaliates, taking down the F-16, inside Turkey. Is it an attack on Turkish (NATO) soil? Can Turkey invoke art.5?