What's everyone's opinion on the current conflict in Syria?

[Comrade69]

After the chemical weapon attack, the US as well as Britain want to go in and strike. Russia has repeatedly told the US to stay out of Syria. And now many people are talking about that this can spark a WWIII. How do you guys think this all goes down?


MOD EDIT: Fixed the spelling of the thread title. It has been bothering me.
-Preceptor

 

[Feanor]

Russia published a report on the chemical weapons attack in Aleppo, that concludes that the munitions were probably manufactured by the rebels, based on presence of substances that indicates they're of makeshift manufacture.

 

Meanwhile an ELINT warship of the GRU is headed to the Syria coast in addition to the regular warships there on rotation. And the number of landing ships present was increased from one to two. Commentary from Moscow is that the ships will be used to evacuate Russian citizens. Unofficially there is unconfirmed information that most of Russian property was removed from the naval base at Tartus.

 

[StobieWan]

After the chemical weapon attack, the US as well as Britain want to go in and strike. Russia has repeatedly told the US to stay out of Syria. And now many people are talking about that this can spark a WWIII. How do you guys think this all goes down?

It's not a WWIII scenario - this is a middle eastern country and a local matter. If the US and France do strike, it will be against targets that can be justified as being related to CWC capability. Indeed, Russia (ie, Putin) has apparently softened in opposition to strikes and has indicated that if it were a matter of a UN resolution, they may play ball.

Of course, as a UN security council member, they could stop such a resolution very early on.

The UK will not be involved militarily - the PM took the matter to the House of Commons and was defeated - that's democracy in action.

 

[Quiller]

It doesn't look like the US Congress is especially likely to approve air strikes at this point and there is substantial split among Americans nationwide. Generals are publicly grumbling there is no defined tactical or strategic goal. The plans appear to be "feel good" politics rather than sound military doctrine based on national security goals. Of course the actual operational plans are secret, so the full scope of such a mission are not known.

 

[King Wally]

I'm expecting a couple targeted Cruise Missile strikes on key targets (Weapon Stockpiles, Chemical Plants / Labs etc) and everyone to take it on the chin and walk away.

The USA doesn't have the desire nor backing to see it flamed up any more then that and Russia has nothing to gain from needlessly poking the bear either.

Both parties are probably content to make a show of it then go back to business. Assard if he plays it calm can get back to his civil war and cling onto power and the US can say they did something about the event.

In the scope of probable events I think this holds the most likely outcome although I will admit there are smaller percentage chances of a variety of alternative outcomes that could eventuate.

 

[Feanor]

Putin has not softened to strikes, he's merely re-affirmed Russia's position: UN resolution or no strikes. And since Russia will veto the resolution, this effectively means no strikes.

 

[Beatmaster]

Personally i do not care anymore who started with the chemical weapons.
The people who did it should burn in hell. And if this means the government of Syria is behind it or rebels it does not matter much.
What matters is that hundereds of people got sick, injured or died because of it.
Now the war itself is brutal, and millions of people have moved out of Syria and hundereds/ thousands of people got seriously injured / killed.

Many months ago someone should have said STOP.
But the international community did nothing, and i for one cannot respect that.

In regards to the reports from various intelligence communities and other sources there is virtually no way of even checking them.
Now what strikes me is that the west have reports that appearently show that the Syrian government is behind it.
But other non western reports (Russia for one) claims the opposite.
Now how come that so many people see the same things but conclude different in their reports.

In the mean time Syrian people get slaughtered without help without mercy.
And the people behind it roam free.:mad3

So if the West and Russia drag this any longer then there is no reason anymore to even attempt to help the Syrian people as there will be NONE left.
And to me personally the whole international community is almost as much to blame as the Syrian governement itself as they allowed this whole situation in the first place for this long.

Disgusting:mad3

That being said it seems there is no easy solution anymore, as the damage has already been done.
And you know what? perhaps Russia and US should both work hand in hand and secure those Chemical stockpiles, and force all sides to cease fire even if this means a serious campaign.
After that get the evidence and bring the ones responsible to court.
What counts right now is that the killing stops, and that the faction responisble for this are being brought to justice.

And just for the sake of argument, lets assume for a second that the rebels are behind it.
Then this would be a VERY troublesome situation, because that would give militant groups the option to use Chemical weapons against international forces in the region.
So whatever happens its key that those chemical weapons and other heavy weapons stay in Syria or being secured by the international community.

Cheers

 

[SolarWind]

Putin has not softened to strikes, he's merely re-affirmed Russia's position: UN resolution or no strikes. And since Russia will veto the resolution, this effectively means no strikes.

I would add that Putin did say he might back the strikes if it was proven that it was indeed the Assad's regime that used the CW. But since the proof is classified, it is not likely the American public, the Russians or anyone who does not have proper clearance with the US gov't will see it.

 

[the road runner]

But since the proof is classified, it is not likely the American public, the Russians or anyone who does not have proper clearance with the US gov't will see it.

Here you go ,good old youtube strikes once again
Just fast forward to the 2 minute mark and again to the 4.40 minute mark
Thy don't look like Government troops but i could be wrong!


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WrCzPk3_4&feature=c4-overview&list=UUhZRoC9bMegevAxFmee1oSA"]Still Report 96 Syria Attack - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Rimasta]

Putin has not softened to strikes, he's merely re-affirmed Russia's position: UN resolution or no strikes. And since Russia will veto the resolution, this effectively means no strikes.

I seriously doubt Russia's position will deter an attack, U.N. authorization or no. Look at the language from senior U.S. officials, language that said in short that Putin will not be the arbiter of international law. Wether its right or wrong, Russia and China will not effect wether or not there is a strike. Did Putin seek U.N. authorization to use force in Georgia or Chechnya? The members of the security council will do what they feel is in their best interest, U.N. or no.

 

[Rimasta]

Personally i do not care anymore who started with the chemical weapons.
The people who did it should burn in hell. And if this means the government of Syria is behind it or rebels it does not matter much.
What matters is that hundereds of people got sick, injured or died because of it.
Now the war itself is brutal, and millions of people have moved out of Syria and hundereds/ thousands of people got seriously injured / killed.

Many months ago someone should have said STOP.
But the international community did nothing, and i for one cannot respect that.

In regards to the reports from various intelligence communities and other sources there is virtually no way of even checking them.
Now what strikes me is that the west have reports that appearently show that the Syrian government is behind it.
But other non western reports (Russia for one) claims the opposite.
Now how come that so many people see the same things but conclude different in their reports.

In the mean time Syrian people get slaughtered without help without mercy.
And the people behind it roam free.:mad3

So if the West and Russia drag this any longer then there is no reason anymore to even attempt to help the Syrian people as there will be NONE left.
And to me personally the whole international community is almost as much to blame as the Syrian governement itself as they allowed this whole situation in the first place for this long.

Disgusting:mad3

That being said it seems there is no easy solution anymore, as the damage has already been done.
And you know what? perhaps Russia and US should both work hand in hand and secure those Chemical stockpiles, and force all sides to cease fire even if this means a serious campaign.
After that get the evidence and bring the ones responsible to court.
What counts right now is that the killing stops, and that the faction responisble for this are being brought to justice.

And just for the sake of argument, lets assume for a second that the rebels are behind it.
Then this would be a VERY troublesome situation, because that would give militant groups the option to use Chemical weapons against international forces in the region.
So whatever happens its key that those chemical weapons and other heavy weapons stay in Syria or being secured by the international community.

Cheers

They've done nothing because Russia doesn't want to loose its only real ally or partner in west Asia. That and all the Russian military hardware that'll be seen burning on the evening news should the green light be given on a broad intervention. Despite their robust air defenses, they wouldn't last long.

 

[Beatmaster]

I seriously doubt Russia's position will deter an attack, U.N. authorization or no. Look at the language from senior U.S. officials, language that said in short that Putin will not be the arbiter of international law. Wether its right or wrong, Russia and China will not effect wether or not there is a strike. Did Putin seek U.N. authorization to use force in Georgia or Chechnya? The members of the security council will do what they feel is in their best interest, U.N. or no.

Might be so, on the flip side the question remains how far the Russians want to go to protect Syria, because lets say for the sake of argument that they are actually going trough with it and would use their military power to intervene in order to stop the US in whatever they are planning to do, then i do believe that US military planning would go into crisis mode.
Do not forget that Putin is a serious factor here and that he does have the military assets to force the US to rethink their plans.
Its not worth a war between both, but in conflict terms the US would have a hard time dictating the events that follow.

In regards to Chechnya and Georgia they are both "ex-russian" territory (dating back from the cold war) and for lack of better reasons Russia did not need approval to do what they did as the already knew that neither NATO and neither US would risk a conflict over it. And not sure here but i believe that the Russians did have valid reasons to do what they did.
And with Syria this is way different.

 

[Feanor]

It's not very different. Russia and the US aren't going to go to war over Syria. Especially when you consider that war or no war, Russia can not actually stop a US operation against Syria. So it will come down to this, Russia will throw whatever support they have behind Syria. If they succeed they'll retain a valuable client state. If they fail, they will still stand as the champion of small states against US aggression. It really is a win-win, strikes or no strikes.

 

[Beatmaster]

It's not very different. Russia and the US aren't going to go to war over Syria. Especially when you consider that war or no war, Russia can not actually stop a US operation against Syria. So it will come down to this, Russia will throw whatever support they have behind Syria. If they succeed they'll retain a valuable client state. If they fail, they will still stand as the champion of small states against US aggression. It really is a win-win, strikes or no strikes.

Agreed.
I did not realize what you just said so yes i agree (thanks for that)

 

[My2Cents]

from Syria chemical weapons response poses major test for Obama - latimes.com

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

"They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said.

And this opinion piece U.S. military planners don’t support war with Syria - The Washington Post

They {the military} are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.

Basically this will be a political stunt with no significant effect to make the US President look good for a sound bite. It is possible that the Administration may even clear the target list with Putin in advance so they don't feel they have to worry about a Russian response, though Russia has played them for fools repeatedly before.

 

[Volkodav]

from Syria chemical weapons response poses major test for Obama - latimes.com

And this opinion piece U.S. military planners don’t support war with Syria - The Washington Post

Basically this will be a political stunt with no significant effect to make the US President look good for a sound bite. It is possible that the Administration may even clear the target list with Putin in advance so they don't feel they have to worry about a Russian response, though Russia has played them for fools repeatedly before.

Well imagine how intimidating it would be for the US to say this is what we are attacking and this is when, just try and stop us. The US could go and do exactly what they say and get the message across that they are the preeminent global power and can do what they want when they want, or they could then go and do something completely different.

 

[Feanor]

Basically this will be a political stunt with no significant effect to make the US President look good for a sound bite. It is possible that the Administration may even clear the target list with Putin in advance so they don't feel they have to worry about a Russian response, though Russia has played them for fools repeatedly before.

They most certainly will not. That information could end up leaked to Assad very easily. And while Assad can't actually do much about the US strikes, this sort of information could cost the US some aircraft. And even if it's just a aircraft, that's still not worth it. Consider that there really isn't much to gain by clearing the list with Russia.

EDIT: I'm not sure how accurate this is, but the source is a decent and well established defense blog. It's a map of Russian and US naval assets in the Eastern Mediterranean. Before you get surprised and impressed at the total number of Russian ships, please consider that the majority are supply and support ships, and BDKs some of which (possibly all of which) have detachments of Marines on board. Only a few of those are actual warships.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-irSLomYBD...M/s1600/conflicto+sirio+buques+7+sep+2013.jpg

Out of what's listed here:

BDKs (large landing ships)

Novocherkassk, Minsk, Peresvet, Admiral Nevelskiy, Aleksandr Shabalin, Kaliningrad

ELINT Ship

Priazovye

Combat Ships

BPK (Anti-Submarine Destroyer) Admiral Panteleev, SKR (Frigate) Neustrashimiy

Support Ships

Ocean tug Fotiy Krylov, fuel ship Pechenga, naval workshop PM-138, rescue tug SB-921, fuel ship Lena.

So what's shown here actually includes a total of two warships, 6 landing ships, various support assets, and one ELINT ship. I know that enroute to Syria is the Moscow cruiser (Black Sea Fleet) but it's taking the long way, and it has with it a couple of other ships. However even if they add to rather then replace ships currently there, it still won't make for much of a fighting force. It does however make for a decent sized force to evacuate Russian civilians still in Syria. Which would explain the very large number of landing ships which also serve as transports, the small detachments of Marines (for security purposes) and the lack of bases, and poor state of the ships themselves, explains the need for considerable support vessels.

 

[alexkvaskov]

Well the BDKs could be carrying supplies and armaments to the SAA. The Russian gov't has made quite a brouhaha about evacuating Russian citizens, but there's been no open source info if they actually have been doing so. IMHO it's just an excuse to explain the presence of the landing ships in the Eastern Med. Then again, they could be evacuating their citizens after the ships unload their goods for Assad.

 

[Lcf]

There have been some reports in the past few days about 'Nikolai Filchenkov' landing ship being dispatched toward Syria, carrying "special cargo". Any info or thoughts what kind of cargo it carrys/might carry and why would it be 'special' ?

 

[Feanor]

Well the BDKs could be carrying supplies and armaments to the SAA. The Russian gov't has made quite a brouhaha about evacuating Russian citizens, but there's been no open source info if they actually have been doing so. IMHO it's just an excuse to explain the presence of the landing ships in the Eastern Med. Then again, they could be evacuating their citizens after the ships unload their goods for Assad.

Actually there have been quite a few flights of MChS aircraft taking civilians out of Syria, mainly Il-76 and Il-62M aircraft. Russian sources speculate that the BDKs may be bringing supplies and weapons, but there has been no actual information to indicate that.

There have been some reports in the past few days about 'Nikolai Filchenkov' landing ship being dispatched toward Syria, carrying "special cargo". Any info or thoughts what kind of cargo it carrys/might carry and why would it be 'special' ?

I've heard that it was dispatched but nothing on the cargo. Though it was recently implied that some elements of the S-300s have already been delivered to Syria.