The ''civilised'' world has been divided from Day One and IS has benefited. A no fly zone - if declared and agreed upon - must also include Western aircraft; the Russians and Syrians will insist on this. It doesn't depend on firepower and never did but on negotiations and diplomacy. Some basic level of trust much be achieved between Russia and the U.S. and they must have full control over their proxies. A Western imposed no fly zone without Russian participation or agreement will achieve nothing and will make things worse. The time has past when Russian could be ignored; any future settlement must include Russia for it to work.
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
gazzzwp
Member
Neither Russia or Syria seem the slightest bit concerned about the situation on the ground and the suffering of the innocent. It's a little idealistic to be talking about an agreement by all parties and who or who cannot be ignored. I'm just considering the huge number of innocent lives now without water, food, medicine and protection with winter just around the corner.
It's not about the rebels gaining an advantage with a no fly zone in place. It's not about the western powers flying around Aleppo. We know what this is about.
Gazzzzwp I can tell you one thing. You have a distorted view of the world. If you go around random countries (not USA) and asking random people if the world needs a strong and decisive USA leadership (your words), 80% of them would say a strong "No, get out of here!", 10% would beat you up and the other 10% would behead you on the spot before you finished your sentence.
What the world needs is a balance of power and for regional conflicts to remain regional. Most people are tired of hearing about humanitarian catastrophes and the plight of others, especially after the refugee and terrorism crisis. Britain left the EU because of uncontrolled immigration, half of american voters want Trump to build a wall and keep immigrants out, everyone has seen the US-backed beheaders inside Aleppo holding a palestinian boy's head proudly and so on and so forth.
Now suddenly after a ton of atrocities all these years in the syrian civil war there is a fire burning under you and you want a no-fly zone? To achieve what? They will still be sieged and mortared.
Also, they can negotiate a surrender of their weapons and they will be transferred to Idlib or elsewhere and pardoned, as has happened recently in Damascus. There is a way out without bloodshed or capture, this isn't Stalingrad.
What the world needs is a balance of power and for regional conflicts to remain regional. Most people are tired of hearing about humanitarian catastrophes and the plight of others, especially after the refugee and terrorism crisis. Britain left the EU because of uncontrolled immigration, half of american voters want Trump to build a wall and keep immigrants out, everyone has seen the US-backed beheaders inside Aleppo holding a palestinian boy's head proudly and so on and so forth.
Now suddenly after a ton of atrocities all these years in the syrian civil war there is a fire burning under you and you want a no-fly zone? To achieve what? They will still be sieged and mortared.
Also, they can negotiate a surrender of their weapons and they will be transferred to Idlib or elsewhere and pardoned, as has happened recently in Damascus. There is a way out without bloodshed or capture, this isn't Stalingrad.
It's very idealistic to think that the West can impose a no fly zone or anything else significant without Russia's participation. As I mentioned before, the days when the West could do what it wants without including Russia are long gone; any lasting ceasefire and no fly zone will have to include Russian involvement; without Russian involvement things will fail - this is not being idealistic but realistic. A no fly zone that only applies to Syrian and Russian aircraft will be meaningless as Russia and Syria will never agree to it.
Both the West and Russia have key national interests to watch out for. It's not as if it's only Russia that has an agenda.
[The Explanations Behind Russian And US Airstrikes In Syria Are A Lesson In Propaganda]
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...yria-are-a-lesson-in-propaganda-a7325081.html
gazzzwp
Member
Sturm it was an interesting article to read. Didn't the US openly admit that they may have made a mistake though? So I cannot really see why the article is trying to say that the US response to the attack on the Syrian forces was an attempt at evasive propaganda. Any thoughts?
gazzzwp
Member
What I would say is that this view is questionable. If the US does abandon certain regions, namely Europe, SCS, Straits of Hormuz, Korean Peninsula then how do we know that the dominant powers in those regions will behave fairly according to global law and principles? Russia, China and Iran have not proved themselves to be fair trustworthy influences. On the other hand I see the US as much further down the road in this regard having made mistakes in the past.
One view says that the US are in those regions because they are needed. If the US had no presence in the SCS for example would China have done what they have with the bullying and island militarisation? In my opinion yes. These powers are rising fiercely with imperialistic ambitions not fitting for this age but more appropriate to the early 20th Century. This calls for a strong super power like the US to equate the balance.
Now back to the topic of the thread. I'm beginning to see more and more some wider conspiracy here against the US and this probably more than anything explains why they have not been as assertive in Syria as many would like. What I'm getting at is that at virtually any time the US could be called upon to defend in at least 4 other theatres:
1) Middle East Straits of Hormuz
2) The Korean Peninsula
3) Ukraine or the Baltic Countries.
4) South China Sea.
You can bet that as soon as the US commits to one of these regions with a large military force the others will kick off. I would not rule out some wider sinister plot here. It would be interesting to know what others here feel about this. The US has allies in those regions yes and would not be fighting alone. Nonetheless they altogether would present an unpredictable drain on the US military machine.
Who's interest does the US serve in:
1) Middle East Straits of Hormuz
2) The Korean Peninsula
3) Ukraine or the Baltic Countries.
4) South China Sea.
It's own? Or the common good? If it doesn't serve US interests to be in those areas it wouldn't be bothered. It is not alone in that. Most, if not all, the nations are like that. The US, UK, Russia, China, France, Germany, Australia, Norway, Netherlands, Japan, NZ, etc., are only truly energised about a region / issue when it is politically expedient for them to, or they perceive it as affecting their national interest.
To be brutally honest, what really needs to happen in the Middle East now is for all the non regional players to exit stage left and let the locals sort it out amongst themselves with an arms and any form of aid embargo on the whole region including Israel. No arms, no money, no humanitarian aid, no political or diplomatic support, no emigrants / refugees from the area; nothing. It will be a real bloodshed, but it will be sorted, eventually. Then they can start again with a level playing field and a better attitude. The US will just have to bite the bullet, build a bridge and get over Iran. If the Iranians decide to nuke the US then the US retaliates likewise - quid pro quo. The US doesn't need anything that the Middle East has to offer now. It doesn't need its energy because it can supply its own or get it elsewhere. There needs to be a sea change of thought and attitude about this from the West, Russia and China.
gazzzwp
Member
I thought we all knew this?
1) The UAE/Kuwait/Iraq/Bahrain/Qatar. The animosity here caused by religious polarisation
2) S Korea
3) Those nations more aligned to (or aspiring to) European values (free trade, democracy, anti-mafia and corruption).
4) Japan, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam. Those nations who stand to have sovereign or disputed territory swallowed up and those who are denied fishing rights.
Can the world afford that level of bloodshed? Can it afford such a disruption in movement of resources? Where could that ultimately lead? I agree with your summation that the US does not need middle east resources any more. That suggests to me that it could acting (for once) on principle and not in self-interest knowing what the wider stakes are. I have to consider this as a possibility. We are all so used to the US acting unscrupulously. What if we are wrong?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I tend to agree but politically (for the US and Europe) public opinion would demand intervention once the bloodshed reached a certain point negating the possibility of the locals sorting it out. A trade/arms embargo would be pretty difficult as well.
I see your point but these countries could also say that the U.S. also at times doesn't prove itself to be a ''trustworthy influence''.
China would still have continued doing what it does but U.S. disengagement in the region would send the wrong signals to various countries in the region including allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia. Which is something China would welcome and something that would not be beneficial to long term U.S. interests. In an interview conducted years ago; Robert Fisk spoke of discussions he had with senior Aussie military people. They spoke of looking at the possibility of raising troops levels in the Aussie army in the event that defeat in Iraq or the inability to stabilise the country led to the U.S. loosing interest in the Pacific region.
The U.S. has NATO obligations, has non-NATO allies and is linked to others via mutual defence treaties. I would dread to think of what would happen if trouble were to simultaneously break in more than one place ....
By right Saudi and other countries should assisting in efforts to defeat IS. Instead they'd rather hit Yemen as a way of weakening Iran. Whether or not U.S. partners/friends/allies would join in really depends on several factors; back in 2003 Turkey felt it wasn't in its interests to allow its bases to be used for the invasion of Iraq, Pakistan refused to do several things the U.S. was demanding with regards to the Taliban as doing it would in the long term be damaging to Pakistan and in 2016 it's not U.S. allies like Saudi and Qatar who are helping defeat IS but traditional enemy Iran.
It depends on the mood of the day. There wasn't much enthusiasm to intervene in Rwanda and initially it was the same in the former Yugoslavia. It took a lot of time and effort but the U.S. played a big part in convincing everyone else to get involved in Bosnia. With Kosovo it was easier as there was a desire to get involved, the political will. Syria is such a mess and so complicated that everyone who isn't already involved on the ground doesn't want to widen their involvement and even those who are already involved will be very carefully in widening their involvement.
On paper an arms embargo on Syria would make sense but it would take a lot of trust and diplomatic effort to get everyone aboard and it would have its pros and cons; some sides would suffer more than others. It would be similar to the situation in Bosnia where the arms embargo hurt the Bosnian Serbs more than it did the Bosnian Muslims. Another problem is that an arms embargo would be contrary to the long term interests of certain countries as their proxies would suffer, which in turn would benefit their enemies.
[CrossTalk: Bullhorns Question - ''The Second Syrian Ceasefire Has Come To An Abrupt End, With Washington And Moscow Blaming The Other.'']
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6UEsXp0cmE
[Inside Story - How Critical Is The City Of Aleppo In Syria's War?]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujoShxp0AyE
Last edited:
gazzzwp
Member
US threatening to end talks unless bombing stops. Personally I can only see Russia turning a blind eye to this threat particularly since the evidence over MH17 now implicates the Russians and the search is now on to hold particular people responsible.
Need I say relations are at an all time low?
Syria: US tells Russia it will end talks if bombing continues - BBC News
Need I say relations are at an all time low?
Syria: US tells Russia it will end talks if bombing continues - BBC News
Sometimes I wonder if the truth will ever come out. Will those who fired the missile ever be held accountable? I didn't personally know anyone who was on MH17 but know I people who had friends on it.
MH17: Missile fired from Russia-backed rebel area - News from Al Jazeera
On Syria, it remains to be seen how the next President deals with it and how he deals with Russia.
[Watching Trump And Clinton Debate Isis From My Home In The Middle East Was As Predictable As It Was Absurd] - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...s-american-security-middle-east-a7332516.html
If the regime has more successes in Aleppo, expect much worse, the USA are panicking, all these years of investment to topple the regime are failing. Also, the narrative that Syria is unwinnable and Assad should resign may be proven wrong.
They feel the need to escalate the situation so you see panic moves like mentioning providing MANPADs to the rebels
Gulf may arm rebels now Syria truce is dead: U.S. officials | Reuters
There are also complications incoming, the imminent(?) Kuznetsov deployment, more syrian airplanes sighted (su-25), the US elections are nearing and Trump is a wildcard. Maybe the Pentagon will make another "mistake" bombing, maybe some huge chemical attack will be reported ...
Noone seems to care that the Islamic State capital Raqqa is not under siege any time soon. It's all about Aleppo now.
Some interesting videos of US arty in Iraq.
Ð*абота американÑкой артиллерии - nortwolf_sam
EDIT: I'll make a bigger update post tomorrow, but for now, SAA forces continue to push into Aleppo, gaining pieces of ground here and there. The intent seems to be to make the situation untenable and convince them to accept an offer to leave Aleppo with their families.
Meanwhile Russia is gearing up for an significant increase of their air group in Syria with additional Su-34 and Su-24 aircraft already deployed, and Su-25s preparing for a deployment. So far it's been a fairly small increase, but I don't have specific numbers. It's likely that this is a message to the US, that Russia is prepared to escalate their support for the SAA offensive.
Meanwhile the US has said that they intend to end cooperation with Russia on Syria, unless the offensive on Aleppo stops, and the ceasefire is restored.
http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2985533.html
http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2985921.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d4a554-8591-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html
Ð*абота американÑкой артиллерии - nortwolf_sam
EDIT: I'll make a bigger update post tomorrow, but for now, SAA forces continue to push into Aleppo, gaining pieces of ground here and there. The intent seems to be to make the situation untenable and convince them to accept an offer to leave Aleppo with their families.
Meanwhile Russia is gearing up for an significant increase of their air group in Syria with additional Su-34 and Su-24 aircraft already deployed, and Su-25s preparing for a deployment. So far it's been a fairly small increase, but I don't have specific numbers. It's likely that this is a message to the US, that Russia is prepared to escalate their support for the SAA offensive.
Meanwhile the US has said that they intend to end cooperation with Russia on Syria, unless the offensive on Aleppo stops, and the ceasefire is restored.
http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2985533.html
http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2985921.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d4a554-8591-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html
gazzzwp
Member
It's difficult to speculate at this time whether or not a complete victory for Russia and Syria is possible. In theory it should be with the US taking a step back from the action, the Russians committing large resources, limited support for the rebels, a large number of whom are trapped in the Aleppo cauldron.
One might well think that if Syria and Russia do not succeed with an all out win, then it doesn't say a lot for their capabilities. There are different ways of looking at things. It all depends on what support is given to the rebels from here. What are Turkey up to at the moment? Are they giving any covert support to the rebels? Or are they just targeting known ISIL locations?
The problem that Russia and Syria have is that after the majority of Aleppo is in Government hands it may seem at that point like a premature victory. The question is will more anti-government Sunni forces then emerge from their hiding places to start the whole thing up again? It's difficult to see an overall victory with Syria ever going back to normal.
Does anyone have a current feel for the financial cost to Russia at this point?
Update.
There is a big push by Middle Eastern countries to supply MANPADS to the Syrian rebels. Of course at this point it means putting MANPADS in al-Nusra's hands, and the US appears to be opposed. There are also major questions about the ultimate effectiveness of such a move given that the bulk of Russia's recent bombings have been from higher altitudes with Su-24s and Su-34s doing the bulk of the work. If the Su-25s return, it will be interesting to see whether their new, much lauded, Vitebsk system can protect them from MANPADS.
Монархии ПерÑидÑкого залива выÑтупают за передачу ÑирийÑкой оппозиции переноÑных ЗÐ*К - bmpd
Russia's first 11356 frigate is off to do combat duty in the Mediterranean. Two more of these ships will be joining the BSF soon. Together with the 21631s and 636s this represents a significant gain in cruise missile carriers.
"Ðдмирал Григорович" вышел на первую боевую Ñлужбу в Средиземное море - bmpd
BTR-80s with cage armor have been seen in combat around Aleppo. The SAA only has a handful of BTR-80s, supplied as part of the gear for dismantling the chemical weapons arsenals.
Gur Khan attacks!: Ð’ Сирии в боÑÑ… за Ðллепо учаÑтвуют Ñкранированные БТÐ*-80
Bulgarian MLRS munitions have been delivered to the Syrian "moderates".
Análisis Militares: Cohetes búlgaros para los rebeldes sirios
The US is deploying additional forces to Iraq, with the offensive on Mosul in sight.
U.S. prepares to send 'final increase' of American forces to Iraq
Some very revealing statements made by Kerry to the Syrian rebels. Note that it does not appear that this was intended for publication.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
EDIT: Satellite imagery from Hmeimeem doesn't reveal an Su-25s there, casting doubt on the earlier video of an Su-25 allegedly over Latakia. It may be that they were handed over to the Syrians, Russia does have surplus Su-25s and has sold quite a few to Iraq earlier where they've seen heavy use. It also may be the case that Russia is operating them from a different airbase. Finally there may only be one there, and simply was flying at the time the images were taken (though this is far less likely).
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2160043.html
There is a big push by Middle Eastern countries to supply MANPADS to the Syrian rebels. Of course at this point it means putting MANPADS in al-Nusra's hands, and the US appears to be opposed. There are also major questions about the ultimate effectiveness of such a move given that the bulk of Russia's recent bombings have been from higher altitudes with Su-24s and Su-34s doing the bulk of the work. If the Su-25s return, it will be interesting to see whether their new, much lauded, Vitebsk system can protect them from MANPADS.
Монархии ПерÑидÑкого залива выÑтупают за передачу ÑирийÑкой оппозиции переноÑных ЗÐ*К - bmpd
Russia's first 11356 frigate is off to do combat duty in the Mediterranean. Two more of these ships will be joining the BSF soon. Together with the 21631s and 636s this represents a significant gain in cruise missile carriers.
"Ðдмирал Григорович" вышел на первую боевую Ñлужбу в Средиземное море - bmpd
BTR-80s with cage armor have been seen in combat around Aleppo. The SAA only has a handful of BTR-80s, supplied as part of the gear for dismantling the chemical weapons arsenals.
Gur Khan attacks!: Ð’ Сирии в боÑÑ… за Ðллепо учаÑтвуют Ñкранированные БТÐ*-80
Bulgarian MLRS munitions have been delivered to the Syrian "moderates".
Análisis Militares: Cohetes búlgaros para los rebeldes sirios
The US is deploying additional forces to Iraq, with the offensive on Mosul in sight.
U.S. prepares to send 'final increase' of American forces to Iraq
Some very revealing statements made by Kerry to the Syrian rebels. Note that it does not appear that this was intended for publication.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
EDIT: Satellite imagery from Hmeimeem doesn't reveal an Su-25s there, casting doubt on the earlier video of an Su-25 allegedly over Latakia. It may be that they were handed over to the Syrians, Russia does have surplus Su-25s and has sold quite a few to Iraq earlier where they've seen heavy use. It also may be the case that Russia is operating them from a different airbase. Finally there may only be one there, and simply was flying at the time the images were taken (though this is far less likely).
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2160043.html
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...nd_accidents_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#2016
Checking out the 2016 info it seems to me that more losses have been caused by AAA or small arms fire and technical problems or pilot errors, than MANPADs or that air defence system that some rebels had been operating.
I wonder how the US public would receive news about Al Qaeda affiliates receiving MANPADs from US allies. This will create a stigma on US policies.
EDIT:
https://www.rt.com/usa/361269-nusra-moderates-intermingled-aleppo/
That State Department representative said that there has been no military action against Al Nusra lately because they ... are in ... residential areas. He was not sure, though, he said he has to double-check! Come on, this is funny stuff! Made my afternoon. :rotfl
Yes in the future we might be faced with a situation - similar to Afghanistan in the 1980's - where MANPADs might turn up in the wrong places and the U.S. might have to try buy them back. It has been shown that even when stored in rough conditions; MANPADs have quite a long shelf life. When their batteries go and no replacements are obtainable, users have been successful in replacing them with commercial ones. Perhaps a way could be found for the OEMs to ensure that MANPADs supplied to non state actors have a short shelf life and have batteries that can't easily be substituted with commercially obtained ones.
Pictures of TOW in rebels hands have been released. Assuming these missiles came from stocks of countries who originally procured them from the U.S.; exporting or giving them to a 3rd party would require U.S. approval.
I think I'll leave this here. Gazzwp please take note what he says about the nature of the fighting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfyDgDTu0Go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfyDgDTu0Go