gazzzwp
Member
As you say highly likely they would have been that successful, even less likely having such a comprehensive breakdown.
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
On the contrary; he has a lot to be satisfied with. Despite all the tough talk on the part of the West; the strike was ''limited'' and didn't cased Assad any major damage. If anything, the strikes further underlines the fact that there's little the West can do and that its options are limited. On top of that, it wants to avoid any trouble with the Russians.
Had the strike however caused any Russian casualties; the Russians probably would have responded.
What is the ''right and proper way'' in your opinion?
If anything; it is the West that needs a realistic long term strategy on Syria which they don't.
Iran and Saudi Arabia 'unlikely' to pivot back to diplomacy
An interesting article on Saudi/Iran relations and relations actually improved some years back. Given what's happening at the moment; it's unlikely there will be a Saudi/Iran rapprochement anytime soon; despite all the benefits this would bring to regional stability. It goes without saying that the last thing countries like the U.S and Israel want is a Saudi/Iran rapprochement.
Last edited:
gazzzwp
Member
I mean start being honest and stop all the subterfuge. The denial over Ukraine, Salisbury and the chemical attacks would be a good start. If there is any doubt about the chemical attacks (and I agree that there is some small room for doubt) then they should just say "we don't know, but we invite the US/UN" to join us to take a look quickly". Instead Russian MP's move in and interfere with the scene of the attack.
During Putin's address to the nation he said after mentioning more of his latest WMD's; "perhaps now they will respect us"?
Is that likely to happen? Has it happened with North Korea? The only thing that guarantees respect is honesty and decency and from where I'm standing in the west those are the very qualities that Russia lacks. No defamatory remarks here intended, I'm just laying out what I see to be the West's position at this time.
Remember 29 nations expelled diplomats.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Lots of tarnish on all the sorry players in this cluster $&@/. Hard to believe either Russia or the West are enthusiastic about their proxies.
I am still of the opinion the West should have ignored the Arab Spring, in particular in Syria. Democracy and Islam is an oxymoron as far as I am concerned.
I am still of the opinion the West should have ignored the Arab Spring, in particular in Syria. Democracy and Islam is an oxymoron as far as I am concerned.
gazzzwp
Member
I still say the only reason Russia got involved in the first place was to kick sand in the eye of the west. For no other reason. Yes there is a historic connection but Russia did not need Syria as an ally. To test it's weaponry perhaps? It has plenty of space in the frozen Siberian wastes to do that.
Then one might fairly ask why did the US become involved? Well they were nearby at the time and supporting Iraq. The mistake they made was to try and ally themselves to the opposition. What a mess!
the concerned
Active Member
The reason for the West getting involved in Syria was there would have been no way to defeat isis in Iraq unless you took them on in Syria aswell. Otherwise everytime you destroyed something in Iraq they would have just replaced it with stuff from Syria. Surely the oilfields in Iraq where afar bigger prize than the ones in Iraq
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
ISIS was a problem for Syria too and Western help to destroy them would have been welcomed except for the West’s support of the Arab Spring rebels in Syria. Again, this support, IMHO, was an oxymoron as per my earlier post.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I have to disagree. The Russians want a Mediterranean port that Syria could offer so their involvement makes sense. Kicking sand is a waste of time with no benifit, in the ME sinkhole. Weapons testing, yes that could be a plus for them along with insights into the West’s latest technology. The latter in reverse is also an opportunity for the West as well.
Those are qualities lacking in all the players; not just Russia. All the players are doing what they do for their own selfish self-interests; certainly not for the ordinary Syrians who will continue to pay the price. None have a monopoly on truth, honesty or justice. We know what Russia and Iran want. Now that it has failed to meet its objectives; what reason is there for U.S. troops on Syrian soil? Does the U.S. even have a realistic long term policy over Syria? With regards to Iran; does the U.S. intend to just parrot the Israeli and Gulf Arab line and hypocritically insist that it's just Iran that is responsible for the mess the region is in? Will the U.S. continue to be selective over which countries get away with war crimes and which don't?
Frankly, my sympathy is neither with the West or Russia but for ordinary Syrians caught up in the mess and who are just trying to survive. Not to mention the hell ordinary Yemenis are going through on a daily basis; pawns in a game played by outsiders.
That was rhetoric/chest thumping done for a Russian audience. Rhetoric/chest thumping is also done by others.
Let me ask you this : why is the West really in the Middle East? Why are there Western military bases in the region; for the sole benefit of the West and compliant local rulers? Does it really benefit the region as a whole? If the West pulls out, will the Iranians invade its neighbours [who have spent billions on Western arms]?
Russia is in Syria because it desires to increase its influence in the region; a place long dominated by the West. Like the West, Russia has its interests too. Whilst I don't agree with all that Russia does, I believe in giving credit when due - it was Russia that played a big role in preventing IS from taking over most of Syria. Irrespective of how many many strikes the USAF, USN and RAF conducted; it was Russia [with Iran] that [to use a cliche] put ''boots on the ground'' and played an instrumental role in pushing back IS.
Look at it from another angle. With the Baathists gone and replaced by a western friendly Sunni government; everyone benefits. Practically the whole of the Arab world becomes Western friendly. Israel and the Gulf Arabs are happy, Russia loses a regional ally in a region already dominated by the West and Iran gets further isolated; as does Hezbollah. Instead of cordoning Saudi involvement in Yemen; why didn't the West insist that Saudi and its chums play a more active role taking on IS? Also, in Iraq it was Iran that got heavily involved first. For a long time the Iraqis were warning that the situation in Syria would spill over but the West hardly listened. Like the Russians in Syria; the Iranians played a key role in stopping IS's advance in Iraq. Together with Iraqi Shia militias; it was Iran and Hezbollah that stopped IS until a time when the regular Iraqi army got its act together.
No it isn't. The problem is when a selective West imposes its kind of democracy on the locals and decides which ruler is a chum and which is not.
The search for truth in the rubble of Douma - and one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack
''This is the story of a town called Douma, a ravaged, stinking place of smashed apartment blocks – and of an underground clinic whose images of suffering allowed three of the Western world’s most powerful nations to bomb Syria last week. There’s even a friendly doctor in a green coat who, when I track him down in the very same clinic, cheerfully tells me that the “gas” videotape which horrified the world – despite all the doubters – is perfectly genuine.''
''They talked about the Islamists under whom they had lived. They talked about how the armed groups had stolen civilian homes to avoid the Syrian government and Russian bombing. The Jaish el-Islam had burned their offices before they left, but the massive buildings inside the security zones they created had almost all been sandwiched to the ground by air strikes. A Syrian colonel I came across behind one of these buildings asked if I wanted to see how deep the tunnels were. I stopped after well over a mile when he cryptically observed that “this tunnel might reach as far as Britain”. Ah yes, Ms May, I remembered, whose air strikes had been so intimately connected to this place of tunnels and dust. And gas?''
Last edited:
Russia got involved for two obvious reasons that have nothing to do with kicking sand in the face of the west. Reason 1, Assad is a long time and very loyal Russian client. He stuck with his Russian allegiance through the 90s and the early 00's when there wasn't much profit in it. Now it's paying off. Reason 2, Russia wanted a Mediterranean port for a naval base. They talked to everyone, including Cyprus, about potentially getting a base there and nobody was willing to do it. It made Syria the only option. Russia has long term plans for establishing a Mediterranean squadron, that will be permanently based in the Mediterranean. This isn't new, Russia has wanted direct access to the Mediterranean since the days of the empire.
Are you sure Russia is behind the chemical attack in Salisbury?
On the subject of the alleged attack in Duma, Russia did ask for an international investigation. However it makes perfect sense to investigate immediately after the attack to try and interview witnesses as well as try to find samples. At the end of the day the area in question is under SAA control, so someone is going to have access to the scene, especially when you consider that people live in the area.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It is worth noting that the OPCW Director-General stated on Monday (the 16th) that Syrian and Russian authorities had blocked OPCW inspectors from going to Douma to investigate, which was nine days after the attack occurred. Also, journalists in Damascus were prevented (by government authorities) from contacting OPCW inspectors. In addition, earlier today it seems that an OPCW advance security team came under fire from parties unknown while in the area of the attack. Given that Syrian and Russia have claimed to have taken control of the area, this altogether is starting to sound like Syria/Russia is stating one thing for mass/public consumption, while the actual reality is somewhat different.
It could be that Syria and Russia are purposely delaying the international investigators to obfuscate whether or not the attack was chemical in nature, and if so who was most likely responsible. This could be as simple as permitting chemicals to break down and disperse natural, or removing evidence of who was responsible and/or planting evidence to suggest that other parties were responsible. OTOH it could also be that the area around Douma is not as firmly under control by the Syrians and Russians as they would like the rest of the world to believe.
Whatever the 'real' situation is, the sooner the forensic investigation can begin, the better the chances are of the world getting information on what happened and who was responsible so that they can be held responsible. Sadly, after 11 days it is distinctly possible that by now evidence has compromised to the point that definite conclusions could no longer be made.
supercomrade
Member
Sooo is Russia going to respond to the missile strikes like they said they would?
Or at this point can we call that a bluff
Or at this point can we call that a bluff
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Russia may very well already have responded, just not in a visible or obvious way. Or they could be setting something in motion. It is also possible that a set of conditions was set out privately between Syria/Russia and the US, UK & France on what would, and what would not trigger a reprisal. If advanced notice of the strike locations was provided, and the sites were able to be cleared prior to the strikes, then both sides might claim 'victory' for their respective media and propaganda elements without requiring a counterstrike.
Russia getting to claim a 67% cruise missile interception rate, for the loss of a few essentially empty buildings, might be considered worth more (from a GBAD/SAM sales POV) than the cost which might be associated with a maritime strike on a USN Aegis equipped destroyer or cruiser. Or a strike targeting a UK base on Cyprus, or a US in Qatar. Especially if there would a chance that such a counterstrike would cause Article Five to be invoked.
For what benefit? No Russians were targeted and minimal damage was caused to Assad.
This is great information. I had not come across this. Please continue to share, if you can and have the time.
'Agreed. Control is always tenuous in a civil war where there are so many sides and so many groups. Maybe a robust OPCW mission on the ground, with more then just a small security detail, and support from Russia and consequently Syria, would do the job better. They would be able to react to an incident much faster and having sufficient muscle of their own, wouldn't have to worry as much about the particular of which militia is currently holding a key intersection or village.
I'm hoping Russia and Syria invite the OPCW to look at the alleged chemical weapon labs found in Eastern Ghouta. It would be very insightful.
For all the bluster, Russia has shown it self fairly reluctant to confront the west militarily. It hasn't responded militarily to multiple previous strikes against Syrian army units, it didn't even respond to the strike that apparently killed 14 Russian PMCs and wounded many others. And all things considered, the assets in and around Syria are not the kind that one would expect to see if a strike against NATO naval assets was planned. The most we saw were a couple of Su-34s flying with Kh-35s, as well as potentially some subsonic Kalibr AShMs in 11356s. There was a Bastion-P btln deployed to Syria earlier but it's unclear whether it's still there or not (it was used to demonstrate LACM capability in what was previously a dedicated anti-ship platform).
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Take a look at this CBS News article. Here is a media alert direct from the OPCW which says something a little differently, though reading what was and was not said by the OPCW, it can amount to essentially the same thing.
If the OPCW was able/permitted unrestricted access to the alleged labs very soon, if not immediately after they were 'found' then the OPCW's findings could be insightful. The greater the gap in time between when the labs were found, when the allegations were made, and when the OPCW can investigate them, then the greater the chance for the findings to be compromised or corrupted.
I agree that Russia would not wish to strike back directly, but there is a whole host of other options available to Russia aside from a direct military response. Options which can be officially denied (credibly or not) which can give Russia an advantage, or create a disadvantage for the US, UK, or France.
supercomrade
Member
Would selling Syria the S-400 be a good response? I know Israel would lose their shit
It would also make NATO very cautious of where they fly. I think it would seriously be a thorn in NATO's ass.
Because that display of the SAA firing 1960's soviet missiles into the air hoping to hit something was pathetic. It's times like this I can't stand when Russia makes its outrageous claims. This time they're saying a good chunk got intercepted.
It would also make NATO very cautious of where they fly. I think it would seriously be a thorn in NATO's ass.
Because that display of the SAA firing 1960's soviet missiles into the air hoping to hit something was pathetic. It's times like this I can't stand when Russia makes its outrageous claims. This time they're saying a good chunk got intercepted.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A good response for what, exactly?
As I have mentioned a number of times over the years, any IADS which has a large GBAD component is going to have a number of inherent limitations. For a country like Syria, the topography itself is going to work against the effectiveness of GBAD components. In order to overcome this, Syria would need a properly distributed network of radar arrays to provide early detection and tracking of inbounds, as well as to prevent or at least shrink radar 'blindspots' so that they are difficult to access and exploit. A set of comprehensive datalinks would also be needed to connect the radar arrays to command centres as well as defending SAM and AAA batteries, as well as intercepting aircraft. These datalinks would need to be capable of relaying target detection and tracking information.
Without capabilities like these, then the vaunted detection and engagement ranges of the S-400 system become largely meaningless, as properly plotted ingress routes could likely have terrain screening attacking aircraft and/or incoming strike missiles until they get within 50 km of important targets around places like Damascus. Assuming a high subsonic speed, a distance of 50 km might provide a total of 3 minutes for the entire OODA loop. That narrow window could easily be too small to prevent successful strikes even if the GBAD unit was operating at a high readiness status, and it could be difficult to constantly maintain that level of readiness.
Their best option would be Patsyr-S1 systems protecting every important target. They have a proven track record in this conflict in dealing many types of targets including cruise missiles. They're also designed to operate with short response times. However they're rather expensive and protecting every major asset individually is just not feasible. The S-300/400 specifically would not be a great option. They're complex, expensive, and meant to be the centerpiece of a complex and well integrated system. Without that they're not nearly as useful, significantly more vulnerable, and every bit as expensive. The flip side of course is that if the US does decide to go for not just a limited cruise missile strike but a larger attack aimed at crippling Assad's ability to wage war, noteworthy additional resources would have to be dedicated to SEAD/DEAD.
supercomrade
Member
Thanks a lot Todjaeger and Feanor for explaining the system to me.
I had no clue the S-300/400 system has so many pieces, and rugged terrain like the Syrian one ads even more to the number of components you need to add to the system.
Honestly I thought that once you activate the system, it automatically has a long range bubble. Had no clue you have to build around it with extra components to actually build that bubble.
I had no clue the S-300/400 system has so many pieces, and rugged terrain like the Syrian one ads even more to the number of components you need to add to the system.
Honestly I thought that once you activate the system, it automatically has a long range bubble. Had no clue you have to build around it with extra components to actually build that bubble.
Last edited: