Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Chemical Byrne

Reports on the news wire that Russia is getting increasingly involved in Syrian. They might even have troops on the ground assisting Syrian forces.

This looks to be turning into a repeat of the Afghanistan saga with Russia coming to the aid of a Middle Eastern ally that is an enemy of the west with NATO/US and an army of religious extremists also thrown into the mix.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34205003
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/10/us-mideast-crisis-syria-exclusive-idUSKCN0R91H720150910

cerastes

TBH
I think if a power/nation has the ability to put enough troops on the ground to hold and police ground, and instigate other measures that show the populace things are/can be improved, I think its possible to defeat an insurgency.

In the case of the US and Iraq that didnt work as the territory covered simply left huge swathes of land which they could not cover and an inadequete number of troops to complete the task.
Rumsfeld (a politician) went so far as to put Tommy Franks (a General) in his place on live tv (national and international) about what was right and that General Franks was over estimating the requirement for troops and that his plan was dated, Rumsfeld may have even referred to it being of the WW2 ear, well as that was the last confrontation that was won outright and given how any conflict had gone since, and how the whole mess went, it looks like Rumsfeld was wrong and Franks was right.

Rumsfeld wanted a corporate war, less men, less costs, all the rewards, and maybe the outcome was intentional?

Sierra Oscar

It's more a case of Russia protecting its military installations in Tartus and keeping access to the Mediterranean Sea. To achieve that it needs to keep the current Government in power. This is also an opportunity for Russia to enhance its long established military presence in Latakia Governorate.

BoJack Horseman

It wont be anything like Afghanistan.
Russians will be in lower numbers & largely working from military installations.

Their target appears to be the remnants of the FSA & their islamist allies.

The opposition governemt in Idlib (the one our government see as the legitimate government) will soon be crushed.

Streetwalker

And well done to them. The West sits back and watches as ISIS slaughters and chases innocent people from their homeland. Putin is going to bring the pain in a big way to these head hacking backward savages.

BoJack Horseman

Streetwalker wrote: »

And well done to them. The West sits back and watches as ISIS slaughters and chases innocent people from their homeland. Putin is going to bring the pain in a big way to these head hacking backward savages.

What indication is there that ISIS is the intention-ed target?

There is no indication that Russia's deployment will be anywhere close to what would be needed to engage IS in any meaningful way.

Much more likely (if Russian forces do deploy to the front) is to assist Assad with an offensive to clear the lands between Homs & Damascus from any remaining pockets of FSA or Islamist resistance.
Then move north to Aleppo & Iblib & take the main area of rebel resistance.

And, it should be noted, that "the west" sits back because that is what its people want.

Manach

My 2c is that is Russia making a minimum commitement to show that it at least will back its ally, the Assad government. This acts to shore ups its interests and as a counter example to the Western states who are loath to commit ground units due to pressure from segments of their political classes. However if the Russians forces do engage, they would likely not suffer from the same lack of morale as previous engagements abroad as well as not being overly concerned about the law of war protocols.

Lemming

This reads very much as Manach has said; minimum committment to back up an ally. There is also the whole matter of the Russians backing their own interests regards their naval presence and preventing any possible encroachment by IS or its affiliates; far easier to deal with them 100 miles away than when they're knocking on your door and making life difficult.

I would of course expect nothing less than absolute gratutiuous violence if anyone attempts to attack Russian military facilities or personnel in Syria, not least because they - as a nation - have absolutely zero love for anything Islamic owing to their history with the Chechens.

A Primal Nut

It would be great if Russia took on ISIS, but like other posters said I can't see it happening. That said if keeping in Assad in power stops ISIS from expanding further then I'm all for it.

FreudianSlippers

I have to admit I'm very confused about the geo-political goings on of that area at the moment. We seem to be letting ISIS run unchallenged through Syria and Iraq and I just do not understand the end-game here? Are we (the West) just choosing ISIS as one evil over who we perceive to be a "bad guy" in Assad - have we learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq?

Or am I missing something here?

NoCrackHaving

cerastes wrote: »

TBH
I think if a power/nation has the ability to put enough troops on the ground to hold and police ground, and instigate other measures that show the populace things are/can be improved, I think its possible to defeat an insurgency.

It definately is, the Malayan Emergency is a case in point although its successes didn't always transfer across to other conflcits, the US took British tactics from Malaysia and tried to apply them to Vietnam and didn't work as it ignored lcoal conditions.

The Portugese colonial wars in Angola and Mozambique were also relatively successful although they lacked public support for a prolonged campaign and were opposed on the international stage so only had limtied success.

NoCrackHaving

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have to admit I'm very confused about the geo-political goings on of that area at the moment. We seem to be letting ISIS run unchallenged through Syria and Iraq and I just do not understand the end-game here? Are we (the West) just choosing ISIS as one evil over who we perceive to be a "bad guy" in Assad - have we learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq?

Or am I missing something here?

I think from the perspective of the West the lands ISIS currently control are strategically pretty unimportant to Western interests as their oil supplies are relatively small compared to say Saudi or parts of Iraq. However in the case of Iran and Russia they're very important as it allows a land bridge between Iran and their Shia allies in coastal Syria and Hezbollah in Lebannon where also the Russians have their port at Tartus.

To be frank as along as ISIS doesn't attempt to expand into the areas the West needs (ie southern and central Iraq or Saudi where the vast majority of the oil is) they probably don't care a whole lot.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have to admit I'm very confused about the geo-political goings on of that area at the moment. We seem to be letting ISIS run unchallenged through Syria and Iraq and I just do not understand the end-game here? Are we (the West) just choosing ISIS as one evil over who we perceive to be a "bad guy" in Assad - have we learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq?

Or am I missing something here?

Well ISIS are also fighting the Iranian ally of Iraq and the Russian ally of Syria and you know what they say, the enemy of my enemy...

I think it paints a pretty transparent picture of how certain larger nations feel the right to cause and allow as much misery as it takes on whatever population as long as they can win some petty geopolitical gain.

Thank the good lord our government isn't a Russian or Iranian ally or they'd be shipping arms to the feckin water protesters.

cerastes

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have to admit I'm very confused about the geo-political goings on of that area at the moment. We seem to be letting ISIS run unchallenged through Syria and Iraq and I just do not understand the end-game here? Are we (the West) just choosing ISIS as one evil over who we perceive to be a "bad guy" in Assad - have we learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq?

Or am I missing something here?

It would seem so, unless the outcome was the intent?
Its like this, I saw a piece on the ITV news about the refugee crisis, They asked David Cameron, what was he going to do?
Basically he gave some pre arranged answer saying they'd do as much as possible, bluster bluster and then basically attacked Assad, trying to claim he was at fault??? and doing as much to limit Assad, madness.

However bad Assad is, there is at least some stability and I dont believe people were getting burned alive in cages, being decapitated, thrown off rooftops or going around destroying antiquities,
For better or worse Assad is the legitimate leader, and that is the outcome of the geopolitical situation in that region since the end of WW2.

Who'd want a Syria like Libya or Iraq now? well some seem like they would.
Syrias miltary fighting ISIS/IL? whoever they are, is exactly what any other nation would do if they were attacked from within/or really from outside forces brought in.
Essentially the West has aligned itself with the most extreme elements that oppose it, funded by proxy's in the ME.

The West isn't standing idly by, they seem to be waiting in the wings like vultures until by sheer attrition Syria can no longer fight? to what end? step in and finish off Assad and strip the nation of its assets by buying off puppets? I hope the Russians step in, even if it is to protect their interests, it might mean they would get involved in support to some extent, maybe not direct military action? but it may influence the outcome.

But the consequences of watching from the sidelines? look at Libya, is it better now? or Iraq? I dont think it should be allowed to happen again.

cerastes

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Well ISIS are also fighting the Iranian ally of Iraq and the Russian ally of Syria and you know what they say, the enemy of my enemy...

I think it paints a pretty transparent picture of how certain larger nations feel the right to cause and allow as much misery as it takes on whatever population as long as they can win some petty geopolitical gain.

Thank the good lord our government isn't a Russian or Iranian ally or they'd be shipping arms to the feckin water protesters.

When you say larger nation? who do you mean, I cant reconcile the second and last paragraphs as referring to the same group/thing?

It isnt Russian weaponry that are being supplied to ISIS/IL.

cerastes

cerastes wrote: »

When you say larger nation? who do you mean, I cant reconcile the second and last paragraphs as referring to the same group/thing?

It isnt Russian weaponry that are being supplied to ISIS/IL.

By large nation I mean any large nation be it the US, UK, France, Russia, China who feels they have the right to dictate policy to smaller nations, and then create misery for the average person who has nothing to do with politics by funding and supplying murderers.

In this case, it's the US and UK leading the charge with France bringing it up the rear as per usual. They're essentially choosing ISIS over Assad, at least in the short term, with no regard for the consequences as long as Russia/Iran come out of it with a black eye.

Dohnjoe

Streetwalker wrote: »

And well done to them. The West sits back and watches as ISIS slaughters and chases innocent people from their homeland. Putin is going to bring the pain in a big way to these head hacking backward savages.

Russia has done nothing but perpetuate the conflict, if anything made it worse, mainly for geopolitical and strategic reasons

They contribute very little to the humanitarian effort, little to the UNHCR and have blocked aid convoys regularly in the past

They aren't interested in "bringing the pain" to ISIS, no that's mainly the Kurds and remnants of the Iraqi army, backed by the West and Arab league, who have to do the dirty ground work

They are really just trying to shore up Assad and keep a tactical grip on the region if he should fall

donaghs

cerastes wrote: »

It would seem so, unless the outcome was the intent?
Its like this, I saw a piece on the ITV news about the refugee crisis, They asked David Cameron, what was he going to do?
Basically he gave some pre arranged answer saying they'd do as much as possible, bluster bluster and then basically attacked Assad, trying to claim he was at fault??? and doing as much to limit Assad,

I noticed Cameron saying that, disappointing - no serious interest then in resolving the humanitarian crisis. The French are even more adamant still that removing Assad will magically fix everything.

I guess they see a bigger picture where they see an Iranian coalition as a threat to their interests. If that's that case, i think they are wrong, and ISIL pose a bigger threat - as shown by their international support. Prez Carter's adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski showed how one perspective can override another, when asked if he had helped created a problem of violent Islamic extremism: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

I also dont see the Russians making any effort to put their people in harms way at the frontline.

Gatling

I wonder how isreal will view assad having the latest Russian air defence systems along with the coalition airforce fighting Isis been only assad has military aircraft opposition forces have none ,
Looks like Russia wants to keep other nations airpower our of syria

donaghs

Gatling wrote: »

I wonder how isreal will view assad having the latest Russian air defence systems along with the coalition airforce fighting Isis been only assad has military aircraft opposition forces have none ,
Looks like Russia wants to keep other nations airpower our of syria

Israel have bombed inside Syria many times, when they feel their interests are threatened: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2013_Rif_Dimashq_airstrikes
But hitting Russian advisers though would certainly complicate things.

They also see Assad as the bigger long term threat, playing a dangerous game facilitating and secretly assisting the Al Qaeda linked Al Nusra on their Syrian border:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/curious-case-israel-al-nusra-facebook-spy-150420082913157.html

BoJack Horseman

donaghs wrote: »

Israel have bombed inside Syria many times, when they feel their interests are threatened: e.g.

Indeed. And have come under fire when doing so

I assume Gatling is referring to the deployment of an S300 battery?

If so, it obviously has just one purpose, but doesn't close the airspace in its totality.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I assume Gatling is referring to the deployment of an S300 battery?

If so, it obviously has just one purpose, but doesn't close the airspace in its totality.

Yes and it's own defence system the pantsir S air defences

drunkmonkey

Israel has lost an F-16 and 2 helicopters to the Russians/Iranians

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-shoots-down-israeli-warplane-f-16-bomber-and-helicopters/5471009

I asuume this puts for American and Israeli in a bit of a pickle. They need to join the Russians or pull out.

BoJack Horseman

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Israel has lost an F-16 and 2 helicopters to the Russians/Iranians

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-shoots-down-israeli-warplane-f-16-bomber-and-helicopters/5471009.

Aah... good ol "globalresearch"...

No one reprints made up stories from Tehran propeganda sites (FARS news agency) like they do!

Last time I clicked one of their links, it was to a made up story that the Iraqi army destoyed some RAF transport planes carrying weapons deliveries for ISIS... oh...
here it is!...
with their usual disclaimer for all their made up stuff :pac:

There are no reports in the Western mainstream media pertaining to this issue....We have not been in a position to corroborate this report by FARS News.

Gatling

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Israel has lost an F-16 and 2 helicopters to the Russians/Iranians

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-shoots-down-israeli-warplane-f-16-bomber-and-helicopters/5471009

I asuume this puts for American and Israeli in a bit of a pickle. They need to join the Russians or pull out.

If that actually happens isreal would end assad over night and at the same time wipe out Russians too isreal are not afraid of anything

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

If that actually happens isreal would end assad over night and at the same time wipe out Russians too isreal are not afraid of anything

Yeah, but it didnt happen.

Just a makey-uppy propeganda site...

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yeah, but it didnt happen.

Just a makey-uppy propeganda site...

I know that.

I remember reading when the isrealie airforce and navy attacked an US Navy ship several times in the 6 day war if I'm remembering correct.

They hit Iraq and Syria with impunity over recent years

Manach

Gatling wrote: »

I know that.

I remember reading when the isrealie airforce and navy attacked an US Navy ship several times in the 6 day war if I'm remembering correct.

That had generated a great deal of ill feeling at the time among the US military but due to the political setup of the US, this was not pursued except for for an admitiable heartfelt apology. Russia on the other hand has a different (oligarical setup) and would take any attacks on its troops as a challenge to its national pride. Israeli leaders, being realistic, understanding realpolik and knowing the less than supportive nature of the Obama administration, would likely be loathed to risk Russian retaliation.

drunkmonkey

Something similar could happen though, there Americas on the ground supporting the Rebels and the Russians intend to wipe them out.
There could be an accident, what happens then, America don't want to aid Assad and Russia do, it has to come to a head at some stage.
What's the end game?

Sorry about the dodgy link, thought I seen it on a more respectable site earlier but can't find it.

For ever odd

Russia could be there to protect it's interests. Strange how the timing coincides with the American vote on Iran. Some quarters believe that the Americans want Iran to supply Europe with gas and oil through a pipeline that would run through parts of Syria, therfore choking Russia.

All is not what it seems.

Gatling

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Something similar could happen though, there Americas on the ground supporting the Rebels and the Russians intend to wipe them out.
There could be an accident, what happens then, America don't want to aid Assad and Russia do, it has to come to a head at some stage.
What's the end game?

Sorry about the dodgy link, thought I seen it on a more respectable site earlier but can't find it.

Two statements made this week from Russia one was they will detain Foreign forces in syria some say that's aimed at Isis ,
But the US and the UK have special forces operating in syria and Iraq I believe it's aimed at them rather than Isis,
Then today America should co operate with Russian actions against isis
"important for the avoidance of undesired, unintended incidents". funny just as s300 and Pantsir air defence systems due to arrive in syria ,also Russian naval exercises off Syrias coast .

Slight coincidence that theres no opposition air force to fight against Assad's frequent barrel bomb drops and assads fighters,
We now have the us and an arab coalition fighting Isis in Iraq and syria you have Kurds fighting Isis and seeking American aircover ,
You have Iranian forces and aircraft fighting in Iraq who in turn fighting in Yemen against the Saudi led coalition,
Then you have Israel sitting on the side line but have no issues hitting syria targets from the air ,
Russia needs destabilisation to drive up the cost of oil to save it seriously lagging financial situation due to sanctions and opec keeping oil price low ,
But we have so many variables at play now it's going to be an interesting few months

Manic Moran

The U.S. Air Force has also called the situation interesting, as they are not currently de conflicting flight plans with the Russians. It's something they are keeping an eye on, but are not planning on stopping operations,

cerastes

For ever odd wrote: »

Russia could be there to protect it's interests. Strange how the timing coincides with the American vote on Iran. Some quarters believe that the Americans want Iran to supply Europe with gas and oil through a pipeline that would run through parts of Syria, therfore choking Russia.

All is not what it seems.

A pipeline through a country littered with lunatic terrorists? The west must think or know they will fade away easily? Paid off or just a bad assumption? All it takes is one disgruntled former employee with an RPG or anyone with an RPG and blame a former terrorist.
Dangerous games

Gatling wrote: »

Two statements made this week from Russia one was they will detain Foreign forces in syria some say that's aimed at Isis ,
But the US and the UK have special forces operating in syria and Iraq I believe it's aimed at them rather than Isis,
Then today America should co operate with Russian actions against isis
"important for the avoidance of undesired, unintended incidents". funny just as s300 and Pantsir air defence systems due to arrive in syria ,also Russian naval exercises off Syrias coast .

Slight coincidence that theres no opposition air force to fight against Assad's frequent barrel bomb drops and assads fighters,
We now have the us and an arab coalition fighting Isis in Iraq and syria you have Kurds fighting Isis and seeking American aircover ,
You have Iranian forces and aircraft fighting in Iraq who in turn fighting in Yemen against the Saudi led coalition,
Then you have Israel sitting on the side line but have no issues hitting syria targets from the air ,
Russia needs destabilisation to drive up the cost of oil to save it seriously lagging financial situation due to sanctions and opec keeping oil price low ,
But we have so many variables at play now it's going to be an interesting few months

When you sayassads fighters, you mean the legitimate army of syria? And the ones holding off the lunatics in Isis being supported And armed by Saudi which means being armed by the west? Who admit to have trained forces in syria!
Didn't a group fully supported by the west defect en masse, weapons and all to isis

Gatling

cerastes wrote: »

I'm

A pipeline through a country littered with lunatic terrorists? The west must think or know they will fade away easily? Paid off or just a bad assumption? All it takes is one disgruntled former employee with an RPG or anyone with an RPG and blame a former terrorist.
Dangerous games


When you sayassads fighters, you mean the legitimate army of syria?

No Assad's fighter jets and bombers

For ever odd

cerastes wrote: »

A pipeline through a country littered with lunatic terrorists? The west must think or know they will fade away easily? Paid off or just a bad assumption? All it takes is one disgruntled former employee with an RPG or anyone with an RPG and blame a former terrorist.
Dangerous games

The point being, this is what the whole thing is about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq-Syria_pipeline

http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/triangular-relation-russia-iran-and-turkey-24877

A century ago Germany proposed a railway from Iraq to Germany for oil transportation, what was it called again....oh yeah... WW1

Dangerous games indeed!

cerastes

For ever odd wrote: »

The point being, this is what the whole thing is about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq-Syria_pipeline

http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/triangular-relation-russia-iran-and-turkey-24877

A century ago Germany proposed a railway from Iraq to Germany for oil transportation, what was it called again....oh yeah... WW1

Dangerous games indeed!

Well it should be no surprise to anyone if Russia are to protect its own interests in terms of its political interests/allies and the security of its markets for fuel, as they will be the ones bypassed. Whether you like or agree with what Russia does, all you have to do is insert any named country into that scenario, will they do the same, more?

Other countries have started wars over less, unjustified wars, what Russia is doing is a reaction to a threat from other countries to their security and economy. There is a lot I dont agree with about Russia, but this just seems so obvious to me.

A war in Syria to knock Assad out of play and install some puppet like in Iraq or Libya who would be easier to deal with for energy supplies, would be a multiple whammy for Russia, not only losing a military base, influence and possibly prestige, but presenting an alternative in some way to their gas supplies which could cut them out of the loop in an economic way, how that affects their security, it seems so obvious they would have to make some kind of moves, I dont understand why they arent having a much bigger ramp up to build up a military presence in Syria, if only to operate modern weapons systems like AAM, artillery, aircraft and reconnaissance, maybe not direct military fighting but support and advisors, artillery spotters and an ability to defend their assets.

Gatling

7/8 Russian tanks currently in syria and more to follow apparently

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

7/8 Russian tanks currently in syria and more to follow apparently

What do you mean?
Aren't all tanks in Syria from Russia?

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What do you mean?
Aren't all tanks in Syria from Russia?

Well played sir .

There is Russian made tanks used by the syrian army but these are T-90 MBTs crewed by Russian forces arrived today or last night depending on how old the news source is

A Primal Nut

Anything on Russia Today about this - would like to get their perspective but can't find anything. Or is the official story that the troops aren't there?

the_syco

cerastes wrote: »

In the case of the US and Iraq that didnt work as the territory covered simply left huge swathes of land which they could not cover and an inadequete number of troops to complete the task.

In the case of the US and Iraq, the US brought in soldiers, overthrew the regime, but didn't replace the police.

Russia is backing the current regime, and thus probably backing the police.

I see it like when the US backed Iraq when Iraq went to war with Iran.

FreudianSlippers

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Anything on Russia Today about this - would like to get their perspective but can't find anything. Or is the official story that the troops aren't there?

Most I could find was this: http://www.rt.com/news/315374-isis-danger-spread-putin/ (which shockingly I actually agree with)

donaghs

Again, its doubtful that the Russians will actually put their people on the frontline. And they've always been an big arms supplier and supporter of the Assads. Is increasing equipment and personnel at the long-existing bases really such big news?

I don't agree with most Putin foreign policy: Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, etc. Or domestic issues like treatment of dissent or gay rights.

However, on Syria (even if only protecting their interests), they have mostly got it right.

And if this article from the Guardian today of a Russian offer of a negotiated end to the war is to be believed:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

Gatling

donaghs wrote: »

Again, its doubtful that the Russians will actually put their people on the frontline. And they've always been an big arms supplier and supporter of the Assads. Is increasing equipment and personnel at the long-existing bases really such big news

Actually yes it big news Russia has been supplying weapons to the assad regime for the last few years that's nothing new ,
But when you start supplying the latest air defence systems and building another military base close to the assad regimes stronghold ,
Your past shoring up current russia facilities,
For instance the opposition forces have no aircraft of any kind ,
Why the need for the latest air defence systems coincidence that 28 countries have formed a coalition to fight Isis in both Iraq and syria ,the new s300 and Pantsir system will be a direct threat to the coalition forces .
So now we have Russia shoring up and by all means protecting the assad regime doesn't matter how many of his own population that he's massacred russia can't insist he stays for his benefit .
Along with air defend and artillery and men there's currently a small fleet of Russian naval vessels currently sitting off the syrian coast capable of hitting targets deep inside of syria and also acting as a early warning system to detect attacks from the current coalition forces fighting Isis .
Wonder if the population of syria who regularly suffer at the hands of assads regime feel about Russian boots on the ground

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Wonder if the population of syria who regularly suffer at the hands of assads regime feel about Russian boots on the ground

And at the same time we can also wonder how the Christians, Shia, Kurds, Palesitians etc etc etc who are being sentenced under Sharia law and executed feel about the US, UK and France favouring Assad being taken out ahead of ISIS and al-Qaeda and every other fanatic Sunni group.

Dohnjoe

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

And at the same time we can also wonder how the Christians, Shia, Kurds, Palesitians etc etc etc who are being sentenced under Sharia law and executed feel about the US, UK and France favouring Assad being taken out ahead of ISIS and al-Qaeda and every other fanatic Sunni group.

They are putting more effort into taking out ISIS. They've conducted thousands of airstrikes against the group (and other extremist groups) in Syria and Iraq.

cerastes

Gatling wrote: »

donaghs wrote: »

Again, its doubtful that the Russians will actually put their people on the frontline. And they've always been an big arms supplier and supporter of the Assads. Is increasing equipment and personnel at the long-existing bases really such big news

Actually yes it big news Russia has been supplying weapons to the assad regime for the last few years that's nothing new ,
But when you start supplying the latest air defence systems and building another military base close to the assad regimes stronghold ,
Your past shoring up current russia facilities,
For instance the opposition forces have no aircraft of any kind ,
Why the need for the latest air defence systems coincidence that 28 countries have formed a coalition to fight Isis in both Iraq and syria ,the new s300 and Pantsir system will be a direct threat to the coalition forces .
So now we have Russia shoring up and by all means protecting the assad regime doesn't matter how many of his own population that he's massacred russia can't insist he stays for his benefit .
Along with air defend and artillery and men there's currently a small fleet of Russian naval vessels currently sitting off the syrian coast capable of hitting targets deep inside of syria and also acting as a early warning system to detect attacks from the current coalition forces fighting Isis .
Wonder if the population of syria who regularly suffer at the hands of assads regime feel about Russian boots on the ground

wonder is all it is though, unless you've done a survey? there seems a good chance they will be affected more and more brutally under ISIS.

It seems more to be about taking out Assad than taking out ISIS, who the West has indirectly or secretly supported and supplied with arms, now for them to come along and try or claim to do something about it? beggears belief really.
What legitimate right do the West have to undermine an existing government?
Why havent they gone into plenty of other places and ousted govts who would be better off gone?
Aside from the UN stating that no country has the right to undermine the soverignty of another nation which has already been breached? why assad and not others?
He's in the way, thats why

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They are putting more effort into taking out ISIS. They've conducted thousands of airstrikes against the group (and other extremist groups) in Syria and Iraq.

To what effect

Dohnjoe

cerastes wrote: »

It seems more to be about taking out Assad than taking out ISIS, who the West has indirectly or secretly supported and supplied with arms

Apart from the usual conspiracy narratives and tenuous links, there's no evidence that they (I presume you mean US, UK and France) have supplied or supported ISIS.

He's in the way, thats why

In the way of what exactly?

The US and French were on increasingly friendly terms (relatively) with Assad before he then decided to turn heavy weaponry and militia's on his own populace to preserve himself in power. His military subsequently imprisoned and slaughtered thousands of people - the US, UK and France didn't just have a problem with these actions, the whole world did (with the notable exceptions of a handful of countries)

The major powers took the lead in condemnation of this, because they are major powers. They also took the lead in peace and diplomat efforts.

To what effect

To kill extremists and jihadist militants, to support the Iraqi army retake vast swathes of lost territory, to support the Kurds.

They are involved in bombing ISIS. They aren't bombing Assad.

cerastes

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Apart from the usual conspiracy narratives and tenuous links, there's no evidence that they (I presume you mean US, UK and France) have supplied or supported ISIS.

In the way of what exactly?

The US and French were on increasingly friendly terms (relatively) with Assad before he then decided to turn heavy weaponry and militia's on his own populace to preserve himself in power. His military subsequently imprisoned and slaughtered thousands of people - the US, UK and France didn't just have a problem with these actions, the whole world did (with the notable exceptions of a handful of countries)

The major powers took the lead in condemnation of this, because they are major powers. They also took the lead in peace and diplomat efforts.

To kill extremists and jihadist militants, to support the Iraqi army retake vast swathes of lost territory, to support the Kurds.

They are involved in bombing ISIS. They aren't bombing Assad.

No evidence, except whats seen on widespread display, ISI with TOW missile launchers, who makes em? it was reported that TOW missle launchers were supplied to Al Nursa before they defected en masse to ISIS with heavy weapons, a lot of the weapons that ISIS/IL have are western types, same was seen in Libya.
Saudi and other ME benefactor states do not make these, large quantites of arms do not travel easily and unnoticed. Predominantly Syria was armed with Warsaw pact type weapons, Libya a mixture but not typically US, I draw my own conclusions from what I see, not what Im told.

The French and British were increasingly on good terms with Gaddafi? what was the reason they turned on him?
Its astonishing that the US called people fighting against their army in an invasion contrary to the UN charter "insurgents", yet when an actual insurgency exists, why is Assad or Syria any different to any country/Nation, who would do the exact same thing? should the UK have bowed down to the IRA? or anywhere people decide to rise up? maybe in some instances its right, then why so dont they intervene anywhere brutal repression of a populace occurs? becuase its happening in plenty of places.

Dohnjoe

cerastes wrote: »

No evidence, except whats seen on widespread display, ISI with TOW missile launchers, who makes em? it was reported that TOW missle launchers were supplied to Al Nursa before they defected en masse to ISIS with heavy weapons, a lot of the weapons that ISIS/IL have are western types, same was seen in Libya.
Saudi and other ME benefactor states do not make these, large quantites of arms do not travel easily and unnoticed. Predominantly Syria was armed with Warsaw pact type weapons, Libya a mixture but not typically US, I draw my own conclusions from what I see, not what Im told.

Those US weapons you see were captured from e.g. Mosul in Iraq (where it's estimated they acquired almost three divisions worth of equipment from the fleeing Iraqi army)

Likewise they have Russian weaponry, doesn't mean Russia have been supplying them

The French and British were increasingly on good terms with Gaddafi? what was the reason they turned on him?

His actions during the uprising.

The world still has to do business with bad leaders (e.g. South Korea still has does business with the North) As unelected family dynasties go, Assad wasn't the worst, but his decisions and actions in 2011 caused most to turn against him. You can count on one hand the countries that stood by him as a legitimate leader.

cerastes

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Those US weapons you see were captured from e.g. Mosul in Iraq (where it's estimated they acquired almost three divisions worth of equipment from the fleeing Iraqi army)

Likewise they have Russian weaponry, doesn't mean Russia have been supplying them



His actions during the uprising.

The world still has to do business with bad leaders (e.g. South Korea still has does business with the North) As unelected family dynasties go, Assad wasn't the worst, but his decisions and actions in 2011 caused most to turn against him. You can count on one hand the countries that stood by him as a legitimate leader.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2014/12/15/jabhat-al-nusra-claim-to-be-using-tow-anti-tank-guided-missiles-captured-from-vetted-rebel-groups/