Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

A cruise missile cannot target an object in the air (afaik).... so the risks there are slim.

This is true but a missle could realistically strike an aircraft depending on launch trijectory while not used as air to air an accidental strike is possible in a busy air corridor ,

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

This is true but a missle could realistically strike an aircraft depending on launch trijectory while not used as air to air an accidental strike is possible in a busy air corridor ,

I'm not sure....

The weapons fired from the Caspian Sea were probably these.... They fly so close to the ground, they will clip trees before they hit an airplane I think.



They are almost identical to the Tomahawk in terms of specs

Shurimgreat

Cruise missiles depend on sattelite guidance for targeting.

The russians are way behind the americans on this technology if they even have it all.

There isnt a hope in hell these missiles are accurate. Expect more civilian casualties. Its been estimated the russians are using 1980s technologies in this war.

Dannyboy83

Gatling wrote: »

Expect another MH17

Lukashenko just rejected the Russian Base in Belarus, so might be another 'Nato Coup' on the way too (or another cup of polonium flavoured tea).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-russia-belarus-airbase-idUSKCN0S020J20151006

glued

Gatling wrote: »

Expect another MH17

26 missles were launched at 11 ISIS targets. All successful and no civilian casualties.

I'm not pro-Russian and I don't support Russia one bit but the anti-Russian narrative is really bringing this thread off-topic.

First it was posters giving out about Russia not targeting ISIS. Now that those allegations were proven to be complete nonsense the debate has moved on to the standard of missles used.

It's pretty clear that no matter what Russia does people are going to criticise them at every opportunity. Russia were a complete disgrace in Ukraine but there are a lot of people in cities like Tartus who are very welcoming of Russian involvement in this war.

Hopefully NATO and Russia can bang their heads together and allow Russia to keep their military outposts in Syria and allow for Assad to be removed from power. Cameron all but proved in an interview with Jon Snow that NATO have no allies to put into power at the minute but were working with moderate rebel groups. It'll be interesting to see who they will try and put into power eventually. Libya was a massive failure and hopefully they avoid the likes of SNC and FSA moving forward otherwise Syria will completely descend into total chaos, if we aren't at that point already.

Most of the moderate rebels at this point are either decimated or have gone on to join Extremists. It looks very bleak for Syria for the foreseeable future unless of course they just get on with dividing up the country, which at this point is probably the only somewhat peaceful way out of this mess.

No matter what happens Assad will have to go but the countless terrorists in the rebel factions will have to go too. Also the silence on Saudi Arabia and Qatar on this war is staggering. Two countries that export terrorism. When will something be done about these two despots?

BoJack Horseman

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Cruise missiles depend on sattelite guidance for targeting.

They can, but don't have to.

It's unfair on Russia to suggest they are technologically inferior.
Yes, they have dropped a lot of dumb bombs & even cluster bombs in the past week.

But those cruise missiles from the Caspian use the same inertial guidance & active radar homing that the Tomahawk uses (the US weapon has couple extra guidance abilities just to be sure).

There are aspects of military technology that no one can rival Russia.

BoJack Horseman

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Lukashenko just rejected the Russian Base in Belarus, so might be another 'Nato Coup' on the way too (or another cup of polonium flavoured tea).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-russia-belarus-airbase-idUSKCN0S020J20151006

Funniest thing about that piece is that Belarus is having an 'election'!

I wonder who will win??!

Shurimgreat

glued wrote: »

26 missles were launched at 11 ISIS targets. All successful and no civilian casualties.

I'm not pro-Russian and I don't support Russia one bit but the anti-Russian narrative is really bringing this thread off-topic.

First it was posters giving out about Russia not targeting ISIS. Now that those allegations were proven to be complete nonsense the debate has moved on to the standard of missles used.

Have you actual verifiable 3rd party proof there were no civilian casualites? You're seriously not just going to accept the word of the Russians? They claimed they didn't shoot down mh17 as one example. There are lots more. No troops in crimea or ukraine etc.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

26 missles were launched at 11 ISIS targets. All successful and no civilian casualties

Here is where the Guardian are advising are the targets for Russia's latest Salvo.



The area is apparently controlled by Jaish al-Fatah (Army of Conquest) who seem to be an umbrella of islamists opposed to The Assad dictatorship & ISIS

ISIS territory is about 70kms east.

We need to drop the 'hitting ISIS' for what Russia is doing.
I'm sure they will hit IS, where the regime is under pressure... but they aren't the primary target by any stretch

ancapailldorcha

glued wrote: »

The standard of debate in here is nothing short of atrocious. Between posters supporting putting Al Nusra in government and people being strawmen it's getting very obvious that people can't see beyond their very obvious anti-Russia bias.

If you have a problem with a post, please use the report post function.

Skylinehead

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Have you actual verifiable 3rd party proof there were no civilian casualites? You're seriously not just going to accept the word of the Russians? They claimed they didn't shoot down mh17 as one example. There are lots more. No troops in crimea or ukraine etc.

They didn't shoot down MH17, what are you talking about? Pro-Russian rebels aren't Russia.

glued

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Here is where the Guardian are advising are the targets for Russia's latest Salvo.



The area is apparently controlled by Jaish al-Fatah (Army of Conquest) who seem to be an umbrella of islamists opposed to The Assad dictatorship & ISIS

ISIS territory is about 70kms east.

We need to drop the 'hitting ISIS' for what Russia is doing.
I'm sure they will hit IS, where the regime is under pressure... but they aren't the primary target by any stretch

According to the BBC Russia has hit targets just outside Raqqa which is an ISIS stronghold and north west of Allepo, which is again an ISIS stronghold.

The map you have provided above is in relation to the Russian airstrikes carried out earlier and isn't related to the missiles launched from the Caspian Sea.

The Army of Conquest are a bunch of genocidal Islamic nuts who are financially backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. These guys have chemical weapons, mainly Sarin gas. The Army of Conquest is essentially Al-Queda re-branded. About 90% of the Army of Conquest are Al-Nusra soldiers. I wouldn't be losing any sleep over these terrorists being bombed.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

According to the BBC Russia has hit targets just outside Raqqa which is an ISIS stronghold and north west of Allepo, which is again an ISIS stronghold.

The map you have provided above is in relation to the Russian airstrikes carried out earlier and isn't related to the missiles launched from the Caspian Sea. .

Aah.... ok.. The Guardian werent the clearest.... they put the map below an embedded video from the Russian navy showing missile launch.

Gatling

Skylinehead wrote: »

They didn't shoot down MH17, what are you talking about? Pro-Russian rebels aren't Russia.

The Buk missles belong to the Russian army they were sent by Russia and likely operated by Russia military personnel, hence why the Buk launcher was tracked from to east Ukraine and back to Russia

Rhys Essien

Skylinehead wrote: »

They didn't shoot down MH17, what are you talking about? Pro-Russian rebels aren't Russia.

Did you honestly think that Igor the rebel knew how to use an anti-aircraft launcher?.

BoJack Horseman

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Did you honestly think that Igor the rebel knew how to use an anti-aircraft launcher?.

Much of the rebels were defected Ukrainian army personnel.

So while no one rationally doubts that it was the Donbass/FSB rebels who are responsible, the nationality of the actual trigger-man himself could just as likely have been Ukrainian as Russian....

But, I digress.

Lockstep

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I think its the western propaganda machine thats portraying them as "Jihad lite"
to justify arming them. Face up to reality - any Alawite, Christian, Shia or Apostates as they call them, that they come across will soon find out how "lite" they are!

What are you basing this on? It was explicitly critical of Al Nusra. Unless you want it to say "Al Nusra are just as bad as ISIS"

Which we both know is not true. At all.

Rhys Essien

Will the Moskva Cruiser start launching next I wonder?.Id nearly put money on it.

BoJack Horseman

If anyone wonders why the Russian military kit carries odd names, (Frogfoot, fencer, flanker etc) its not their intent ..... It's NATO's fault.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_reporting_name

Elmer Blooker

Lockstep wrote: »

What are you basing this on? It was explicitly critical of Al Nusra. Unless you want it to say "Al Nusra are just as bad as ISIS"

Which we both know is not true. At all.

It is true! al Nusra and ISIS have the same goal which is to wage Jihad in Syria, neither are interested in democracy, they are only interested in imposing Sunni Sharia law in Syria. If you think al Nusra turned into moderates the minute the first Russian bomb fell on Syria then you're entitled to your opinion.

Junkyard Tom

The more I think about it the harder I'm finding it to believe that the Russians just moved their pieces onto the 'Syria board' without some sort of nod or 'that's your business' signal from the Pentagon (Washington/Iran perhaps?).

The US/Saudi Arabia engineered an absolute mess for the USSR in Afghanistan. Would the Russians really go in to Syria without getting an okay knowing full well the same actors could make their Levant adventure absolutely miserable?

Shurimgreat

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It is true! al Nusra and ISIS have the same goal which is to wage Jihad in Syria, neither are interested in democracy, they are only interested in imposing Sunni Sharia law in Syria. If you think al Nusra turned into moderates the minute the first Russian bomb fell on Syria then you're entitled to your opinion.

You may be right. But this entire war and the rise of isis and al nusra front could have been avoided if Assad stepped down in the beginning. Instead he decided to remain and fight it out.

Generally what we are seeing in syria today doesn't happen in democracies where transitions of power are peaceful.

The age of presidents for life is coming to an end across the world. Theres only a handful of such states left each with appalling human rights records.

Generally dictators are overthrown by civil wars. I still don't think Assad can win in the long run. He's running out of manpower fast. Scrapping the barrel by the sounds of it.

IrishTrajan

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The US/Saudi Arabia engineered an absolute mess for the USSR in Afghanistan. Would the Russians really go in to Syria without getting an okay knowing full well the same actors could make their Levant adventure absolutely miserable?

In Afghanistan, they deployed tens of thousands of ground troops. It is quite unlikely they would do so in Syria. They may deploy small numbers of troops to toughen the SAA and hold places of strategic interest, but I don't believe the Russians (even the Oligarchs) care much for sending thousands of die for Assad.

Them providing air support and hardware will allow them to hold a place at the negotiating table, while putting most of the burden on Iranian/Syrian forces to mount actual counter attacks.

drunkmonkey

There's 150,000 Russian troops winging their way there now. It won't take them long to sort this out. Go quick and go hard seems to be the way Putin is playing this.

dubscottie

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's 150,000 Russian troops winging their way there now. It won't take them long to sort this out. Go quick and go hard seems to be the way Putin is playing this.

Did someone not say something similar as the lads headed off to France in 1914?

BoJack Horseman

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's 150,000 Russian troops winging their way there now. .

Should we bother to ask for a source?

1/3 of its strength seems like a fevered dream when at the moment they just have less than 1 mechanised battalion deployed there.

Fun fact.... The deployment of 1 US armoured Brigade combat team (4,500 men & kit) requires over 300 transport flights.

So, scale that up to 150,000.... logistically a stretch.

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Should we bother to ask for a source?

1/3 of its strength seems like a fevered dream when at the moment they just have less than 1 mechanised battalion deployed there.

Fun fact.... The deployment of 1 US armoured Brigade combat team (4,500 men & kit) requires over 300 transport flights.

So, scale that up to 150,000.... logistically a stretch.

There's been rumours of 120,000 conscripts been prepared honestly can't see them pushing more than a few hundred or low thousands ,

Shurimgreat

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's 150,000 Russian troops winging their way there now. It won't take them long to sort this out. Go quick and go hard seems to be the way Putin is playing this.

150,000? Wasn't that the same number the Americans sent to Iraq? How did that end up again?

I don't believe the Russians could maintain and supply more than 10,000 troops in syria. The country is bankrupt. Sending an army overseas and resupplying them is very costly. Not to mention the vast support they require. For every front line soldier you probably need another in support staff. Also medivacing injured, food, fuel, ammunition. Nope, not going to happen.

gandalf

Any sources for this number or is it just heresay?

It makes absolutely no sense at all unless the Kremlin are planning on making military cuts by bleeding their troops.

The only thing that would make this logical is if the Syrian Army is incapable of any real offensive operations at all.

Skylinehead

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Did you honestly think that Igor the rebel knew how to use an anti-aircraft launcher?.

As has been said, a lot of Ukranian soldiers defected.

As to where the Buk came from, I have no idea. Both countries have them, so either the Russians brought one in or it was taken from the Ukranian army, like a lot of equipment was.

Do I doubt that the Russians helped the rebels, absolutely not. Did the Russians shoot down a Malaysian plane? No, I don't think so.

Gatling

gandalf wrote: »

Any sources for this number or is it just heresay?

It makes absolutely no sense at all unless the Kremlin are planning on making military cuts by bleeding their troops.

The only thing that would make this logical is if the Syrian Army is incapable of any real offensive operations at all.

Most of it seems to be hear say or some weird attempt to get other counties to committ to send masses of troops.

I first heard 7000 paratroopers were been redeployed to syria about 2 weeks pre mass hysteria over the Russian build up in syria which sounds more likely and believeable

BoJack Horseman

gandalf wrote: »

Any sources for this number or is it just heresay?

It makes absolutely no sense at all unless the Kremlin are planning on making military cuts by bleeding their troops.

The only thing that would make this logical is if the Syrian Army is incapable of any real offensive operations at all.

Here

I know the Express is a rag... so the writing is pretty bad.

The only source is 'an insider', with a hypothesis.
No plan outlined, no force structure, nothing of any substance.

Its of course being repeated around the world as fact by copy/paste sites

Elmer Blooker

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Sending an army overseas and resupplying them is very costly. Not to mention the vast support they require. For every front line soldier you probably need another in support staff. Also medivacing injured, food, fuel, ammunition. Nope, not going to happen.

Exactly, its takes massive expense and logistics to keep an army supplied with fuel, food, ammunition, medicine etc. So who's funding the Jihadists in Syria then? What are their supply lines and from where? How do the Jihadists get to Syria? Interesting that I have NEVER heard these questions asked even once in our fair, free and open media.

BoJack Horseman

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

So who's funding the Jihadists in Syria then?

IS are essentially self funding, via extortion, fuel sales into Turkey & a tonne of cash stolen from banks in Iraq

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

What are their supply lines and from where?

Turkey, Iraq mostly.

How do the Jihadists get to Syria?

Turkey

You can take this slice of the blindingly obvious as a western media exclusive.

drunkmonkey

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Exactly, its takes massive expense and logistics to keep an army supplied with fuel, food, ammunition, medicine etc. So who's funding the Jihadists in Syria then? What are their supply lines and from where? How do the Jihadists get to Syria? Interesting that I have NEVER heard these questions asked even once in our fair, free and open media.

Well the main offenders are America, Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Saudi, Turkey and Israel supplying the weapons and Japan supplying the wheels, it's like the AntHill Mob.

IrishTrajan

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Exactly, its takes massive expense and logistics to keep an army supplied with fuel, food, ammunition, medicine etc. So who's funding the Jihadists in Syria then? What are their supply lines and from where? How do the Jihadists get to Syria? Interesting that I have NEVER heard these questions asked even once in our fair, free and open media.

Because anyone who cares to give more than a cursory glance to this topic already understands who is supplying them. The Turks in the north (Jaish al-Fatah, Jaish al-Islam, ISIS, Al-Nusra), the Jordanians in the south (the FSA), Iran and Russia propping up Assad/Hezbollah in the west.

IrishTrajan

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Well the main offenders are America, Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Saudi, Turkey and Israel supplying the weapons and Japan supplying the wheels, it's like the AntHill Mob.

Don't forget Russia - the one country that is willing to sell to everyone and anyone.

glued

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Exactly, its takes massive expense and logistics to keep an army supplied with fuel, food, ammunition, medicine etc. So who's funding the Jihadists in Syria then? What are their supply lines and from where? How do the Jihadists get to Syria? Interesting that I have NEVER heard these questions asked even once in our fair, free and open media.

The US, UK, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and various Salafist supporters are also privately funding the Jihadists. ISIS has essentially become self sufficient over time through controlling various oil and gas reservoirs. Initially the US supported the movement solely as an opposition to Assad.

The US had known about the rise of ISIS and failed to act. In fact the Department of Defence actually predicted the creation of an Islamic State. They were quite happy to stand back and allow it to develop and recently declassified documents prove this.

From various declassified documents (see judicialwatch.org) it would appear that the US hoped that a Salafist state would be created in Eastern Syria as they didn't think Assad could control the whole state and would focus on protecting his strongholds in the West.

Once ISIS expanded further and became a threat to the US then they began to support pockets of moderate Syrian Rebels who have since gone on to become Extremists. It's alarming that with the intelligence the US had they could have wiped ISIS off the map before they got started. Instead tens of thousands of people have been butchered all in the name of weakening Assad.

Obviously the US isn't responsible for this whole mess but they could have prevented a lot of deaths had they not stood back.

It's laughable that the US are whinging about Putin not bombing Assad when they could have prevented them from expanding in the first place. I'd be amazed if some of the intelligence analysts can sleep at night. They have a lot of blood on their hands through their constant failures in the Middle East.

gandalf

glued wrote: »

Obviously the US isn't responsible for this whole mess but they could have prevented a lot of deaths had they not stood back.

Actually the US is responsible for the foundations of this crisis. The first mistake was instigating the second Gulf war against Iraq and the second mistake was the disbandment of the Iraq Army creating a massive power vacuum and disenfranchising a large number of highly trained men. Some of these men are now the godfathers behind ISIS.

Obviously Assad and his repression of his own people has aided them greatly but the ground work was done by the second gulf war.

Gatling

gandalf wrote: »

Actually the US is responsible for the foundations of this crisis. The first mistake was instigating the second Gulf war against Iraq and the second mistake was the disbandment of the Iraq Army creating a massive power vacuum and disenfranchising a large number of highly trained men. Some of these men are now the godfathers behind ISIS.

Actually one of the biggest screw ups was taking a large number of these disenfranchised young men and trained soldiers and putting them in one big dessert detention camp post surge .
Which allowed the seeds to be planted and a command structure be put in place all while been fed ,clothed and watched by the Americans

Lockstep

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It is true! al Nusra and ISIS have the same goal which is to wage Jihad in Syria, neither are interested in democracy, they are only interested in imposing Sunni Sharia law in Syria. If you think al Nusra turned into moderates the minute the first Russian bomb fell on Syria then you're entitled to your opinion.

No. It's not true. They both have a similar goal in creating a sharia state. That doesn't make them equivalent. Remember why they split from each other? Part of that was that even Al Nusra were horrified by ISIS' actions. This happened well before Russia began airstrikes.

Elmer Blooker

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

IS are essentially self funding, via extortion, fuel sales into Turkey & a tonne of cash stolen from banks in Iraq


Turkey, Iraq mostly.


Turkey

You can take this slice of the blindingly obvious as a western media exclusive.

Thanks for that. I always suspected that NATO was orchestrating the Syrian conflict.

glued

gandalf wrote: »

Actually the US is responsible for the foundations of this crisis. The first mistake was instigating the second Gulf war against Iraq and the second mistake was the disbandment of the Iraq Army creating a massive power vacuum and disenfranchising a large number of highly trained men. Some of these men are now the godfathers behind ISIS.

Obviously Assad and his repression of his own people has aided them greatly but the ground work was done by the second gulf war.

I would agree that the US has to bear a lot of responsibility. Turkey have been a complete disgrace throughout this whole war too but there is no doubt that the reason the war is so bloody is thanks to Assad, Saudi Arabia and the US.

According to some Russian sources China is considering stepping in to protect Assad. Although that's probably just nonsense but I wouldn't be surprised to see China flex its muscles in the Middle East. I think the Washington Post or NYT suggested that China have already sent military advisors to aid Assad.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

No. It's not true. They both have a similar goal in creating a sharia state. That doesn't make them equivalent. Remember why they split from each other? Part of that was that even Al Nusra were horrified by ISIS' actions. This happened well before Russia began airstrikes.

What differentiates ISIS from Al Nusra? They're both sides of the same coin. Al Nusra have no problem executing civilians.

Stop trying to defend Al Nusra. They're a bunch of terrorists.

gandalf

glued wrote: »

I would agree that the US has to bear a lot of responsibility. Turkey have been a complete disgrace throughout this whole war too but there is no doubt that the reason the war is so bloody is thanks to Assad, Saudi Arabia and the US.

According to some Russian sources China is considering stepping in to protect Assad. Although that's probably just nonsense but I wouldn't be surprised to see China flex its muscles in the Middle East. I think the Washington Post or NYT suggested that China have already sent military advisors to aid Assad.

The suggestion is that Assad asked the Russians for direct help because the Iranians who have been supporting him are now been seen as a direct threat to the Syrian regime as well now.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/syria-leader-assad-seeks-russian-protection-from-ally-iran-a-1056263.html

They are basically trying to form a Shiite country/Iranian colony within Syria.

Shurimgreat

The only real solution to this conflict and the refugee crisis is a partitioning of the country into an Alawite west and a Sunni East.

Otherwise the conflict will just go back and forth for years, with massacres of sunni or alawite. And as long as the conflict lasts so will the refugee crisis.

Syria was an artificial construct of colonialism, much like Rwanda, Iraq, and so on. Its pointless to expect Alawites and Sunnis who hate each other to live in the same country.

The Alawites seem a particularly nasty sect intent on staying in power regardless of the cost and like the Hutu militia prepared to commit genocide to do it. Now they have Russian air support they will just go on the offensive again and commit ethnic cleansing in an attempt to carve out an Alawite state and buffer zone.

The weakness of the UN and of the US have exacerbated the issue. A settlement should have been forced on Syria years ago rather than more war as Russia is now doing.

BoJack Horseman

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I always suspected that NATO was orchestrating the Syrian conflict.

Indeed, no poster is as agenda driven.

Where some see civil war, you see Brussels doing.... tragic really.

BoJack Horseman

glued wrote: »

but I wouldn't be surprised to see China flex its muscles in the Middle East. I think the Washington Post or NYT suggested that China have already sent military advisors to aid Assad.

If they are, and there are rumors (From the Express again, so Christ knows).. it would serve as a handy training exercise for China.

Syria has some sort of military relationship with china.... some light weapons, heavy rockets & apparently China has worked on improving the guidance systems on Syrian missile systems.

The Daily Express again report (slow Princess Diana day I assume) that the aircraft carrier Liaoning has passed through the Suez canal...
But at 1,000ft long & displacing 70,000 tonnes.... somehow it's escaped everyones notice!

Shurimgreat

Chinese advisers? Oh please? Is this some kind of joke? Apart from attacking Tibetan monks what is the last war the Chinese were involved in that gives them some kind of combat experience to pass on to Assad forces? That's right, none!

clever user name

I see Russian aircraft are said to have violated Turkish airspace and the Turks ain't happy.

If this happens again, how likely are Turkey to actually shoot one of these planes down? How would the Russians react to this?

I find it all very interesting, but unfortunately I'm not very well versed on the current situation in Syria...haven't been following the news since the Russians got involved. Seems like a complete mess (even more so than before).